Talk:Hydrodesulfurization/Draft

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition A catalytic chemical process used in petroleum refining to remove sulfur compounds from intermediate and refined end-products. [d] [e]
Fountain pen.png
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies.
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

This article came from Wikipedia

I was not the original creator of the Wikipedia article of the same name but, as a Wikipedian, I rewrote 95% or more of it, added a flow diagram that I drew, and expanded the article.

I have uploaded exactly it as it now exists on Wikipedia, but will now proceed to clean it up, do some rewording and what ever else is needed to make it suitable for Citizendium. This may take me a few hours. - Milton Beychok 15:45, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Nominate for approval

I nominated this article for approval. However, I must note that I created and uploaded a single image for this article, thus others will need to concur. David E. Volk 17:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

David, that is a very nice image of the pyridine hydrodenitrogenation reaction. As the originator of this article, I think that I am allowed to be one of the three approval nominators and so I've added my name in the Metadata template. Thanks David and Howard. Milton Beychok 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wearing chemical-stained Engineering Editor hat

That's a very very nice description of the process. Would that more things were that clear. I vote for Approval, and and have not edited the article. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! Maybe the three of you could do a group approval. I was just chatting with Milt by email about sidestepping potentially negative PR by making sure that we don't have a single Editor A approving every article written by Editor B, regardless of either's expertise. Group approvals should help with that. --Joe Quick 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Was I just not paying attention or did you guys figure out what I was going to say before I even finished typing? --Joe Quick 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I too want psychic editing. Joe, at least it is possible to have a group for this topic. What do we do for the groups with one active editor, or, even worse, when the only active editor is a main author? Frustrating. I'd rather get some things approved and worry about the hypothetical PR aspect if it comes up. There's enough with no one at all to approve. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ESP editors

We would all like to apply for ESP editors now that we've proven the ability. David E. Volk 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

Since other hydrogenolysis reactions are discussed, IMHO a better name would be "Industrial hydrogenolysis".--Paul Wormer 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

PS David asked me to approve this article, so I read it. But now I see that there are already three editors approving it. For the record: I approve it too. --Paul Wormer 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Paul, thanks for picking up all of those copy edits that you made. As for the title, the entire petroleum industry the world over refers to the process as "Hydrodesulfurization" or simply "HDS". Hydrogenolysis may well be the what a chemist would call it ... but people in the petroleum industries do not.
This article was not intended as a discussion of the chemistry of hydrogenolyis reactions ... it was intended to describe one of the primary large-scale processes used in petroleum refineries.
I suggest that the term "hydrogenolysis" be reserved for any future CZ article describing the chemistry of hydrogenolysis reactions. Milton Beychok 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Update the version nominated for approval

Now that Paul has made a number of needed copy edits and added/revised some CZ links, the version nominated for approval needs to be updated. I will do that and hope that everyone agrees. If not, please let me know. Milton Beychok 21:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While updating the version to be approved, I noticed that the nomination data and the final approval date were both entered as 2008 ... which I changed to 2009. Milton Beychok 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The 2008 thing is a psychological blockage due to stock market conditions! Thanks for catching that and I certainly agree with all of the recent changes up to the date of my signature to follow. David E. Volk 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently this article is under the workgroups Chemistry and Engineering

I see only two editors, David and Milton as authorizing the latest version (that includes two minor copy edits by Milton). That means that I can either now approve it using the single editor method with David being the approving editor, or we can wait to hear from Howard (he has not seen Paul's edits?) and use three editors, or we can decide to add the Physics workgroup and include Paul as the third editor. I'll check back a little later tonight(appr. 2 hours) and will perform the single editor if I don't hear otherwise. D. Matt Innis 00:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

:Matt,I wrote this article, so I really should not be one of the approval nominators. And I really don't believe that it should be in the Physics category. Paul Wormer is a chemistry editor (as well as a physics editor). So you are left with using David Volk as the single nomonating editor unless Paul decides to enter his name as well. Milton Beychok 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretending I didn't see the response above :) I am reminded that Paul is a Chemistry editor, too! (Don't know how I missed that - must have gone to someone else's user page to look? - sorry Paul) Anyway, that would be three editors for this article. I saw that Howard was not feeling well, so I was waiting, but we can do it with the three that are here (including Milton, even if you did write it). So here goes! D. Matt Innis 11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved Version 1.0

Congratulations on this article approval - a sign of great collaboration on everyone's part. Thanks! D. Matt Innis 11:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I understand this is the 100th article to be approved! Quite appropriate that is comes from such a good collaboration. D. Matt Innis 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)