Talk:History of atomic theory

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The other issue here is a large proportion of primary refs. I have this article on my todo list. I'm familiar with the sources from Thomson on. I'm currently working on Bohr model.

If you or anyone else added citation-needed tags I would fix them. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Sorry for not responding sooner: I added cn tags to the article per your request above. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Rutherford's model is sometimes called the "planetary model"

The article says;

• Rutherford's model is sometimes called the "planetary model".

With a ref to

• "Rutherford model | Definition & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 23 August 2021.

While working on Rutherford atom I looked into many references discussing planetary models. Planetary models appeared before 1911, Rutherford's model was not planetary (he made no comment on the electrons), and the concept of associating planetary models with atom appeared long after 1911, in association with Bohr's model of circular orbits. Please see Bohr_model#Symbolism_of_planetary_atomic_models and the ref below.

The Britannia site has other errors, eg "Physicist Ernest Rutherford envisioned the atom as a miniature solar system,". A comprehensive history says "Rutherford did not specify the electronic arrangement..." Heilbron, John L. (1968). "The Scattering of α and β Particles and Rutherford's Atom". Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 4 (4): 247–307. doi:10.1007/BF00411591. ISSN 0003-9519. JSTOR 41133273.

I think this sentence should be removed despite the reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked the plum pudding model for consistency, and its cited content agrees that while Rutherford's model was a dense positive center and electrons around it, it did not have any specific structure to the electron pool or its motion. DMacks (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting atomic models

I think we should alter the table of contents and add a bit of content to highlight models of the atom consistent with the title. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Law of multiple proportions

Our section on "Dalton's Law of multiple proportions" here is almost as long as Law of multiple proportions. I think the section goes into too much detail for this article. We're covering almost 200 years of science across at least chemistry and physics in this article so it feels to me we should let the main article carry more of the Dalton details. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong disagree. I myself struggled with this issue as I wrote all this, and ultimately decided that it's no big deal if this section is almost as long as the main article. Kurzon (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? How can we justify giving three detailed examples for Dalton while giving Pauli a single sentence?

We have an entire article on the Law of multiple proportions. All we need in this article is a summary: what the Law means, a key historical events that lead to it, and it's impact on the next phase. Reader who want more can read the in depth version. I think this level of detail detracts from the article and makes it less useful. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you expand the Pauli stuff yourself? Kurzon (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Groundwork

I might be a little new to editing wikipedia, but how was Robert Boyle supposed to have worked in the 15th century, when the man was not even alive at the time? Nickrmst (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. But I encourage you to boldly fix things like this, using and edit summary to explain the reason. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

change "Working in the late 15th century, Robert Boyle developed the concept of a chemical element as substance different from a compound." to "Working in the late 17th century, Robert Boyle developed the concept of a chemical element as substance different from a compound." Either the man was not alive at the time of his work, or the hyperlink to the Robert Boyle page is wrong, and the man who developed the concept is not that Robert Boyle. Nickrmst (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks Johnjbarton (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)