Talk:Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

one source

I expanded the page a bit; understand the topic is notable, but I cannot find third party refs. Therefore flagged as single source.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wuerzele, just updated it in accord with German article including external references. Regards 17387349L8764 (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,17387349L8764 , thanks for the 5 year overdue update. -I have numerous problems with your edit:

you added unsourced information,

you use the term "currently", which is a no-no on WP. You can use As of.... Thats what I inserted already 5 years ago , which is why it said as of 2016 - this should regularly be updated.

You wrote: "Barbara Elvers (Wiley-VCH) is currently Senior Editorial Advisor and Claudia Ley is Editor-in-Chief, both Wiley-VCH."

Your abbreviations need to be explained. It looks like you lifted the sentence from somewhere; if so, thats not how WP works!

You added a totally unreferenced section. What are the numbers in brackets supposed to mean ?

You added basically no tertiary sources- mostly WILEY sources (primary sources) see Wikipedia:Independent sources.--Wuerzele (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wuerzele, thanks for feedback, please feel free to correct your findings, there are always things that can be improved. I try to answer your questions:

"currently" is not ideal, I know and must be changed, according to website, these are the job roles or titles of the main editors - the sentence is not "lifted" from somewhere, but just reflects what the official site is stating. I have made enough edits on WP btw, but feedback is always welcome.
The "unreferenced section": Is the content (topics) of the books. If you go to the main website front page, this is the content of Ullmann, very simple and tbh, I do not want to over-cite the article. The (XX) figures mean that you will find XX chapters allocated to the specific topic as far as I understand the website. Try checking it and maybe you have an idea how we can define it?
There is one major tertiary source by CHEManager, which is the one and best source I currently found. Since Ullmann is a very niche in space of WP, this should be fine for now. How many sources would you expect? I don't expect FAZ or others writing about it, but I haven't checked that.

Critic is one thing, improving is another. I am happy if you can improve further. For now I think the page is well updated. Greetings and good weekend 17387349L8764 (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ! Sounds like you are not really familiar with WP policies17387349L8764. Currently is not " not ideal" but cant be used. I think you added numerous duplicate sources and your "improvement" was extremely marginal , caused a lot of work -I have not been able to completely correct all the mistakes you inserted.