posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:22 PM
First I want to say I think it's great that tinWiki has information about alchemy now. I don't know anything about the topic, but at some point I
came across some information somewhere that pointed out that it's really about a much wider "mystical" area than just creating gold.
About my edits to your Gold article, they are not because your article is not good, but are because of style and language guidelines. Before I comment
on that, note that your original article version is kept here
Article introductions, specifically the first sentence, should state immediately what the topic is. In an article about Gold, the first sentence
should be something like "Gold is a metal". Your original introduction uses a different type of first sentence, which I have therefore changed. Two
other style issues with your original version is that the language some places talks from First Person to Second Person, which is when a sentence
talks to "you", like in "have you ever wondered". The language style should be from a neutral point of view, in that sense. That means that,
instead of "have you ever wondered", the sentence should say "some people wonder". The perspective should not be that of the writer talking to the
reader, but should be like from, if I can put it like this, some camera floating out in the air. Neutral observations reported without a personal
point of view, just summing up facts, basically, is more encyclopedic. The second issue is abbreviations, for example "wasn't". All words should be
spelled out, for example "wasn't" should be "was not", and so on. Questions should also be avoided in an encyclopedic article.
These are style issues relating to the encyclopedic writing form, though, not quality issues. Looking away from the topic of encyclopedic language
style, I definitely think your article is very interesting and presents information in a good way. Much of the article also does talk in a way that
seems very appropriate for an encyclopedic article.
I hope this reply answers you in a fairly good way. (I have also commented briefly in the article discussion