Hi, everybody. I just stumbled by this little edit war, and would like to make a few suggestions. As this article stands, it's a jumbled mess. I believe that Marie is correct, in that some semblance of encyclopedic structure needs to be used in this article. I have great respect for Logger9's expertize in these subjects that so greatly interest me, and his willingness to back everything up with a source. However, to Logger9, I think a liitle guidance may be helpful in composing a proper encyclopedia structure. Encyclopedic writing is not like scientific writing.

To make it simple, an encyclopedia needs to be written in a journalistic format. The most important information is delivered as quickly as possible, in the first few sentences. This is done using the fewest amount of words possible, and should written so even a child can make snese of it, (at a 6th grade level). We call this the "lede," and the only purpose of the lede is to answer the question, "What is a liquid?" It should be no more than a paragraph or two.

On a subject such as this, an "intro" section would be appropriate. This is just an expanded lede. This may seem a bit redundant, but is actually extremely useful. Some people coming to this article will know absolutely nothing about science, and don't want the feeling of being thrown into a college level class head first. The intro should be written at about a 10th grade level, explaining the scientific aspects in the simplest of terms. (Imagine you're teaching a 10th grade science class. How would you explain it to them?)

Then, the following sections should get into college level explanations. It is perfectly acceptable to describe well established theories, and the histories behind those theories, but be careful to make it brief. The article is meant to answer the question of what a liquid is, and should not stray into the History of liquid theory. Also, when giving theory, realize that a scientific theory is really just a very well thought opinion, and should be attributed to its source. Under no circumstances should we combine theories in a way that might lead the reader to a third conclusion, unintended by the original sources. Nor should we give the impression that any theory is somehow absolute truth.

Also, you will find that most readers want information to be in its correct place. I have seen instances in the past where information was copied and pasted directly from one article to the next. This sort of redundency is usually unnecessary. It's better to add a link to the article where the info is most relevant. And, it is also very distasteful in writing to copy, even from oneself. If it is absolutely necessary to have the same info in multiple articles, then the writing should still be original. The goal is to make articles succinct ... to fulfill the readers curiosity about a subject and only that subject, but to link to any related subject that may further the reader's knowledge. By using this format, it helps satisfy everyone's curiosity before they become bored and move on.

To Marie, I'm glad you explained that English is not your first language, because at first I did think the tone was a little harsh, but now it makes sense. I think Logger9 has some very useful contributions to make, so I'd love to see a discussion on how to incorporate them into appropriate places. I'm fascinated by the science, and would love it if we all could work together to make it understandable to all. (I'm sure you both are far more knowledible than I am.) To everybody, please use your edit summaries! There are many people watching, and edit summaries save us all alot of time.