Talk:Atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atmospheric-pressure chemical ionization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126175652/http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk:80/ms/theory/apci-ionisation.html to http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/ms/theory/apci-ionisation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It looks like the "Instrument structure" section could use some more links to corresponding Wikipedia pages, like corona discharge (I went ahead and added the link; article should be skimmed over for appropriate addition of Wikilinks). Also, the whole article could use some simplification of language - less jargon - so that the article is accessible to someone at a high school level. Remember, not everyone is a chemist! Samlhotard (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: CHEM 4558 Peer Review

message: I notice that you have replaced the original diagram with a new one, which shows the LC interface in an orthogonal configuration and corrects the problem with the original drawing. This orthogonal representation is certainly consistent with most, or maybe all, of the modern commercial LC interfaces for APCI. But it is inconsistent with the photograph in the article. I don't have anything to replace the photograph with that of a more up-to-date source in the orthogonal configuration. 
I also prepared a new diagram that is a little more accurate in its representation, but does show the probe in the in-line configuration, as the original version was configured, and as the photograph shows. Here is the drawing I prepared. Do you think it is an improvement or do you prefer the orthogonal version that you produced? 
I am also working on text improvements to the article to add to the history and clarify some of the description and will proceed with these.--Brucet8585 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular feelings either way about the schematic diagrams. The main thing was to get rid of the problem of the nebulizer gas being wrongly drawn in the previous version, and both mine and your new version do that; if you feel that your version fits the text (particularly after you've updated it) better than mine, then please go ahead and change. So far as the photographs are concerned, if you're planning to add more on the history of APCI, then the ideal would be to retain the current photo but add one of a modern, orthogonal source for comparison. I'm a pretty rubbish photographer; I did try, but my first efforts were not great. You've probably noticed that MS sources tend not to be easy to photograph; too close, it's hard to get everything in focus at once; too far, it's hard to get the resolution to see the details; and they tend to be made of materials that are hard to photograph, either mirror-finish metal parts, or absolute matt black bits. Since I've got access to a few sources from various manufacturers, maybe my best contribution would be to have another go at photographing them! Elemimele (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no access to sources to photograph, so if you want to replace the photo with a more modern orthogonal version, then I could modify my drawing to an orthogonal configuration.Brucet8585 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm happy to keep the original photo, which is relevant and of good quality, and I have nothing against your diagram, which is very clear and of good quality too. By all means use it. Mine was more of a stop-gap than the definitive work! If I can take some photos of more modern sources, I'll do so, but not necessarily to replace the original. It would be nicer to have an additional photo so our readers have a broader picture of the variety and evolution of APCI sources. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to revise my figure and show an angled probe which is I think more realistic. I also replaced the paragraph in this Instrument Configuration section to generalize the description of the source, indicating that the LC inlet is one example of a sample inlet, and hopefully improve the flow of the paragraph. Brucet8585 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant I replaced the paragraph in the Instrument structure section.Brucet8585 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Diagram for Instrument Section 

message: I added new material to the History section to indicate that APCI sources preceded the Horning group, and to reference the Sciex APCI air monitoring systems of the 1980s.  Most people today seem to think that an APCI source is only for LC/MS, but the LC interface is only one possibility for a sample inlet to an APCI source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucet8585 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded History Section