Talk:Wood

Thanks

This page really helped for my project on wood! Wikipedia has been the source that has been the most reliable for my classmates and me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.139 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

Wood grain

I've been trying to eliminate as many links as possible to the disambiguation page grain (trying not to link to it), and I've mostly handled the ones that mean cereals, or seeds, or the unit of weight. I could get rid of a few more of the remaining links if I could point them to an article on wood grain or grain (wood), but no such article exists. I'm hoping to find some wood and Wikipedia sages who could give me advice. Should such an article exist? Should I set up a redirect from those titles to this article? Is there another possibility I'm missing? Thanks — Pekinensis 00:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

opening definition

Wikipedia:Lead section suggests we should start with a definition. I'll take another crack at it. The article is about wood, not merely the usage of wood. Samw 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think most people reading this page would already know, but nowhere in the opening section is anything said about where wood comes from. Though you may know that wood comes from trees, this article should cater to those who do not happen to know this24.161.53.152 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the vandalism. Samw 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Heartwood

What is the proper way to deal with common words like Heartwood which have been used as the name of important organizations (www.heartwood.org). I see Heartwood Institute has it's own page, which can be distinguished by the extra word.

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation Samw 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

External link to matbase

From my talk page:

Re [1]: If you endorse the link that's good enough for me, but note that these links were added by someone affiliated with the site who will have a commercial and promotional gain from it, thus it's linkspam by definition. Femto 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't claim I've reviewed matbase in detail but it looks like a reasonable source to me. If others have opinions, we can discuss it here and delete if needed. Samw 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Solid

Would wood be classified as an amorphous solid or a crystalline solid? James Callahan 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither? Both? Wood is complex, and there are both amorphous and crystalline components.--Curtis Clark 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wood can be considered a solid, but it's also the only possible state of wood. It can never be liquid or flow alone because wood can't melt. In a gaseous state, the wood would have to be hot enough to give off carbon emmissions which produce charcoal. JustN5:12 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wood cutting

Is here allready a section on wood-cutting? Otherwise, I intend to make it! Swami Woodcutter 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lumber maybe? Samw 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GA On hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The lead needs to be trimmed per WP:LEAD. It's not a very long article, so there isn't a need for more than maybe three paragraphs. Additionally, it should summarize the article while introducing no new information (anything not expanded upon in the body). Many of the stubby paragraphs in the lead can be combined into larger paragraphs as well. And, last, consider rewording the prose to avoid starting almost every paragraph and sentence with "Wood".
• Referencing needs to be consistent. Currently, the article uses the footnotes style and Harvard referencing. While both are appropriate, they should not be used together; only one or the other.
• This article also needs further inline citation for verification. Currently, entire sections are unreferenced. One citation per paragraph is my recommendation for this article.
  

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, LaraLove 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been delisted. Regards, LaraLove 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I clarified the reference section a bit by adding a general subsection to the references section, it still could use more citation and references. Please add them in, especially if you have access to the two books in the reference section or better sources.

--D27061315 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The missing See Also Section

In the kerfuffle of the past 24 hours, the "See Also" section has been deleted. (See [2].) It probably should be restored. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added it. --- RockMFR 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)