Talk:Polyacetylene

Please correct a wrong temperature shown

The "Synthesis" paragraph says:

  "[...] solid phase polymerization, conducted at −296 °C produces trans-polyacetylene.[6]"

I don't know the subject, but there can't obviously be a synthesis performed 23 K below absolute-zero. Maybe "−196 °C " was meant, but the correction should be done by someone who knows this and not by me guessing it. Thanks for the very good article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.182.71 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

structural drawing

Is there a template to request a drawing of a molecule?

How easy to polymerize

How easy is it to get acetylene to polymerize?

- Now a days poly(acetylene) is generally not made by polymerizing acetylene, which is a highly flammable gas that spontaneously oligomerizes upon concentration. The most common synthesis now is using special metathesis catalysts deveopled by Professor Grubs at Cal Tech (which are known as Grub's catalysts) on molecules like cyclooctatetraene. Acetylene itself polymerizes in a similar fashion to ethylene; anionic, cationic, and radical polymerizations will all work. I'm not sure what you mean by "how easy" it is to polymerize it... Either it polymerizes or it doesn't; there is really no difficulty associated with it. Fearofcarpet 20:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cis

I think a structural formula for the cis configuration would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.138.155 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

'Acetylene black' as a synonym for 'polyacetylene'

I am suspicious of the use of 'acetylene black' as a synonym for 'polyacetylene'. I've been looking into carbon black for battery manufacture. Acetylene black is a form of carbon black as discussed in the quote below:

Carbon black is a powdered form of elemental carbon manufactured by the vapour-phase pyrolysis of hydrocarbon mixtures, such as heavy petroleum distillates and residual oils, coal-tar products, natural gas and acetylene. ... Carbon blacks are categorized as acetylene black, channel black, furnace black, lampblack or thermal black, according to the process by which they are manufactured.

Elsewhere (no reference) it was noted that the conductivity of various manufactures of carbon black depend on the residual hydrogen content, etc. I suspect that polyacetylene can be an impurity in acetylene black due to incomplete pyrolysis. Especially since this claim was unreferenced, I thought it prudent to remove it. Perhaps someone can substantiate it and reinsert the statement.

Tendermecies (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Five and a half year later, still no mentioning of the redirected term acetylene black in the article itself. That is somewhat frustrating, but thank you for the reference, Tendermecies. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

New cites on early conductive polyacetylenes

Conductive polyacetylene derivatives were discovered in the early 1960's. The secondary literature cited, including the 1964 monograph entitled "Organic semiconductors", is quite definite on this issue. E.g., concerning one such report, page 128 of the 1964 monograph notes-- "The conductivity measurements of the colored polyacetylenes produced showed typical semiconductor behavior (10-4 ohm-cm at 25C degrees )".

Almost metallic-- In fact, my impression is that this is about as good any anybody can do these days. Be happy to post a copy of this page and others, if necessary. But it should not be. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would only appreciate if you properly updated the article. However, this revert of mine had nothing to do with this - it countered addition of polypyrolle articles (which did look like WP:UNDUE promotion of them - for good reasons polypyrolle has its own article) with a claim that polypyrolle is a derivative of polyacetylene. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what are you talking about. See the direct quote above from the 1964 monograph and the emphasized word polyacetylenes. The point is that highly-conductive linear-chain polymers were discovered in the early 1960's, not a decade later. This includes BOTH polypyrroles and their parent polyacetylenes. How can you note early studies in one without noting almost simultaneous reports on the other for WP:NPOV and perspective ?

And, like it or not, polypyrrole is a polyacetylene derivative. I can provide good, relable secondary sources to this fact all day long, though the thing speaks for itself. Just can't go substituting your own personal opinion for WP:RS, even if you do not agree. I can quote chapter and verse from the rules about how this is not allowed.

Also note that this is a strong secondary source-- an academic textbook with a title, "Organic Semiconductors". About as high up on the WP:RS scale as it is possible to get. True, many may find it incredible that a textbook from this time with this particular title should even exist. I assure you it does. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In short, wikipedia works by keeping certain information in one (or a few) dedicated articles and wikilinking them. All your comments are on polyacetylene. This article is on polypyrrole and all that information on low conductivity is already copied more than once over wikipedia. I believe nearly any polymer can be called a derivative of polyacetylene, but most chemists don't. If your point is that polypyrrole is a polyacetylene derivative then please post it at the talk page of WP:CHEMS and let the project judge its conventions on this matter. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Materialscientist, the statement that "polypyrrole is a polyacetylene derivative" is unproductive. The materials are related in an obscure way. Some editors, still upset over the Nobel for polyacetylene, have long exploited Wikipedia to rewrite history in order to detract from that recognition. Many other articles have been infected by the embitterment virus, e.g. Melanin, Organic electronics, etc the tell-tale sign of this POV pushing is the image File:Gadget128.jpg. The problem of marginalizing the achievements of laureate Alan Heeger et al. has persisted for years in Wikipedia because few editors are willing to deal with User:Pproctor and his associates, User:Drjem3 and apparently now User:Nucleophilic. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to minimalize Heeger et al. It is just that they clearly did not "discover" conductive polymers. Over a decade late and a dozen or two papers and 15 years (at least) away, in fact. The scientific literature is what the literature is. I just cite it. Lots of good secondary sources, up to and including present-day text-books with titles like "Conductive Polymers" that flatly say the same thing. About as far up the "reliable sources" heirachy as you can get.

See WP:RS --- read it , memorize it. While you are at it, read WP:NOR. You may not like such sources and they may not suit your personal feelings on how things ought to be. But your present obligation under the Wikirules is to present something, anything, to refute these cites. Even then, both sides must be presented in the interest of WP:NPOV. As for pproctor et al --- this earlier work puts their priority claims even further away too. Ya can't have it both ways.

Without reliable sources, you are just expressing plain old original research and violating WP:Assume Good faith. Not allowed. I'll wait here patiently while you get your WP:RS. In fact, I welcome being educated. This is getting very interesting. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is WP:UNDUE, as pointed out above. Its about communicating basic science vs settling a score by citations to obscure articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk about WP:Undue. How is (e.g.) the major contemporary textbook in the field plus a review of that textbook an "obscure article". And then I throw in another textbook from 1964 that says same thing. In fact, WP:RS indicates that there is nothing better than such sources, as a practical matter. Same with papers in such major journals as "science". BTW, "assume good faith". I don't have any score to settle-- Just an interest in the history of science and in trying to make sure Wikipedia is run according to the rules and without WP:OR. Again, lets see some documentation. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is all a nice exercise in understanding WP policies and the topic of conducting polymers. With all due respect, I don't see how this is all related to polyacetylene. Conductivity of polymers needs to be properly described in its articles (which you already did) and not copied to all marginally related polymer articles. Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, if the article asserts that conductive polyacetylenes were discovered in the 1970's when the reliable secondary sources clearly indicate that they were really discovered in the early 1960's, then this needs to be included in the article, if only for NPOV. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Improving is only appreciated, but not with polypyrrole or other distant "derivatives". The described there article might be not the earliest, but at least on polyacetylene. Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I changed the article so it only mentions "polyacetylene". Unfortunately for your argument, this means the 1964 monograph that cites several papers reporting very low conductivity polyacetylenes. This is getting rediculous and a violation of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. See particularly

• "7.Stonewalling – actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (without providing any reasonable counter of the discredital), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained.

Also see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

• 8.'Borderlining' – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.
• 9.Bad faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.
  • Example: Arguing that it is covered in another article, an editor negotiates a reluctant concensus to remove WP:RS well-verified material from one article. The editor then deletes the material from the second article."

While you may dismiss them, "The rules" are to protect editors against the sort of things you are doing. BTW, I recall one incident where you did exactly the offense described in number 9. Everyone values your contributions as an editor and admin, but this does not give you the right to blatantly flout the rules. Enough is enough. See, e.g.,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your are accusing me of (please don't play with that). As I said, I would welcome constructive editing. Your addition to the article was after my comment. I have no access to that book, but found a source quoting that book with values of low conductivity of iodine doped polyacetylene cited to that book. Thus your last edit was generally Ok with me, but Smokefoot had his reasons to revert it, and he might wish to explain them. Materialscientist (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Rather reluctantly, I get involved in an editing dispute. Anyway, the references provided are good and hardly "obscure". Nor is the issue. That conductive polyacetylenes were discovered in the 1960's (not 1970's) is well-known in electrochemistry and is even the subject of a chapter in a major contemporary text-book on conductive polymers. I would suggest that this cite gets posted here too.

What is the problem, to induce such gaming and POV-pushing, not to mention gross WP:civility violations ? If I read the cases right, the sort of thing that gets people desysoped or banned. Personally, I would not have been as obliging as nucleophilic. And yes, polyacetylene is the parent compound to polypyrrole, etc. The only difference electronically is that polyacetylene has more long-range order and so is more "metallic". Clipjoint (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is more relevant discussion of this issue evolving on Talk:Nobel Prize. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted another attempt to remove cites, etc. on prior history. Clear POV-pushing in the face of so many good review articles, etc.. While smokefoot is a valuable member of the wikipedia community, this does not empower him any more than any other editor. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors are associated with developing articles on [[John McGinness[[ and Peter Proctor and others apparently embittered by not being recognized by the Nobel Prize for conducting organic materials should desist from editing this and related articles owing to a conflict of interest. The articles and the work that they suggest are not mentioned in the Nobel Prize citation but intended to prop up the POV by these apparently embittered individuals. The Nobelists reviews also do not mention these articles in their reviews. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing

Smokefoot: Hard to see what you mean. First, this is not my work. I have nothing to do with this field, except very indirectly. At best, enough physics training to sort of vaguely understand the issues.

Second, presumably, you are referring to the 1970's work of Mcginness et al. In fact, the restored cites (dating to 10+ years before McGinness et al) throughly establish that they did not orginate this field, not that they have ever made this claim. Just the opposite in fact. The cites indicate that, at best, they were merely the last of a string of researchers reporting highly-conductive polyacetylenes before their rediscovery by the 2000 Nobel prize winners. So this seems an entirely straw argument.

Possibly the real objection is that the field of conductive polymers has a long prehistory that inexplicably you do not want reported. Hell, it is the subject of an entire chapter in Inzelt's textbook Conductive Polymers. Which makes no reference to McGinness et al, presumably because they were so late. If you have counter-arguments and your own cites, please post them, as is proper wikiprocedure. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Walled garden about the editing related to conductive organic materials, Peter Proctor, and McGinness. Your citations to Weiss are not to polyacetylenes. As most people define such materials, they were invented by Shirakawa et al. Why would insert "However, because of the numerous prior discoveries of highly-conductive polyacetylenes, their priority is disputed." There is no dispute.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With due respect-- this statement makes me wonder if you even understand what polyacetylene is. Likewise, the article does not even mention McGinness et al, which is why your argument is rather straw. Rather, it cites a book chapter and a review article reviewing the history of the field of conductive polymers. Nothing more.

Likewise, the issue is not who discovered polyactylenes, which were discovered in the 1800's as such. Rather it is who discovered highly-conductive polyacetylenes. The reviews indicate these were the subject of active research long before the work of Shirakawa et al. If you need a cite that the Nobel is "controversial", Inzelt (a major figure in the field of conductive polymers) directly questions their priority. Go argue with him, who literally "wrote the book" on the subject and presumably knows what a conductive polyacetylene is. Likely better than either of us, anyway. If you have contrary cites, etc. please post them. Otherewise, OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Polyacetylene is a generally linear organic polymer with alternating double bonds. You Proctor, McGinness have redefined it to suit your POV. I cannot assume good faith when I see what your clan has done to so many articles and the extent to which you prop up articles on Proctor and McGinness. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Right about the alternating double bonds. As for the rest, OR, and (misplaced) ad hominem, about which I will refrain from commenting in the interest in civility. I suggest a perusal of any review on conductive polymers, most (all?) of which are derivatives of polyacetylene and are generally considered as such. Again, I suggest starting with Inzelt's textbook and again suggest you come up with your own cites to the contrary. Otherwise, OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't ichthyothereol a Polyyne?

Ichthyothereol is cited at the bottom of the article as an example of naturally-occurring polyacetylene. However, the molecule clearly has carbon-carbon triple bonds, as opposed to the carbon-carbon double bonds featured in the rest of the article. Surely this would make ichthyothereol a polyyne and not a polyacetylene? A Google search for <ichthyothereol polyyne> appears to indicate such. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. The whole section about naturally occurring polyacetylenes is wrong. Polyacetylenes have alternating single-double bonds. Polyynes have alternating single/triple bonds. That section should be deleted entirely from the polyacetylene article, rewritten, and then added to an article about polyynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.98.14 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The literature is not consistent. The cited refs highlight many "polyynes" (per that technical definition) and specifically and only identify them as "polyacetylenes". One meaning is from the polymer world--the polymerization of triple-bonded monomers gives consecutive double-bonded units in the polymer--and it the meaning used in this article. But the other meaning appears to be just "poly" meaning "many". I agree it's confusing when there are two meanings of the term, and I agree that the "multiple alkynes" meaning does seem synonymous with the "polyyne" meaning. So I have moved its content there. However, we cannot ignore the reality that this meaning is associated with the article here as well, so I also added a note here to help readers disambiguate the ideas. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nobel Prize controversies

There is a relevant discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize controversies

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in March 2014

Polyacetylene Peer Review 1

Overall the content regarding poly acetylene has been vastly improved over the previous version of the polyacetylene page. The page contains a large amount of high quality and relevant information without the information being technically overwhelming. There are a few adjustments that could be made that would improve the quality of the page.

Content

Overall the content section contains a lot of new information that elucidates the history, synthesis, and properties of polyacetylene. Each section contains appropriate length, and the vast majority of the information here is accessible to a non expert reader. There are a few things that could be improved though.

In the introduction section of the polyacetylene article the final sentence of the introduction introduces the idea that there are some limitations of polyacetylene preventing their widespread use and production, however this point even though it addressed, the limits and applications could be its own paragraph in and of itself with a figure showing how the oxidation of the fibers happens and the production of the carbonyl, epoxy, or alcohol group.

The thoroughness of the synthetic methods could be improved. In synthesizing polyacetylene via the ROMP method there are some advantages versus synthesiszing polyacetylene from acetylene such as, avoiding the violent polymerization process from pure polyacetylene.

The doping and properties section seem pretty good with a lot of good and relevant information there, however when you discuss the differences in conductivity between cis and trans type poly acetylene why is there a 4 order of magnitude difference, and does this carry over to once the various polyacetylene molecules are doped? In addition how prevalent is the cross-linking in the polyacetylene fibers? Does the cross-linking depend on the structural isomer?

The history section has a vast array of information attached to it, this entire section should be relocated to the top of the paragraph as the paragraph introduces many of the ideas discussed in the article. In additions some figures would improve this section of the article, such as cuprene? In addition this section discusses that shirikawa worked on ways to further improve the conductivity, could you elaborate in the history section one or two of the methods he went on to develop to improve the conductivity? Finally the history has some limits of polyacetylene applicability, these limitations seems to be in multiple paragraph throughout the article, removing the duplicate phrasing would help the cohesiveness of the article.

Figures

The figures could use some improvement. In the Durham synthesis please replace the delta with heat, as many non scientific users would most likely be confused by the delta sign for heat. In addition the size is too small to clearly make out the identity of some of these pictures, re-sizing some of the images would help readers out. For the Grubbs synthetic route, if the various R groups that have been studdied, or even just a few different identifiable R groups would help clarify to a non-chemist reader that R could be a variety of groups. For the cis and trans isomers could you re-do these images in a 3-D model program such as, avagadro, to allow for some image variety. Please ensure that the chemdraw images are all aligned and centered relative to one another.

In addition a cuprene image would improve your history section as that was the first iteration of polyacetylene.

Refereces

There are at least 10 novel references present, however a vast majority of the references are technical journals, some non jornal sources would help. In addition a lot of resources present come from the Heeger, Shiriakawa, MacDiarmid group.

Overall Presentation

Overall the article represents a good start. The major concepts are all linked to their respective wikipedia page. The content provides a thoughtful background to polyacetylene and a sufficient introduction to its synthesis and properties. In addition the figures support the structure and synthetic scheme of polyacetylene very well. Some areas for improvement include reorganizing the page so that the introduction leads into the history, which can then lead into the structure and properties of polyacetylene, as the current organization is a bit confusing. Some of the figures present in the article are rather confusing and could use additional clarification, such as identifying the R groups in the Durham synthetic scheme, and replacing the delta with "heat" in order to keep the figures accessible to everyone. In addition possibly incorporating the applications and limitations of polyacetylene such as its stability into its own section would be a good transition doped properties from Finally a chem draw representation of cuprene, or some image of a heavily cross-linked polyacetylene would add a lot to visualizing early polyacetylene. In addition read through the content to remove duplicate phrasing such as the limits of polyacetylene being in both the history, properties, and doping. A significant amount of your references are from Shirakawa, and Heeger who won the Nobel prize, diversifying your references to include additional authors wouldnt be a bad idea. Finally check the language and grammar to ensure the article meets wikipedia's standards.Asimov1951 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Overall, I really liked the page.

Content

The sections are comprehensive and of good length. The chemistry is accurate as far as I can tell. The pages and items that need linked are generally done. It would be good to add a link to cis/trans as it is used often and also, is a fairly important concept for the article. The examples are very nice and well discussed. They supplement the material very well to aid in understanding. I poked around a bit on Wikipedia and the material seems to be specific to the page and the only stuff that does appear elsewhere is necessary to be in multiple places.

• Introduction- The introduction is very thorough, but too dense for an introduction. It would be best to break up the content into another section with the introduction only being about 6 sentences. A lot of the material in the first paragraph relates to doping so maybe move that material to Doping subsection. The second paragraph, though informative, could be trimmed down in the Introduction and the rest moved elsewhere.
• Synthesis- Outlining the various synthetic routes was good, but I also think it would be useful to more clearly state why some of the methods are more advantageous than others. I do see that you did it for the ROMP section, but adding a sentence or two to the other two sections would make it more clear why there have been multiple methods developed.
• Properties- This was a really interesting section. I'm not sure if all of these properties and their origin have been thoroughly investigated, but some additional chemistry would be good. Maybe what sort of reactions are occurring when the PA is exposed to air.
• History- I thought this was thorough and interesting. The flow is a bit odd, mainly due to were paragraph breaks occurred. Just give it another read before publishing the site.

Figures

There are many new figures added that are informative and support the ideals presented in the text. They are easy to read once clicking the link. I would suggest making some of the items as centered and larger instead of thumbnails. Here is the general format to center and enlarge your pictures: ["[File: **File name from wikicommons** |thumb|center| upright=2.5|**Description**]"] (take out the "'s and replace the info in the *'s to use it on your Wikisite) you can change the 2.5 to get the size you want. Also some of the figures span two sections. You can fix this by pasting picture links at the end of a paragraph instead of at the end of the section. It might be nice if the Doping section and History had a small picture to break up the text. The “Durham precursor polymer” picture is a bit odd. It would be best to try and put the bonds in back as broken up instead of the bonds in front. Also, the original page had a pretty nice picture that could definitely be used again.

References

The references were originally pretty weak, but the editors doubled the number with some really good resources. It would be nice if a few more non-journal resources were available for the general public to access. I actually found this link through a bit of digging on google (http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/organic/tutorial/steinke/4yrPolyConduct2003.pdf) and thought it was pretty useful. It is written at a pretty low chemistry level such that it might be work linking somewhere, especially because it is free and accessible to all.

Overall Presentation

Overall, I actually enjoyed reading the page, which in itself says something about the quality. I thought the material was well presented and also at a level that was appropriate for anyone coming to this page (people with at least basic chemistry knowledge). The page was well linked for any non-science people making it a great Wikipedia resource. I also learned quite a bit about PA and was entertained throughout (History was one of my favorite sections and I liked the properties and learning that the different structures actually are visually different). The content is great. A few changes should be made to really polish up the page. There were a few awkward phrasings that were ultimately okay, but could be improved by reading through it again before putting the site live. Adding a few more references that the general public can easily access would also be really helpful and make the page more impactful. A little rearranging needs to be done with both the pictures and content to make the page flow better and more visually appealing to draw in a person just browsing the page. In general, the page was greatly improved and really interesting. 5402013SD (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Instructor Comments

The peer reviewers did a good job overall. I agree that the intro is too dense and too long and that the figures need to be larger, and consistently placed in the text. I agree with most, if not all, of the peer reviewers comments. I look forward to seeing the revised site! UMChemProfessor (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Nice additions to the article. A few suggestions here.

• I agree that the History section should be moved to the first or second section in the article.
• Sources cited could be more diverse. E.g. When Nobel prize is mentioned, citing the Nobel prize site may be better than just citing an article.
• To re-arrange the pictures under the synthesis section, please see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for different location and size changes you can make.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Reviewer 1

All sentences discussing the potential applications and limitations of polyacetylene have been moved to a paragraph in the “Properties and Applications of Polyacetylene” section. We also added a figure to this section so that the products of oxidation can be visualized. We expanded the synthesis discussion and added more detail to the discussion of the ROMP method, including more information about the R groups. We also edited the figures based on the reviewer's suggestions. A few sentences have been added to the properties and doping sections to further elaborate on the differences between cis and trans isomers. We added a statement concerning the characterization of polyacetylene specifically in terms of the extent of cross-linking. We had difficulty in finding data on the extent of cross-linking in polyacetylene; we believe that this characterization might be difficult due to the insolubility of this polymer in most solvents. Again, we did not include a figure of the structure of cuprene for the same reason. A few sentences were also added to the comment about Shirakawa’s future work in the history section to elaborate on what was already written. A ball-and-stick figure of the isomers of polyacetylene was also added to both add variety to the types of figures we used as well as give a better visual for the page. We added a few other websites to our references sections. WFurthermore, we believe that many of the articles we already cited (Norden et al and Hall) are very easily accessible to non-scientists. Also, only about half of our references are from Shirakawa, Heeger, or MacDiarmid. While we recognize that this is a significant portion, we chose to focus our page on the history of polyacetylene which will inevitably lead to a lot of citing of these scientists who made the most significant impact on the field. The page was restructured such that the flow of the text is better, having the history section appear sooner on the page.

Response to Reviewer 2

The introduction has been revised, removing many of the details to further simplify it in an attempt to make it more approachable to a general audience. We added more information about advantages and disadvantages of various synthetic methods, and edited the figures to be clearer. We rephrased our sentences about what happens to polyacetylene when it is exposed to air and linked the appropriate words. We hope that it is more clear how oxidation of polyacetylene occurs and what results. We also added a figure so that the products of oxidation can be visualized. We remade the ball and stick model of polyacetylene that appeared in the original page and incorporated it in our page. We added a few other websites to our references sections, including the suggested source. We’d like to thank our reviewers for the suggestion. We fixed the arrangement of the sections and hope to have alleviated some of the awkward wording present in the site.

Response to Instructor

We have edited the introduction to make it less dense and more approachable to a general audience. We have improved the quality of the figures as well.

Response to ChemLibrarian

We moved the history section to the second section of the site. We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion of using the Nobel Prize website as a reference, and we have included that in our final site. We have also improved our figures.