Talk:Electrocyclic reaction

Not simple

Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading:

• Gunning Fog index : 12.75 (SEWP target 7-8) ENWP score: 13.80

Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text :

• Coleman Liau index : 20.43 (SEWP target 7-8) ENWP score: 20.94

Flesch Kincaid Grade level : 12.43 (SEWP target 7-8) ENWP score: 13.01 Flesch Reading Ease : 22.42 (SEWP target 65-80) ENWP: 20.14

Source of scores While scores are not everything, this article is no where near what we need. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I have added the scores from the ENWP article so it can be seen how much simplifying has been done. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know that mostly those tools don't really work properly on scientific articles? Links to the more complex words aren't recognized by the automated tools. Special names of chemical compounds (3,4-dimethylcyclobutene etc) make the score wrong. Those names can't be simplified and have to be used this way. Especially for articles which actually have to use unsimple words, the automated tools are a quite bad idea. The judgement whether an article is complex or not should not be made by the result of a tool. If you straight copy and paste the then you get a very different result from a cleaned up copy and paste (means the ref numbers like [1] are removed, headlines are removed, same with the table of contents, pics etc). I'm not yet finished reading the article, but I will see if there is need for simplification. -Barras (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mh...I've to admit that the article is complex after I read it completely, but I will work on it these day. -Barras (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)