This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spectroscopy ( inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles

This should have its own page, since it's a non sequitur on the photoelectrochemical page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.39.28 ( talk) 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Section moved to Sorption page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimblecymbal ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Whether pages should be merged or remain independent DOES NOT depend on whether it is a popular word in current research and applications. Why a physical phenomenon (such as photoexcitation) is included in an article on a specific chemical interaction like this? I'm a chemistry student, I can't stand it; this is not the way chemists or physicists write Wikipedia. I protest. SzMithrandir ( talk) 23:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

So I'm creating " photoexcitation" right now.

This seems to be lifted verbatim from an Encyclopaedia Britannica article (which is helpfully listed as reference 10). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.36.249 ( talk) 11:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• The entire article? Looking at the histor

y of the article that seems unlikely. Do you mean a section? Please clarify which section? V8rik ( talk) 21:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, not the entire article. The section on the Stark-Einstein law, that is, the section containig the reference I mentioned.