 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Reaserch
editI am reaserching this chemical in the laboratory, all information in the article comes from my lab. My lab has no website, no name, it is just a lab, so there will be no refrences available. I know this article is not great, but i am working on it, please do not remove it. Russellsaccount (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's interesting. You might want to show your PI the articles I just added as references. PDCook (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The structure of this molecule is wrong, I will be changing it. The ligand attachment makes no sense, why is the ligand bonded in an ionic interaction? Absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.204.65 (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Side note, much of the chemistry dealing with the compound it's self is very wrong, I am updating that, someone misunderstood how copper ions react with organic ligands from the abstract of the paper provided. Paper actually discusses chelation. I'm tempted to run a DEPT and 1H NMR on it if I can get the NMR time.
- Good luck with that measurement! You might ask your teacher first. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the structure that has been on here for 4 years is disproven by the paper which was supposed to prove it, on about the fourth page of it it clearly shows a chelate complex with 4 IBP ligands hooked up to TWO coppers. HOW DID THIS GET MISSED FOR 4 YEARS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodiumtetrahydrateintermediate (talk • contribs) 08:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)