Talk:Insertion reaction

Fixing this page

Hi, we're planning on fixing up this page as part of an inorganic chemistry class at the University of Michigan. Look for updates around December 2010. Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Page quality

You’re page looks really good and also flows well. However, it is more geared toward people that already have a base understanding of what is happing I think. Also, it is hard to make some topics generalized just because of the nature of them and I can see where that might be difficult here. There are a few things that are mentioned in the midst of explaining your topics that need to be explained themselves (or linked to another page that can explain it, this will help it become more general public friendly also I think.

There is definitely enough detail provided to give someone an understanding of what is going on in your topic and a logical flow to the page.

I like the examples and pictures included. There are also some examples given that are just included in the text that may benefit from a figure. So that may be something to think about. There is also good distribution of topics and how much you focus on different sections.

There could be a lot more links added in your page I think so keep an eye out for that. I will list a few here. (Can you link to in-plane and out-of-plane? Either that or maybe explain it. Also, is there a way to link to the 18 e- rule? Put the link to alkyl group on the first time you use it and lewis acid.., Link to polymerization? Link to beta elimination? Cis?) Also, make sure to at least add the link to the first time you use a term because there a few links set up to some words toward the bottom of your page that you use earlier in the page that are not linked and so I think the first mention of it is the time you should include the link to it.

There a few typos that need to be fixed so make sure you go through and proof-read. For example “Ligands with a greater trans-influence imparts greater electrophilicity to the active site.” There should be no “s” on the end of imparts. Small things like this need to be fixed. I don’t think it is my job to go through and tell you every single little small grammar and such to fix, but just proof-read and keep an eye out to change those. Also, when you say… “Insertion reactions in square planar complexes are of particular interest because their structure allows additional reaction mechanisms to occur.” Take this a step further and tell why allowing additional reaction mechanisms to occur is of interest or what it has to do with or help with.

Yes, it meets the criteria.

This wiki site talks about insertion reactions including CO, olefin, and SO2 (and a few others briefly). The explinations and examples worked well as did the figures. I have already listed above some things that could be looked at and possible changes. Overall, it looks great and you guys did a good job. It was good to read and learn about it. Great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chem507f10grp4 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Integrate - don't upload

Wikipedia welcomes editors, but the encyclopedia does not exist as the UTube for school essays. We have exensive series of articles on various aspects of organometallic chemistry, and you hopefully will integrate your work into existing articles. By integration, you probably need to break up this school essay, dumping some of it, and putting useful bits into existing articles such as Migratory insertion, Ziegler-Natta catalyst, hydrogenation, etc. Working well with Wikipedia takes some effort beyond just writing an essay that pleases your teacher: you need to integrate your work within Wikipedia's very large network of articles. Otherwise we'd have a zillion slightly different articles, all poorly edited. BTW, wikipedia-chem wants DOI's for references please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

suggestions

Hi Chem507f10grp3,

I would add a few more links to internal wikipedia pages so to clarify a few more things. I would also add more transitions or introductory sentences to each of your paragraphs/sections so to introduce the sections better. This will help guide those to go to sections that are most relevant to the information that the reader might be looking for.

Thank you. MichChemGSI (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

oh! and add Migratory Insertion as a section so that we know that you are planning to merge that page into here. MichChemGSI (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to discussion in Migratory Insertion

Hi,

This page was created by user:chem507f10grp3! Please refer to their user page or the Migratory Insertion [[1]] discussion page for the discussion about this page. If you would like to make changes, please post on this discussion page, do not blanket delete this page please! we are now watching this page, and will be able to respond to concerns. Thank you.

MichChemGSI (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, I support it existing now, rather than a redirect, though it can definitely be worked-on further here. Now that this page is live, discussion about it should definitely be done here, since this is the talk-page for this article and the sandboxed-work comments are imported below. I've tagged and collapsed them so we can now pick up working on new concerns with this active page. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to Migratory insertion?

This article and Migratory insertion look very similar in intent and content. I worry about readers would be confused. Should we merge them, or move most of the content on migratory insertion from this page to migratory insertion? --Smokefoot (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that they should be merged. They are two separate concepts. There are a lot more details that we could add to the [[migratory insertion] page. I would vote to keep the general information about the reaction (so that people get an idea about the different reactions) that are migratory insertions reactions on this page, but then move the specifics to beef up the migratory insertion page, and add more to the migratory insertion page. MichChemGSI (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The goal here is to focus the discussion on substantive aspects, not what you or I want. "They are two separate concepts." What are these "two separate concepts"?--Smokefoot (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Migratory insertions are a sub-set of insertion reactions. I think as it currently stands the migratory insertion page is redundant. Insertion reaction should not be moved to migratory insertion because not all insertion reactions are migrations. This has previously been discussed on the migratory insertion page.Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the idea that we move the content on migratory insertion to migratory insertion and then make insertion an article on the general case, wherein migratory insertion would be mentioned. Then within insertion we could disucss so many other reactions that are currently not described. This approach would be typical within Wikipeda (or any encyclopedia): a general article that refers to a more specialized one. Your comments are encouraged.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

hi, smokefoot. ok, right. I do also think that is a good idea, and was trying to convey that, abet poorly. However, we are currently in the process of hopefully getting this page to be featured on the main page in the DIK and i'm afraid to mess it up too much at the moment as that is being done (ie: removing large sections). Could we perhaps wait a few days for this process to go through and for the students of this page to fix the requests of the DIK committee? before we arrange your proposal? Thanks! (if this is an unreasonable request please let me know). MichChemGSI (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll lay off. Good luck with your DIK proposal. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Smokefoot's idea is definitely a good one, and entirely in keeping with typical structures for articles and Wikipedia's collaborative / cooperative processes of article development and improvement. The work of the Michigan students is good, but it can be improved and developed and together we can make a stronger article.  :) EdChem (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started a section showing examples of insertion reactions in organic chemistry. EdChem (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for your patience! let's make this more like the structures for wikipedia articles and make this a strong article. :) MichChemGSI (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Chem507f10grp3/sandbox → Insertion reaction

• Apparent copyright query Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I found in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen this history-merge request:
  • "With regard to the page insertion reaction, in this edit user:MichChemGSI has cut-and-pasted from this sandbox of User:Chem507f10grp3 to article space. This is a problem as MichChemGSI seems to be the instructor of CHEM507, and it is the students who actually wrote the new version. As such, MichChemGSI can't irrevocable release the contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL as it isn't his to release. Can the sandbox history be moved and replace the existing post of MichChemGSI and thereby correctly attribute the contribution? EdChem (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)"

  I history-merged, leaving all the history in User:Chem507f10grp3/sandbox. But someone clearly wants to move it to insertion reaction, replacing the existing insertion reaction, which is very short; but there is the abovementioned copyright query. See also User talk:Chem507f10grp3. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have posted a follow-up at the cut-and-paste page. I fear that I have expressed myself poorly. The copyright issue is the with MichChemGSI cutting and pasting the text from a sandbox of another user, in doing so he appears in the history of insertion reaction as the author, which he isn't. However, I do believe that the new article should be live, and comments from MichChemGSI at his talk page indicate that the students were OK with him making the move. So, assuming that is sufficient, I suggest that the sandbox version (with all of its history showing the editing of Chem507f10grp3) be moved to the article insertion reaction so that all of the history of editing of the presently-live version and the currently-sandboxed version be visible. I suspect that MichChemGSI can organise for user:Chem507f10grp3 to post a "yes, this is ok by me" note (or not) if that would help. EdChem (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is okay by me. Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the insertion page back up. I am okay with the sandbox and editing history and discussion being moved to the current insertion reaction wikipedia page. Please send me a message if more needs to be done in order for this to happen. Thanks. Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move page clarification

Clarification about "moved" pages: the other reason why we created group accounts was that we could go back in the history to see the page at the point of when the students uploaded the page. Now with individual accounts we have designated a repository for the sandboxes user:UMChemProfessor. Then each student, with his/her own account goes into that sandbox to edit. However, if we do the official page "move" those pages become the topic's page. (as was the case for chem507f10grp1/sandbox to insertion reaction). What do you suggest as the best way to access the pages at the point in which when the students uploaded them later in time. Example: we can very easily find when our students edited Fire Safe Polymers 3 yrs ago. MichChemGSI (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the "view history" link at the top of each article page, you can see the page as it was after any edit of the page. You can construct diffs (differences - see also the Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide) to compare any two versions, and can see exactly which user contributed in each and every edit. For example, this is how the page appeared after the last edit I made to the page. This diff shows the page in the same state, but at the top shows the change that I made in that single edit (it is highlighted in the text in red), and you can see that the edit summary that I left to explain my edit was "tweak language". The edit prior to that, which I described as "add reference to the Kowalski ester homologation" is shown here. Looking at the history page, you can see at the top links to "Revision history statistics" which gives summary stats of the whole hisrory of the article, "Contributors" summarises who has edited the article and how many edits each of them has made, "Revision history search" allows you to search the history and find out who added a particular string of text, and when, and how long it has been in the article, etc. Help:page history can give you more information. In short, there are plenty of tools to allow you to see who contributed what and when, which, though not designed for the purpose, allow you to evaluate the relative contributions of each student. EdChem (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisions planned or proposed

After the very welcome contributions from EdChem, I was going to revise this article further with the ultimate goal of migrating more specialized organometallic information to Migratory insertion and probably upgrading the graphics and replacing specialized some refs with broader ones. I just finished with one such edit cycle. If any one is worried about these plans or has advice/guidance for me, please leave a note here.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added a shortened section on the Cativa catalytic cycle (and also expanded the one on the Cativa page) as I think it is necessary to point out the insertion, migratory insertion and de-insertion in the cycle. I originally added the cycle as it was a major industrial case that shows all three examples in one cycle. All the other changes seemed fine to me and I aplaud the ultimate goal. EdChem (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrective measures and feel free to recorrect if you see future issues. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my additions of organic examples of insertions. FYI, I added a bunch of examples but never got around to building the coherent article that this really should be so by all means include the organic materials in revising / tightening up. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I proposed to remove almost all of the SO2 section. The insertion of SO₂ (as well as NO) into metal alkyls is a highly specialized and now passe aspect. This reaction was studied at a time when mechanistic organometallic chemistry was un-developed. The topic is barely mentioned in modern texts, which tend to focus on insertions that are useful in synthesis. To retain this material, I created a specialized article on Metal sulfur dioxide complexes. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible change to me, retains the content without putting it into the 'top level' article which appropriately aims to provide an overview of the subject. I would like to see a wikilink in metal sulfur dioxide complexes back to insertion reaction, and some indication in both articles as to the historical significance in terms of understanding mechanistic organometallic chemistry. Industrially-significant content and historically-significant content are both appropriate for inclusion as part of encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and both need some mention here; the question is one of emphasis. EdChem (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)