Talk:Asymmetric hydrogenation
![]() | Asymmetric hydrogenation is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Achieved vs. enjoyed: "enjoyed" may be interpreted not to include the present, but "achieved" carries a slight connotation of permanence (or at least continuation until the present). You use "enjoyed" again later, but because you already used its stronger alternative in "achieved", it fits the pace and flow nicely. Hope the other changes seem reasonable to you, too. 69.196.168.117 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose this may not be that important, but in the mechanisms, the bond angles for the carbon chains are a little off. It is difficult to show the correct bond angles when dealing with organometallic mechanisms, because of the bonding that tends to occur. I would also make the labels on the arrows consistent with the fonts used in the rest of the schemes in the article (looks like Arial or some other sans-serif font).
In the "Quadrant Model for Asymmetric Hydrogenation", the steric reasoning is correct, but the diagram I can see has the favoured and disfavoured orientations as being the same, when in reality, they should be inverted (i.e. the larger groups should be in the shaded boxes for the disfavoured orientation). .
The rest of the schemes are fine in terms of bond angles/visually (there is some leeway so that the functional groups can actually be seen). Some minor spelling issues, otherwise very nicely written with a good number of primary references to back up the material. It is a very important chemical process and one that should receive even more attention in the coming years as we move to more medical applications as well as industry. Gb105 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Glitches
editSee discussion |
My main and overriding disappointment about this article is the reliance on non-secondary references. Wikipedia's goal, like other encyclopedias, is to give time-honored overviews of topics. The highly detailed, (not to mention, Western academic oriented) references fail that standard. The reasoning for WP:SECONDARY and WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTABILITY is to provide seasoned perspective and allow the overviewarticle to remain timely for many years, whereas this report (i) risks giving readers unbalanced perspective, (ii) becomes obsolete in a couple of years and (iii) encourages tiny players to vie for attention by citing their own tiny contribution, thus WP:COI. I say this as someone who humbly makes tiny contributions to my own field.
To put my criticism more sharply, the incremental referencing shows that the author is not here to serve readers of Wikipedia, but to use Wikipedia to showcase their agenda. When I say someone else needs to look at it, I mean a professor or someone with deep experience. Images like this would not appear: − Asymmetric Hydrogenation Scheme for N-H Imines
Thanks for asking for comments. The article is very nice.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Bmalbrecht (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
From looking at the references, it does look like quite a few review articles are cited, as well as reputable primary sources like Nobel prize speeches. I am puzzled by the comment about the bent towards western academics--what's missing? However, I agree about WP:COI. The most egregious example that I have no energy to deal with is in the Hajos-Parrish article...I feel certain it's wrong to write about your own work. We should go a little easier on Bmalbrecht--he's obviously put quite a bit of work into this, and has nothing to gain or lose by taking any particular perspective. Eugene Kwan (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC) |
Comments regarding the "Metals" section of the article.
editHey there,
I noticed something and I will be working to clean it up over the coming days, but I just wanted to notify those who follow the page here first.
The section on metals needs to be re-worked in my opinion. The plan is to move a lot of the content already found on the page (formerly titled Noyori AH) Asymmetric transfer hydrogenation into the Platinum-group metals subsection. This will likely include a discussion of the mechanism (differences between different metals in the group) and substrate scopes. Additionally examples will be added to the industrial applications section which can be considered novel or noteworthy.
Balonlon (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Lets start with hydrogenation,
My 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
|
- I will be signing off for today in a moment. Just wanted to reply quickly.
- I very much agree with the second bullet point, it is something I hope to work on soon. I feel like a very clear way to discuss ligands and substrates is in direct relation to one another in a similar way as this paper has done with first row metals, but instead subdividing each underlying functional group by complexes (metal + ligands) which illustrate "why it works" in each case.
- I haven't had time today but the $-making apps are also something worth paying attention to moving forward.
- Feel free to leave comments. I do find them very helpful in the writing process. Balonlon (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)