Talk:Phosphonium coupling

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phosphonium coupling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 4 March 2012 by reviewer Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs).

Chemistry Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference links

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Instead of providing numerous references for a single fact, why not choose one or two best references. tausif r (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes please. :- ) DCS 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Stausifr and Dcshank, Thank you for your kind comments! We think in contrast to the traditional paper-based encyclopedia, wikipedia has the capability to show the readers a dynamic and in-depth body of information on a certain topic. In particular, recent development on the useful new knowledge should be interesting and appreciated by readers who are searching such information on the web. In this particluar case, a single fact may contain various new development that is important for knowledge update. Ideally, wikipedia entries should be real article-like papers with extensive useful information, instead of simple summary-like descriptions. This should be the major difference between paper-based encyclopedia and web-based encyclopedia. By the way, this entry has little to do with "peptide coupling", so they should not be merged into one entry. This chemistry is something like such cross coupling reactions as Suzuki, Heck and Sonogishira couplings. Thanks again and hope this will become useful information for the wikipedia readers. Greatwall2000

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.216.184.234 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Greatwall2000,

I will have to take your word for that. I am not exactly a dummy, but organic chemistry is definitely a weakness. However, not being a dummy, I still think it could be simplified and it does not need so many citations.WP:OVERCITE Perhaps you could expand on some of the words to which you have made wiki-links? I will remove the merge template, however I will have to add over-linked. Thanks for your contribution, you are obviously much smarter than me. That being said, you should still sign you posts with ~~~~, which will automatically show your signature, time and date, like this.> :- ) DCS 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

DCS,

Thank you very much for your instructive suggestions. I have removed many citations and only kept some key references that will be interesting for readers' further reading on recent new diverse developments. Any other comments would be greatly appreciated. Best. Greatwall2000Greatwall2000 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic