Talk:Upjohn dihydroxylation
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Seansheep in topic Anti in drawing?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hi Seansheep, I don't get it, in my edit a tried to emphasize that this reaction predates Sharpless asymmetric dihydroxylation but in the way you have reverted it back to the original text you can only conclude that Sharpless was first followed by Upjohn and that does not makes sense. Also you have destroyed the valid link to Sharpless asymmetric dihydroxylation (again!). Please consider making changes V8rik 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi V8rik - sorry about destroying your links, a messy copy-paste there. I've tried to clarify things by making the last bit into a different section, as there are essentially three reactions I'm talking about; Upjohn, AD and RD (discoverd in that order). Most people don't know about Warren's RD and it's an underused reaction that is really superior to the Upjohn procedure. But I don't think it merits a seperate article.
- oh and thanks for sorting out the numbering on the references, although your way makes it a lot harder the read when editing! Is there a around that (I'm new to making articles in case you hadn't gatherd!)
Seansheep 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the change. The referencing system is the official one and although I agree editing text may get somewhat difficult the advantages still outweigh the disadvantages. V8rik 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Anti in drawing?
editThe drawing shows anti addition, but I think it gives syn addition like the "normal" use of OsO4? ChristianoGh 14:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see two OH groups pointing upwards so cis is ment. The image could be improved but is not wrong V8rik 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okey, but the next under the drawing sounds like the product is trans... As it says that the stoichiometric amounts is still the way to do it if you wants cis-vicinal diols. At least its the way I understand the text... ChristianoGh 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image changed for clarity - thanks ChristianoGh - whilst the text and image did agree the structure as it was drawn before required some rotating in your head! Have also tried to clarify the text as this also seemed to have caused some confusion Seansheep 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)