Talk:Polyol

Untitled

It looks as if someone stole this page from somewhere, but a web search hasn't brought up anything...

Applications was a copy so I took it out --Henrygb 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Polyols#Polyols_in_Food_science looks to me like a copy of http://www.spipolyols.com/whatarepolyols.html while Polyols#Applications looks like a copy of http://www.spipolyols.com/applications.html - sadly User:V8rik disagrees with me. --Henrygb 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly plagiarized material. The use of the word "successfully" under the Applications section is a dead non-NPOV give-away. Henrygb is correct, this page is plagiarized almost entirely word for word. How one claims that a verbatim copy has been rewritten is beyond me. --Oasisbob 10:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The original entry was an exact copy. The original website was not difficult to track down. Now there are two options 1. deletion outright 2. modify the text trim it down and make it acceptable under fair use with citing the website as a reference. Option 1 is okay but option 2 was chosen (see history). Now Henrygb still sees plagiarism in the text and has two options: 1. delete it the entire text and let the first effort (trimming down, rewording & provide links) go to waste 2. trim it down even further so that now even Henrygb is content with it. This user choose option 1 which I oppose because the initial effort made is not appreciated and potential Wiki material destroyed. V8rik 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• You cannot destroy wikipedia material which is not yours to begin with. It's hard to appreciate an action which is was blatent copyright infringement. Reviewing the history shows that the original page really wasn't rewritten, a few added wiki links and a few slightly revised phrases are the extent of the editing. Besides, adding original content doesn't depend on a "Take text and modify it until it is not recognized" type model. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems makes it very clear that blatent plagarism like this can be easily remedied by reverting the page to a pre-infringement state. If you would like to write your own additions for this article based on the source material which you research, go ahead. However, based on policy this page should be entirely deleted becuase it was never based on original content. --Oasisbob 05:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My preference would be to delete the page and then insert a redirect to sugar alcohol --Henrygb 10:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • excellent suggestion, except that a small bottom part of this article concerns polymer polyols, so I would suggest a disambiguation page with link to sugar alcohols but keep the polymer chemistry part. V8rik 17:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent. We agree. I'm going to spend some time on this page when I get a chance. --Oasisbob 05:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

The lead sentence A polyol is an alcohol containing multiple hydroxyl groups. is correct.

Issues:

• The article makes no distinction between polymeric compounds containing terminal hydroxyl groups (polyether polyols) and (polyester polyols) and polymeric compounds containing multiple hydroxyl groups
• "Polymeric polyols are generally used to produce other polymers" - too specific - uses include additives etc
• "Polymeric polyols are usually polyethers or polyesters" - too specific, PVA etc are not mentioned
• potentially misleading by exclusion

• Though the references given do describe the compounds as "polyols" this is not the basis for generalization.

The article makes no mention of Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) which is unambiguously a polyol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiiophen (talk • contribs) 07:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I corrected some of the issues you listed. Minihaa (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The definition is internally inconsistent. It currently states:-

A polyol is an organic compound containing multiple hydroxyl groups. The term "polyol" can have slightly different meanings depending on whether it is being used in the field of food science or that of polymer chemistry. A molecule with more than two hydroxyl groups is a polyol, with three – a triol, and with four – a tetrol. By convention, polyols do not refer to compounds that contain other functional groups.

Two is multiple - hence consistent with the first sentence - but the third sentence excludes materials with only two hydroxyl groups. This is unfortunate as the text uses diols, polyether polyols, and polyester poyols as examples of polyols, each of which have only two hydroxyl groups.

Suggested change for second sentence "A molecule with two or more hydroxyl groups is a polyol, with two - a diol, with three – a triol, and with four – a tetrol."

See for example JimBoff (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

References

For such a big subject in my opinion this article is short on references. I will see what I can add and work on the article. GRALISTAIR (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds but I have started some major work on the article. I will be adding quite a lot of references and citations. I know Wikipedia is always a work in progress but that definitely applies to this article. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Rather than using dictionaries, try to find a layperson-friendly WP:SCIRS review(s) that encompasses definitions, classifications, uses, etc. in one or two refs. No sources from companies, which can be interpreted as WP:PROMO or "seminars" which are not publicly accessible or published under peer-review. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I will do my best GRALISTAIR (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have started putting in references to quality scientific peer reviewed journals. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)