Template:Did you know nominations/Captodative effect
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Captodative effect[edit]
- ... that radicals can be stabilized by the captodative effect?
- Comment: developed in sandboxes at User:DgsinUM/sandbox and User:Genger14/sandbox
5x expanded by DgsinUM (talk), Genger14 (talk). Nominated by Graeme Bartlett (talk) at 10:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC).
5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, well-referenced. Since all sources are offline, I am unable to check for close paraphrasing. No QPQ needed. Due to the technical nature of the article, it would be best for a science-oriented editor to give this a look-over before it hits the main page. Yoninah (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was able to get three of the sources as PDFs and can send them to anyone who wants to help. It's of interest that the article went through a kind of peer review already at Talk:Captodative effect. The basic drift of the article makes sense. My only observation is that it could be a trifle more friendly to non-specialists. This shouldn't be an obstacle at DYK. The article is explaining how you can get certain organic reactions to go faster. The content looks to be correct and the diagrams seem to be newly-drawn by the creators, so there shouldn't be a copyright problem. Just under the first diagram, there is a comment about 'figure 1' but we don't number our figures on Wikipedia. Maybe this should be rephrased. (This could be a reference to Figure 1 of Viehe, Janousek and Merenyi (1985) which is the original source of the idea). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did a partial check for use of copyrighted images which can be seen at Talk:Captodative effect#Sources for the figures. Everything I checked was OK, but I don't have access to reference 8, which is in Tetrahedron Letters from 1982. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was able to get three of the sources as PDFs and can send them to anyone who wants to help. It's of interest that the article went through a kind of peer review already at Talk:Captodative effect. The basic drift of the article makes sense. My only observation is that it could be a trifle more friendly to non-specialists. This shouldn't be an obstacle at DYK. The article is explaining how you can get certain organic reactions to go faster. The content looks to be correct and the diagrams seem to be newly-drawn by the creators, so there shouldn't be a copyright problem. Just under the first diagram, there is a comment about 'figure 1' but we don't number our figures on Wikipedia. Maybe this should be rephrased. (This could be a reference to Figure 1 of Viehe, Janousek and Merenyi (1985) which is the original source of the idea). EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have been looking into this article. It needs some work, and I have sought some help here. While I am uncertain about the images, I would appreciate a few days to sort it out. If there is a copyvio image, it needs to be removed before a main page appearance. EdChem (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Objections withdrawn. The main science objection I had was the claim about Diels-Alder and Friedel-Crafts reactions because they are not usually radical in nature, but I have added material explaining why these are mentioned and fleshing out the section. The diagrams should be redrawn with proper software - I have no access at present - but it is ok for DYK. It needs work but I see nothing that would make me believe it is appropriate to further hold up this nomination. As an editor of the article (my changes have added more than 20% to the readable prose size), I will not tick it but I have no objection if someone else does. EdChem (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
