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
I replaced some of them with images or text that do not have oxidation-state labels. Would be easy enough to include them in more standard notation (usually roman numerals) if someone would like, but it seemed like these redox states/changes were not relevant to the surrounding text. Will get to the remaining cases shortly. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current third example (10-Dec-2012), the alpha-Bu3Sn alkenone, is a methyl ketone RCOCH3. It should probably be the aldehyde RCOH. If the starting material IS, in fact, the ketone, the net transformation of RCOCH3 to RCOOH is the haloform reaction which proceeds by a different mechanism. AdderUser (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason to call the reaction as it is currently called (according to Pinnick). Anyone bothering to look up the original paper by Pinnick et al will wonder how this association came about in the first place. The paper did not introduce anything new, but evaluated several known methods for a specific application. It featured 1 example (!) of Lindgrens chlorite oxidation in the variation with amylene as chlorine quencher, earlier introduced by Kraus et al. Pinnick et al correctly cited the earlier work by Lindgren and Kraus, so there was no reason why anyone would ascribe this reaction to him, he simply applied a known procedure.2001:4CA0:2FFF:11:0:0:0:111 (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see mention of any animosities in our article or its cited refs. But instead, we have two "name reactions" dictionaries that both give "Pinnick Oxidation" as the name for this reaction. Wikipedia is constrained to use what reliable secondary sources say, so you would need multiple strong references to give it a different name instead. I don't even see "Lindgrens oxidation" or similar names used as a synonym in those refs. Our article seems to correctly credit the other authors with the underlying/original reaction. DMacks (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CH3CN is written without subscript 3 in scheme on 'Scope and Limitations' section. If anyone has acess to original file, please fix it. If it was lost, I can redraw the scheme correctly
@Fungi6x: Looks great thanks! If you're interested in working on these sorts of edits, the commons site has a backlog of chemical diagrams that are tagged with concerns about quality and/or factual disputes. DMacks (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arzagh: I'm sorry everyone, I don't come here often and didn't see the mention. I only keep note of the pages that have minor problems and fix them when I have some free time. Thank you for fixing that detail!
