Talk:Β-Homoleucine

Group 14
Review #1 Your chembox is very thorough. You include good and specific information regarding the chemical in both the introductory and occurrences sections. My only real suggestion is to properly cite your references and to proof read your page. There are a couple obvious typos in the occurrences section. Also, some of your sentences are syntactically difficult to follow (such as the last sentence in the occurrences section) and could use revision. Otherwise, the article is off to a good start.

Review #2 The only thing on the chembox that looked unusual was the caps on for the common names of the compound. Try looking for more infomration about the compound such as the density or melting point. These things could be added to the properties subheading and explained such as why there is no recorded melting point or density. The occurances sub-heading is very broad so try and gather some specific informtion about where the compound exists. ie. human body or other organisms. The general format looks good and just needs some filling in by some accurate material. I would suggest to organize some referances and pick out the most important and insightful information. For example; has there been any recent reseach on the compound. Why would a company want to use the amino acid? In conclusion, good start with the formating! Everything seems to look like a pro wiki page. Information about the compound is lacking, so add this infomation with different references. 15:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Andrew Chancellor   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajchancellor (talk • contribs) React uiuc 2012 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not upload this material
I am sure that this exercise helped young students learn how to surf the web for some chemical information and how to discuss chemistry, but your teacher is either incompetent or nonparticipating in the editing process. Until your teacher gets involved, I recommend against uploading this essay into the regular part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia expects good articles to be built around WP:SECONDARY sources - monographs, reviews. We also do not want the articles to read like a textbook (WP:NOT). --Smokefoot (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)