Talk:Chemical graph generator

Problems
1. The number of citations of ref. 1 is grossly excessive.

2. How is the stoichiometry of the target molecule established? 3. The issue of isomers is not discussed. See butanol for a simple example. What about chirality?

4. With larger molecules they may be more than one chemical compound that are not structural isomers, but have the same stoichiometry.Petergans (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first point: citation #1 is this article (as published in a peer-reviewed journal); it's cited a lot because it's the source for all of the content that isn't just summarization of other pre-existing publications. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. it's the NUMBER OF TIMES that it is cited. A review does not need to be cited so many times; it would be sufficient to state that is a review and to summarize its content. For specific content it would be preferable to cite the original publication. Petergans (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a case where the source cited so much is an original claim by experts through the process documented at Journal to wiki publication. I assisted in adding all these citations as documented in the "did you know" process above. I also advocate for experts producing content for publication in Wikipedia after getting it peer reviewed in external expert processes. If you have comments about migrating content from journals to wiki, then could you share on that documentation page? That practice is bigger than this one article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual situation in that the journal concerned is an open-access journal, so the contents of the original paper could be copied to WP without breaking copyright law. My view is that nothing was gained by doing so as readers have open access to the original.
 * With any published paper a single citation is generally sufficient in a WP article. At most I would put a repeat reference once in each major section. As things stand, it has the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of self-glorification of an author of the original publication. Petergans (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. agree on principle that even if there is a high quality source which has compatible copyright we should not just copy paste from it (this also applies to articles copied from PD sources such as old editions of Britannica; ...). But whatever. Regarding point 1) I tried fixing it but there's just a lot of it and I am otherwise busy... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's still about 40 of them left. I'll try seeing if I can cut some more. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)