Talk:RTI-51

Comments
Possible Original Research I tagged this because the tone of the article sounds like original research. Particularly the following:

For example, it is not documented to have been experimented with on man.

Another choice of ester should be tried, such as cyclopropyl, for example.

The rationale is that less "non-specific" binding is believed to reduce toxicity.

RTI-51 can be expected to have properties lying somewhere in between RTI-31 and RTI-55.

Thus, if accurate data is available for RTI-31 and RTI-55, then the data of RTI-51 can be deducted.

Is this from some of the references? Can it be rewritten some way to make it clear that the references say this? ChemGardener (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed wording and added reference. Meodipt (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tables
I just removed the first table, "Comparison of halogens", because it has no explanation as to its relevance and no source. The table was added in a series of edits by the now-blocked editor.

I also removed the red styling of the text in the second table, as it was visually offputting and there was no explanation as to what the red cells were meant to indicate. If someone can figure out what was being conveyed by the red cells, and if that information should be preserved, perhaps there is a less offputting way to mark those cells. Kimen8 (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)