User talk:FeatherPluma/Proline organocatalysis


 * 20131201 Start review FeatherPluma (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20131204 Update: Preliminary review / edits performed. I recommend the proposed article be reviewed by a senior editor who has chemistry expertise: I have initiated some outreach for that. Please be patient while the proposed article is carefully considered. It may be that the AfC review will be completed by that other set of eyes, or it may be co-opted by another editor, or it may be referred back to me to further assist. In the meantime, there are a few additional clean ups that I anticipate getting to in a day or two. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20131204 Quick commentary, kinda busy right now to do much actual work on it... The topic is valid for an article and there is a lot of good information here for advanced readers, but there is waaaaay too much technical detail (primary research studies rather than secondary and summarized key results and relevance). I'm not sure how unified the topic is for what's here though, since the way these different reactions are proposed to be affected seems inconsistent. Not sure if it would do better stripping this way down (towards summary-style) and putting each reaction's own technical details in an "Asymmetric variations" or similar section in the relevant reaction's own article (for example, proline is just one way of many for some of them, and the proline effect is often directly tied to the individual reaction's standard mechanism). Or at least organizing by the mechanistic or other detail ("all the enamine-related ones" as subsections that first introduces that idea, again helping find the "this article" key topic). Or are all of these just different named-reaction applications of "proline-enamine for aldol-like chemistry"? If so, much of this article is extremely redundant, making distinctions based on little except whose precedent is being followed as an asymmetric variation--rewrite to focus on the mechanism (steric and H-bonding effects, etc.) that unites the topic as stated. The unifying feature as stated is "uses proline", so the value of proline (and history, structural variations, etc.) should be a prominent and early part before a technical study of just tons of examples that is harder for non-experts to understand/care as much. Spot-checked the diagrams and saw some mistakes of content. The use of "Figure XX" captions and in-image structure-numbers makes this article nearly impossible to edit efficiently or re-use the content...would be a good MOS point. DMacks (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20131204 Will consider these advice points, which do correspond to my sense of things. I will reach out to initial editor on that Talk page to initiate review of some options. If that is not feasible, will close out AfC according to usual procedure.FeatherPluma (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20131206 Editor has not replied on that Talk page. Will await reply for reasonable interval.FeatherPluma (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20131222 #1 (Declining article for now): WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; one approach you might pursue is to consider simplifying the content and resubmitting. The additional comments below amplify this, and explain in part how the review process developed. If I can help additionally clarify or progress things please let me know.FeatherPluma (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20131222 #2 Submitting editor has not replied on their Talk page. My usual approach would be to facilitate / expedite the work that is being offered. However, as it stands presently, based on 1: assessment as per Wikipedia guidelines (for example, but not exclusively, one element of this is usually writing for a general audience; sometimes the preferred benchmark is "one level down" from where things are usually taught): i.e. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) and 2: on the input from a more senior editor with an interest in chemistry (see above post, and also the summary comments in the edit history) I will not approve the article.However, this is not a "final" or binding decision: please note that you may chose to improve the proposed article and to then resubmit. One improvement suggested by the editor with chemistry expertise is to consider using the preferredManual of Style/Chemistry approach for the chemical schemes. Another option you might consider is to greatly simplify the submission, so that it does conform to writing for a general interested reader audience. I am of the personal opinion that a simplified article that served as an introduction to this topic would provide an excellent addition to Wikipedia, with references / citations pointing to review articles for those readers who were looking for a deeper treatment of the topic. Unless you prefer, I will consider undertaking that simplification, and then resubmiting the proposed article, but that process I feel should be subject to a different reviewer at that stage. To assist in the progression of this article / topic, please leave the present review comments. If the article eventually moves forward they will be removed at that point. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 20140113 Article has been simplified to serve as an introduction to this topic for a general interested reader audience, with references / citations pointing to review articles and primary sources for those readers who may look for a deeper treatment of the topic. I am close to reintroducing the article to the AfC stream, with the plan of deferring to other reviewers at that point, although I will add (or someone will) de-orphaning links upon AfC completion (e.g. fromorganocatalysis to this article). I did not see a pressing need to modify / correct the details of the chemical schemata, given that several sources available as references within the proposed article have extensive treatments of those details. I chose to remove them, and to retain the citations as resources. The schemata could of course be added back by a future editor. Current plan is to review again in a few days, and then reintroduce to AfC process. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)