Talk:1,3-Dipolar cycloaddition

Untitled

Initial comments:

The article is reasonably laid out, but needs significantly more details.

Suggestions:

- Specific examples and details regarding the "numerous additional calculations and experiments" for the mechanism would be nice. Also, can we see some details about the bullet pointed pieces of evidence? More carbonyl groups slowing the reaction down doesn't seem to scream "concerted mechanism" to me. The solvent effect and stereospecificity are much more convincing, but could use reaction schemes. What do isotope effects say?

- Can we please replace the phrase "high negative entropic energy and moderate enthalpy requirements" with some experimental numbers and words like "highly negative entropy of activation" instead?

- What do you mean by "maximum gains in sigma bond energy"? Can you make some general comments on where the delta G in the reaction comes from?

- This could use significantly more examples and applications in synthesis. Are there catalytic variants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E kwan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being edited

I am editing this page now to include substantial detail on the reaction mechanism, selectivity, specificity, and applications in synthetic organic chemistry and chemical biology. Many sections may remain blank for the next few days until I finish editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanganu (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this have a primary sources tag?

It is unclear to me why a tag saying this 'relies too much on primary sources' has been appended. Will whomever added that tag please comment? 14:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgold (talk • contribs)

That would be User:Smokefoot. This edit of his seems aimed at fixing it, but not sure if there is still more of this type of cleanup needed. DMacks (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jedgold: I am expressing my opinion. Articles with long lists of primary refs are the result of cherry picking and, worse, fail to give appropriate perspective. Long lists of primary refs sometimes might arise because an editor is unfamiliar with technical writing, but most often such lists are just accretion: editor A adds one ref, editor B adds two more, etc. Another problem: primary refs on big topics invite ref spamming (hey, the article cites this minor work, my paper should be cited too). Of the first 29 refs in this article, 70% are primary: 3, 6 ,9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. Twelve are to Huisgen, which surely could be summarized in a couple of reviews.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]