Welcome. I see you've found WP:CHEMS. Nice article. Would be nice if you can tweak some of the images to bring them in line with WP:CHEMMOS. Tables should be real tables, not embedded images. Do include references for images too. The point of Commons is to share our images with non-English Wikipedias. It would be nice if you could remove English language text too. Let me know if you need any help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for the constructive criticism on the oxaziridine article. I do have a couple of questions (obviously I'm not to this). First of all, is this the appropriate way for me to respond to you with regard to your comment? Second of all, I'm not quite sure the best way to cite the images. I created each image either based on the contents of one or more of the papers that are cited immediately prior. Some would not be attributed to one singular paper, some are very close to images that appear in the papers themselves. Advice for those cases would be welcome. I'm not sure which guidelines within the chem guidelines you're referring to. The images are in PNG format, and I'm not quite sure what else that would be in reference to. I quickly reviewed the guidelines but didn't see anything glaring. I can certainly reformat the table that I drew in Chemdraw to be a table with images instead of just one image, and I can remove all the english language from the images (ex. "open transition state", "major/minor", etc.) Is it appropriate to include the small tables with data such as yield and enantiomeric excess in the images? Please excuse the stream of consciousness of this message. I will certainly make the changes that you have indicated when I have a little more time. I'm currently in the middle of my finals and am trying to finish a number of projects by the end of the semester.

Thanks again and I look forward to your response.

DMelvinKaphan (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people prefer to centralize discussions, by continuing in the same talk page. But if I don't respond, you can always comment on my talk, as the big orange bar will get my attention.

In the image description page, copy your citation templates there. You can include "adapted from" or something like that. Take a look at my contributions. Commons:Special:Contributions/Rifleman_82. I'm not perfect, but I do try hard to do it right. Don't worry your images are generally fine. I wanted to draw your attention to our MOS, and I wanted you to know where to find guidance; would be nice to remove English text, but I told you that already.

Small tables are fine, but tables as uneditable images are not so desirable. Perhaps a matter of taste but some chemists (myself included) are skeptical about reported yields, which vary according to the worker, the time of the day, the phase of the moon. Unless they help prove a point, maybe that should not be included. But it often depends on the context.

Do remember to upload images of high resolution (pref. ~720 dpi). I'll watch your talk page, so do let me know if you have more questions. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I'll revise some of those images in a week or so when I'm on break and/or I'll use this as an opportunity to procrastinate this week. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, DMelvinKaphan – I'm glad to see another Chemist working on Wikipedia. I see you have already discovered the Chemistry WikiProject, and want to express my congratulations on the excellent work on the oxaziridine article. I see you have nominated it for consideration as a Good Article. FYI, I have also nominated it to appear on the main page under the Did You Know project – the nomination can be seen here: T:TDYK#oxaziridine. Please feel free to drop by my talk page (link after my signature) if I can be of help. Kind Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, Thanks very much for the information, the comments on the oxaziridine article. I put a lot of time into it. Ha, yes I nominated it to be a good article, perhaps a pipe dream, as there are a lot of improvements that can be made and not too many articles achieve the good article status (1 in 333, I think I saw earlier...). I also appreciate the nomination for the DYK section. The hook is great, and it would be very cool to see it up, if that were to happen. Thanks again, and I'll be sure to send any questions that I might have your way.DMelvinKaphan (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I got rhodocene through DYK and to GA status. I think oxaziridine needs some work, but I think it has a good shot at GA. EdChem (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific recommendations for edits to the oxaziridine page? In a week, once my finals have ended (or before as procrastination) I will be trying to polish up the article, including some changes that Rifleman 82 has recommended above. (On an unrelated note, if you don't mind me asking, how did you come to be such an active wikipedia editor? How much time do you spend editing a week?) DMelvinKaphan (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you come back after your finals are over? ;) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, although if I'm going to be procrastinating, it might as well be doing something productive. Thanks for both of your help and I'm going to go do some more schoolwork, I guess. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These are suggestions, and you should not feel obligated to follow them, though you may find some of them are endorsed by others. They are offered very much as constructive criticisms, and do recognise that the first draft is impressive.

1. Second sentence - I would not refer to people by just their surname on the first occurrence of the name, and most especially if the name is linked to a wiki-biography. I would use William Emmons in that sentence, and perhaps just Emmons after that.
2. I would either comprehensively reference the lede, or not reference it at all. Per WP:LEAD, it is a summary and everything in it should appear in the article, so it is not required to be referenced, but if it is referenced then those references need to be used elsewhere in the article. The lede should not include material that appears nowhere else in the article.
3. With reference 1 (and almost certainly others), where the author of a reference has a wiki-bio, that bio should be linked in the reference. If you use citation templates, this can be done as:

   <ref>{{cite journal|author = Emmons, W. D.|authorlink = William D. Emmons|title = ...

   or, if there are multiple authors,

   <ref>{{cite journal|author1 = ... |author3 = Emmons, W. D.|authorlink3 = William D. Emmons|title = ...

4. On a related point, the Starburst.png of reactions feels to me like something that belongs early in the main text, not in the lede - it is not, after all, repeated elsewhere. The generic image is sufficient for the lede, I think.
5. Where examples use specific natural products, it is nice to add some information on why that product is a chemically interesting target. My addition of information about yohimbine which I used to support the DYK hook is one example. There is scope for information about Taxol and why the oxaziridine was critical to the total synthesis, and for information about chaetominine and okadaic acid.
6. That the conformationally locked nitrogen makes the N atom a centre of chirality needs more background, I think. With the exception of experienced chemists, few readers will have much idea about chirality at non-carbon centres. To many, the idea of a tri-substituted nitrogen being chiral with a lone pair will seem strange, as would a chiral sulfoxide. This needs more introduction, or links to another article that covers it.
7. References need to be consistently formatted. Either use full names of journals, or abbreiations, but not a mix of both. Authors should have first names, or just initials, but not a mix. Titles should have either the first word capitalised, or all major words, but again not a mix of both. Articles in foreign languages should be recorded as such. References (like 21) where the title has italicising should be appropriately italicised, even though a lot of referencing services don't bother to do this.
8. Don't assume that a synthesis scheme speaks for itself - they provide a lot of information, and readers may appreciate having the salient points being noted in the text.
9. Section headings should only have the first word capitalised (there is a section of the Manual of Style about this) so it is "Hydroxylation of unactivated hydrocarbons" not "Hydroxylation of Unactivated Hydrocarbons" and "Nitrogen transfer" not "Nitrogen Transfer".

OK, I have typed more than enough, I hope that isn't too overwhelming. Please recognise that a lot of these are small nit-picky issues, but I think they will make the article noticably better. EdChem (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oxaziridine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an oxaziridine rearrangement reaction is the key step in the synthesis of erectile dysfunction medication yohimbine? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

For better or worse, the style guide WP:HEAD asks for uncapitalized words in section headings apart from proper nouns:

Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case (Rules and regulations, not Rules and Regulations).

I know it's a bit different from other places, but that's how it is here. Perhaps you can look into it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I think someone told me about that recently (you?) but I had it backwards in my head. I'll fix it. DMelvinKaphan (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was wondering if you can ask for file:Starburst.png to be moved to something more descriptive. That and other less descriptive filenames used. This makes your images easier to find, and re-use for other languages or other articles. You might find the following syntax useful for commons:

[[:en:oxaziridine|]]

This gives an inter-wikipedia link to the English article; the pipe (|) at the end is a magic thing to avoid you typing it out again.

I mentioned earlier, that it'd be nice to include the references you used to make the image in the image description page too. This makes it easier to check and verify the reactions (we all make mistakes, so being verifiable is always a Good Thing). Also, people who want to write or expand on such reactions have one more data point to work from.

By the way, typo in File:Alphahydroxasym.png, but if you were to make it language neutral, it probably will get fixed in another way.

Once again, all this is not urgent, and you can do it after your finals. Once again, good work with the images, very impressive. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you are looking for work... Here is my not-very-warm-and-fuzzy advice. Weinreb ketone synthesis is fairly specialized. To be sure, it is a vast improvement. In my opinion (not shared by everyone, mind you), the most useful kind of editing focuses on delivering overviews supported by general references, see WP:SECONDARY. Thousands of chemistry articles are published weekly, and Wikipedia has no chance (nor aspiration) of accounting for that minutia.

You could take a look at poorly rated but highly visited articles using http://toolserver.org/%7Ealexz/pop/view.php. You will find that the top 100-200 most visited chem articles are in good shape (have rankings such as A- or B-class) but as you go down to the 200-500 range, you will find important (organic or otherwise) topics have very weaker articles. These articles dont need an Org Lett like ref, they need overview explanations supported by refs to textbooks and other general sources. In any case, the good thing here is that you can write more or less what feels good so long as you are civil and unstupid. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, did you mean to post the same message on my talk page that you posted on the talk page for MDLevin?DMelvinKaphan (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DMelvinKaphan, I recently reviewed the article Oxaziridine, and determined that it was well-written enough to pass. Because you did the majority of the work on the article, I wanted to come and congratulate you on a job well done.

Now, if you are looking to make some more contributions to wikipedia, I am sure the community as a whole would be happy with whatever you decide to do, as you are clearly so knowledgeable and well-versed in organic chemical reactions. However, if I may make a suggestion, Oxaziridines are not the most well-known class of chemicals, and turning your attentions to more well-known compounds and reactions (for example, Ammonia was recently demoted from a Good Article for lack of in-line citations -- No, I'm not telling you what article to focus on next, just mentioning that there are many out there that need attention).

Again, well done! And I hope to see more from you in the future!

Spinach Dip 08:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for putting the time in to review the page. I will make some more contributions in the future, and hopefully they'll be more relevant ones. I have my eye on boron allylation (and/or other allylations). There doesn't seem to be any information on wikipedia as of yet.) DMelvinKaphan (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M.Levin 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DMelvinKaphan. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For making such cool figures on the Oxaziridine page M.Levin 22:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxaziridine, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!