# Talk:Nazarov cyclization reaction

The arrows on structures 2b and 2c are incorrect. 
as they are drawn, they show the formation of a 5 membered ring (which doesn't occur(they're resonace structures)) 
2b and 2c need 2 arrows going back the other way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.211 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

Disagree, structures 2b and 2c are resonance structures and the arrows just help explain how 3a and 3b (5-membered rings) subsequently form V8rik (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No I agree, the arrows should be from the internal olefin to the cation and from the exo-methylene to the internal position, i.e. 2 arrows where there is one; as drawn the arrows do mean nothing in conjunction with the structures (even as resonance arrows).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etheiste (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 

I've expanded this article significantly, and in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work for Professor Frontier, mentioned in the article several times, and whose review was my primary resource for the expansion. I tried to incorporate research with a neutral point of view with research from the "big names" (Tius, West, Frontier, Denmark) in Nazarov cyclization incorporated approximately equally. If anyone feels as though I've leaned too far towards Frontier's chemistry, please feel free to change or remove any sections, or add to this discussion. M.Levin 04:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nazarov cyclization reaction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Why is  axial to tetrahedral chirality transfer  highlighted in red text?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The article is sufficiently referenced, sources appear to be RS, I assume ggod faith for those sources which are inaccessible to me, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images need captions explaining their sourcing.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just a couple of points which need to be addressed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the fixes.  I didn't make myself clear about the captions.  They are fine now. Listing as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


### Modifications based on review
I've removed the broken link to tetrahedral-to-axial chirality. It was originally going to be a pet project based on this page, but I didn't have the time to write it in the mean time.
I've added licences to the images that were missing them on their respective wikimedia pages; I'm not sure what you mean about having the licences in the captions as that's not usually something I see on other pages. Let me know if I'm wrong, but there are plenty of good articles that do not have this.
Thanks for taking the time to review my work! M.Levin 06:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I've changed all the figures to thumb-type images so that the captions are visible without hovering over. Hopefully this is in line with what you wanted? M.Levin 18:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)