Talk:Aldol condensation

message: I am reluctant to dismiss the examples given for this reaction, however, I do not believe they are very helpful for anyone wishing to see an example of the reaction listed in the title. Perhaps the examples could remain listed, but in the first case, it should be prefaced as an example of an unusual method for a mixed or crossed aldol reaction. It is several reactions combined for which aldol condensation would not readily come to mind from the reactants and products. 
The second example contains a factual error related to the abstract posted. They are different. Either the abstract is in error or the wiki is in error. If decompostion were to also occur, the products of that decomposition have been been provided. However, the abstract doesn't suggest a decompostion occurs. 
The third example contains a buried example of an aldol reaction. Again, I would doubt the average person interested in an aldol condensation could even pick out the named reaction.
Hopefully, either the orginators of the wiki would sef-edit their contribution appropiately or I should anticipate that an expert in the field of organic chemistry would see fit to simply delete these examples as rare or poorly relating to the original topic.
71.169.70.15 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aldol condensation 

message: Like many articles on scientific matters on Wikipedia, I think this page is overly concentrated on the technical, and not providing enough content for the general person.  Perhaps improving the introduction might be worthwhile.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, under what circumstances will someone unfamiliar with intermediate chemistry be reading an article called "Aldol condensation"?  Other than responses to random RfCs. — Demong talk 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in theory, it may not be attainable to make the whole article understandable.  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, or at least given an honest look at doing it as best as one can.  This is especially true for the introduction.  You may not succeed with the whole article.  I can't imagine anything where you can't make the first sentence meaningful by at least expressing some history and real-world usage.  And one never knows why someone will read a given article on Wikipedia.  People's browsing habits may lead them in all sorts of directions, not to mention the random article feature. That's why it's important to give a clear and understandable context that is as informative as possible.  I see no reason not to do so.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aldol condensations are important in organic synthesis and integral part of university level organic chemistry, providing a good way to form carbon–carbon bonds and demonstrate fundamental reaction mechanisms"... are there practical applications besides teaching university-level chemistry? — Demong talk 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I'd like to article to share the answer to that myself.  If not, perhaps explaining why it's important to demonstrate carbon-carbon bonds or describing some fundamental reaction mechanisms might help.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We now explicitly mention the Robinson annulation as a practical use of an aldol condensation. One of the whole points of Orgo at the undergrad level is to learn about reaction mechanisms (intro had previously excessively muddled the ideas of "good mechanistic example" with "good bond-forming". DMacks 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not "demonstrate carbon bonds" it's synthesize carbon bonds, and demonstrate fundamental mechanisms. It's right there three lines above your own comment. Aldol's are important because, IIRC, selective creation of C-C bonds are one of the more difficult things to achieve and this mechanism lets you do so brilliantly. --Belg4mit 20:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not aware of any rules or policies that say an article has no responsibility to provide context or explanation.  I am however, aware of things such as WP:PERFECT which clearly state 
*is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
*is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. 
There is also the featured article criteria to consider, which says 
*"Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
And Wikipedia:Article development
Start your article with a concise lead section or introduction defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading the lead, which should be between one and four paragraphs long, depending on the length of the article. See Wikipedia:Lead section.
Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article's subject early on.
among other things.  Instead of commenting on me (WP:NPA), why don't you try improving this article?  It would be much more effective.  Thus I will re-add the clean-up templates since the concerns I expressed are unfixed.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this article is overly technical at all (but then I do have a background in chemistry). Could the intro use some polishing? Sure. But you are wrong to expect that every single article related to organic chemistry should itself include a crash course in organic chemistry. --Belg4mit 20:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly technical 

message: We're all volunteers here. While I can appreciate good-faith requests, I'll be damned if I have to cater to the whims of every reader.
I feel personally that we, as editors, have no such obligation. I'll write whatever I write. If you like it, fine and well. If you don't, and if I have the time, effort, motivation, I might give a shot. If I don't, you can do it yourself. Or not.
Badgering the editors here, demanding "improvements" just isn't the way. I would simply ignore a tag I didn't agree with. --Rifleman 82 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And treating people's good-faithed concerns that there are problems with a page as a demand isn't a good idea either.  If you don't care to fix it, well, certainly you're not obliged to fix it.  Wikipedia is a volunteer-based system. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed just because you don't care for the cleanup tag.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligations 

message: I do not believe the article is too technical for the readers it targets; however, the inclusion of more human-interest information would be helpful for Random-button readers. Human-interest would include the discoverer(s) of this process, as well as specific examples of this reaction in chemical synthesis of recognizable products (ie drugs), or in cellular processes. These are hinted at, but not stated directly. Also, the article does not demonstrate the arrow mechanism of this reaction, nor does it cite or link examples of the arrow mechanism readily available online. The reader targeted by this article would probably find the arrow mechanism helpful. DayBaye 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aldol condensation is most often discussed in the context of an aldol reaction, and that (featured article!) page has historical info and the full arrow-pushing mechanisms. Feel free to import whatever parts of that article would improve the one here. DMacks 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it, but as I am still unfamiliar with wikipedia editing, would like someone to make sure it's okay! DayBaye 21:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks reasonable to me. Thanks for improving this page! DMacks 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible corrections to technical complaints 

message: I'm not sure how to go about rating articles, might look into. But I'd suggest that this is a topic of high importance. --Belg4mit 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I saw this page at the RfC list. I think this page is not overly technical (I do have a BS in biophysics/biochem). Is there a confusion between aldol condensation and aldol reaction? Maybe that's the point of confusion? Otherwise, the reaction diagrams are plentiful and clear, and the wording seems sufficient. Antelan talk 08:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider that there have been many changes to the article since the RfC. --Itub 09:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the RfC accomplished its goal, I suppose? Congrats to all who have been working on the article, then. It looks good. Antelan talk 10:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from RfC 

message: I would like the article to explain more about the thermodynamic and kinetic control neccessary for the aldol reaction since they are extremely important for what product you would obtain.
I would also highly recommend people to read Advanced Organic Chemistry by Carey and Sundberg for more information regarding this topic.
The Aldol Condensation reaction article in general is too brief and does not contain enough essential detail and references
Zyvov 01:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermodynamic Control, Kinetic Control and References 

message: I propose that this article be merged into the aldol reaction.  The two articles are highly redundant.  The topic is important. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing merge proposal, given no support for a merge and no consensus for alternative proposal. Klbrain (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into Aldol reaction