Talk:DL-Phosphinothricin

message: I moved this as -thricin had a lot more google scholar hits than -tricin. Smartse (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Glyphosate and glufosinate are NOT identical compounds!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.98 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical confusion 

message: None of the references seem to be valid anymore so it is difficult to assess the validity of the data in the page. Furthermore I'm not certain that the name DL-Phosphinothricin is correct for this compound. Certainly on Alan Wood's pesticides pages which is generally a very useful resource it is referred to as: glufosinate-ammonum  http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/derivatives/glufosinate-ammonium.html .--The chemistds (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Both names are correct (see e.g. this review) but I think you are correct that glusofinate ammonium is more commonly used, particularly when refering to it as a herbicide, whereas phosphinothricin is used more in biochemical publications. Compare recent publications for glufosinate and phosphinothricin.SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article out of date and possibly wrongly named

message: Tentative Bibliography
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/genetically-engineered-crops-may-produce-herbicide-inside-our-intestines/ Helenma (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational project

message: Overall, I think this a very informative article so far. You guys have a great format with exciting information. The major issue in this article is the amount of content. You guys have a great start, and I'm excited to read the completed article. Below you will see my thoughts on each individual section.
Introduction:
The lead section is straightforward, and gives a great overview of the article.
History:
You have a great start, but I think this section needs to be expanded. Instead of using a bullet point format, I believe a paragraph format will flow better. It will allow the reader to better understand the history of DL- Phosphinothricin.
Production:
This section is straightforward, and very informative. It could be expanded some more.
Human Exposure Sources:
I think the first 2 subheadings can be simplified. Maybe you can change it to “Environmental exposure” and “Food Exposure”. Other than this, I think this section is nicely formatted, and informative. 
Toxicity:
This section is well formatted, and you have a great start. It just needs to be expanded some more if there’s new research on the topic.
Health Effects and Environmental Effects and Issues: 
These will be good sections to have, and I'm excited to see what you find on these topics.
US Regulation:
I think you should consider changing the name of this section to “Regulation” or “ “World regulation”, and try to find information about regulation standards for other countries. This prevents the article from being US-centered.  bellre (talk) 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, I think the article looks really good so far! I'd never heard of this chemical before so I definitely learned a lot. Here are some suggestions I have for a few different sections:
Intro: This is really nit-picky, but it should be "...potent inhibitor of glutamine synthetase" not "...potent inhibitor to glutamine synthetase"
History: Maybe discuss why exactly DL - phosphinothricin is being used on DL - phosphinothricin resistant crops. Is it to kill off anything else that is growing alongside the crops? Also explain the significance of using the chemical as a crop desiccant and how that facilitates harvest, because you reference this point again in the Human Exposure Sources section and I'm confused as to what the point of desiccating the crop before harvest is. 
Toxicity: Explain what exactly the chemical does to the human reproductive system. Discuss the GHS categories more and explain what "Category 4" really means -- how many categories are there and how bad is category 4?
US Regulation: State the maximal residue limits if you can find them. Has food been tested to see if it contains levels above the max limit?
Those are my thoughts, but overall, the article looks great! 
Environdisruptersbad (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Manual of style:
* Italicize genus/species
* Smallcaps for DL
Linking:
* No embedded external links in the prose (see WP:FOOTNOTE)
* Use Wikilinks (not URLs) for links to other WP articles
* Use Wikilinks in preference to external links when there's an article available (external links prove facts (WP:V policy for content), internal links help readers learn about topics (builds the encyclopedia))
DMacks (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again tagged for link-rot. User:Helenma removed it but left half of them as bare URLs. That's exactly the kind of referencing problem this tag represents. I look forward to editors interested in seeing the tag removed fixing that actual problem. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Finished fixing the cleanups I noted. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: doi:10.2203/dose-response.12-039.Simonovic has information about biochemistry related to an individual enantiomer of the parent compound, not just the commercial product (racemic ammonium salt). DMacks (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: ref supports some commercial materials are a polypeptide (not ammonium salt) and of single chirality (not DL). DMacks (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead-ref for expansion: chirality 

message: The recent editors seem hell-bent on using sources that fail WP:RS (partisan/advocacy/agenda-driven websites), let alone the stronger WP:MEDRS level needed for medical claims. The content seems to be driven by what these sources say, with a result that the article is WP:UNDUE on risks and laundry-lists of technical data from primary sources rather than summaries from neutral secondary sources. It's reached well beyond one or two sentences or small parts, but actually becoming worse, with no comments from the students involved (in contrast to my and some other editors using edit-summaries). I refer students back to your apparent 31 March class on "Open discussion of the concepts of neutrality, media literacy, and the impact and limits of Wikipedia." DMacks (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the edits yesterday have made the article worse overall rather than improving it (sorry). I left notes with two of the editors poining them to better sources and search strategies, but sadly they've not edited since and the course appears to be over. If I didn't kow thst it was student, I woud have already massively trimmed the crud and unless they start communicating I will probably do this soon. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Helenma has devolved into introducing factual errors, so I was forced to block her to prevent further disruption and damage to this article. I still WP:AGF, but we're we're here to write a public encyclopedia first, not as a private school-project. DMacks (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality 

message: L is the key active isomer (presumably as derived from the original natural sources, and for effect as pesticide), but the article is for the DL mixture. Need cited support for current products being the mixture. There are some patents covering specific (or at least enriched-mixture) production of L. And the article does cover the biochemical aspects, where the isomers are different in various ways. If we're covering all these ideas in one article, should it just be titled "Phosphinothricin", rather than seeming to limit to the DL form? DMacks (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chirality of the commercial material, and article-title