Talk:Torquoselectivity
- inward or outward is not simple. - can not change quote, but added new sentence restating quote in simplier terms.
- seen is passive. - done
- derives is not simple. -done
- The reaction producing doesn't sound very simple. - done
- i.e. try to avoid abreviations. - done
- torque is not simple. -done
- discrimination is not simple. - link
- enantiomers is not simple. - link
- Conrotatory and disrotatory are not simple.
- Would it be enough if I wrote the definitional articles for each of these terms? Racepacket (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- If it would be like a dictionary definition, then it should probably be on Wiktionary rather than here. -Barras (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be a very short encyclopedia article about conrotatory and disrotatory reactions, very similar to the torquoselectivity article, but perhaps shorter. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK! No objections to articles here. -Barras (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- It would be a very short encyclopedia article about conrotatory and disrotatory reactions, very similar to the torquoselectivity article, but perhaps shorter. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- If it would be like a dictionary definition, then it should probably be on Wiktionary rather than here. -Barras (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be enough if I wrote the definitional articles for each of these terms? Racepacket (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- distinct is not simple. - link
- neighboring is not simple. - link
- chirality is not simple. - link
That's it, I think. -Barras (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)