Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review/Organic chemistry

There are some outstanding issues on the todo list:

Verify: Much greater use of inline citation is needed along with a wider source of references
Expand: Add images to beautify article (see Inorganic chemistry for an excellent example)

Apart from that, what else needs to be done? --Rifleman 82 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that we might go too far with pictures: it should demonstrate something essential, as conciseness is more important. The old Engish adage comes to mind: "Is your question really necessary?" I feel that a drawing to show single, double, and triple bond compounds and about alicyclics in the same block as the aromatics to show the comparison would help, but I am not sure about the swimming beauty

I do not know what audience you were aiming for with this page, but I can tell you that for someone with only a passing familiarity of chemistry, I found this page a bit difficult to follow at times (particularly beginning with the "aliphatic" section). There were so many undefined terms that one would have to click on to understand the material. It is almost as if one has to have taken organic chemistry to understand the page. I will point to just one example - covalent bonding. While that is taught in many advanced high school chemistry classes, how many people remember exactly what it is? Since it is easy enough to describe in a sentence or two, why not do it? If you are aiming only for chemistry and biology majors, though, I am sure that it is more than acceptable.
The history section should also probably have a consistent verb tense. It is a little jarring otherwise.
Perhaps an illustration of a line function in the nomenclature section so that those unfamiliar with it will know what it is?

I fully agree with your remarks, and I shall make one or two suggestions

THANKS FOR COMPLIMENT +923013572221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.35.142 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]