Talk:3-(Difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BorgQueen (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
( )
The pyrazole acid
... that seven agricultural fungicides are amides of a specific pyrazole carboxylic acid (shown)?Source: doi:10.1002/9783527693931.ch31 or doi:10.1002/9783527825158.ch11, available from The Wikipedia Library- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Project Carryall
- Comment: Image is vital, as article title is not comprehensible to the average reader.
Created by Michael D. Turnbull (talk). Self-nominated at 12:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/3-(Difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
The article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided. I also didn't find any close paraphrasing. I am going to be frank here: I don't think the hook is hooky. It's very technical and requires specialist knowledge, specifically chemistry knowledge that I don't think the average reader would have, even with the links. Reading the article, it's also very technical, so unfortunately I also have doubts that the article is a good fit for DYK either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair comment but I thought that the whole point of DYK was to inform readers: why not teach them some chemistry! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull I'm sympathetic to the idea that subjects should not be disqualified for DYK simply because they are too technical or hard to understand. However, that's for subjects, not hooks. DYK rules do state that hooks need to be perceived as unusual or intriguing even to people without specialist knowledge. Meaning, in this case, the hook must be interesting even to someone who knows little about chemistry. I'm not saying that chemistry itself shouldn't be featured on DYK, we've had plenty of science hooks in the past and I'm a science buff myself. I just don't think the article is a good fit for DYK unfortunately given how the information given is so technical it's difficult if not impossible to write a hook that would be interesting to the general public and also easily understandable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: We've got a couple new hooks downstairs, check them out. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull I'm sympathetic to the idea that subjects should not be disqualified for DYK simply because they are too technical or hard to understand. However, that's for subjects, not hooks. DYK rules do state that hooks need to be perceived as unusual or intriguing even to people without specialist knowledge. Meaning, in this case, the hook must be interesting even to someone who knows little about chemistry. I'm not saying that chemistry itself shouldn't be featured on DYK, we've had plenty of science hooks in the past and I'm a science buff myself. I just don't think the article is a good fit for DYK unfortunately given how the information given is so technical it's difficult if not impossible to write a hook that would be interesting to the general public and also easily understandable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that seven commercial fungicides are derivatives of a single acid (shown)?
- That's probably as non-technical as it can get. If that isn't acceptable, I'm not too bothered, as I have plenty of other DYK to my name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that early blight, but not late blight, can be cured using pyrazole-4-carboxamides?
- This is as interesting as I can get it, since this is the most sterile (pun intended) topic imaginable. Source is doi:10.1002/9783527693931.ch31, page 418, but it would need to be added to the body of the article. Please double-check the facts, I'm not a chemist. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1 is not really much of an improvement I think. As for ALT2, I'm a bit concerned about that, not just because it's not yet in the article, but does it meet WP:MEDRS? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Festucalex, that's brilliant! I've added these details at the end of the article with several independent sources. Technically, it is related to the fact that SDHI don't work on oomycetes, which are in a different clade to fungi. The other advantage of this hook is that it doesn't require the chemical diagram. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Michael D. Turnbull:
You're welcome! 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Michael D. Turnbull:
- Thanks, Festucalex, that's brilliant! I've added these details at the end of the article with several independent sources. Technically, it is related to the fact that SDHI don't work on oomycetes, which are in a different clade to fungi. The other advantage of this hook is that it doesn't require the chemical diagram. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1 is not really much of an improvement I think. As for ALT2, I'm a bit concerned about that, not just because it's not yet in the article, but does it meet WP:MEDRS? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know about this. I remember there was a similar hook proposal on DYK recently that also had discussion because of MEDRS; I can't remember how it turned out, but I'm hesitant to approve ALT2, not just because it still seems technical, but also because of the MEDRS thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Perhaps we should call on BorgQueen or theleekycauldron or some other experienced DYK editor. What do you think? 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- That might be a good idea. The MEDRS discussion at WT:DYK is still active so I'll be pinging Tamzin and Theleekycauldron who both participated in that discussion. However, even if the hook is deemed suitable per WP:MEDRS, I still don't think it meets the non-specialist hook criterion, but at least this should give clarity. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was involved in a recent MEDRS discussion (now at Template_talk:Did_you_know_nominations/Viriditoxin, if that's it). IMO the sources for the current hook are fine but I'll defer to more experienced editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- As much as it pains me to say it, vegetables are not protected by the stringent sourcing requirements imposed by WP:MEDRS. WP:BMI exempts veterinary medicine, so I imagine that tomatoes go the same way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was involved in a recent MEDRS discussion (now at Template_talk:Did_you_know_nominations/Viriditoxin, if that's it). IMO the sources for the current hook are fine but I'll defer to more experienced editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- That might be a good idea. The MEDRS discussion at WT:DYK is still active so I'll be pinging Tamzin and Theleekycauldron who both participated in that discussion. However, even if the hook is deemed suitable per WP:MEDRS, I still don't think it meets the non-specialist hook criterion, but at least this should give clarity. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
In any case, although it seems that the hook might be okay WP:MEDRS wise, I'm still not 100% comfortable with it, and in any case, I don't think it meets the "intriguing to a non-specialist audience" criterion either. Sorry for the bad news. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
