Talk:Dictionary of natural phenols and polyphenols molecular formulas

I object strongly to the confounding

…of lower molecular weight phenolic species, with mid-range and higher molecular weight species. Structural and functional distinctiveness is lost, and with it, understanding of the relationship between structure and function (SAR). Phenol, 2,2'-Dihydroxybiphenyl, bisphenol A, and ellagitannin—all of these appear to meet the criteria for the list, despite having completely disparate bioactivities and toxicities, and utilities in research and manufacturing or therapeutic practice. What leading research source has given us a basis for lumping all these together, without any clear point?

Simply put, this apples-and-oranges listing and the weak scientific understanding that it appears to reflect defies chemical and scientific credibility—look simply to the presentation of exact masses for groups of substances (search "others" in entries), and to the sophomoric opening, defining sentences (one removed and placed below, because completely confused in all respects). These aspects defy understanding, and any notion of source-based, encyclopedic writing reflective of general expertise and the preponderance of scientific opinion.

If the article does not cite a set of good secondary references, to leading journals or texts, to justify the confounding of so many structure types—to demonstrate clearly that this move to unify discussion and reporting of phenolic structures and properties around the most simplistic of structure features, a single phenolic moiety, is shared by scholars other than the small group of editors creating and maintaining this list—then I will move to have the article deleted. A retired professor and regular contributor, not logged. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to providing sourcing for ( a ) the scholarly concept that defines the unifying thrust of this list, and ( b ) for the purported factual data appearing in the list (per WP:verifiability, WP:Notability, and WP policies regarding lists, and scientific lists in particular), a further immediate request ( c ) is that the criterial for inclusion of items in the list is clearly set forth, again, based on WP policies governing lists. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical lede sentence moved to Talk

The following sentence makes no grammatical or scientific sense. It appears to single out one list entry, for estimation of its mass (though of this the reader cannot be entirely sure):

Based on the highest mass molecule in this table (Lambertianin D), the empirical formula of a aglycone phenolic compound is near C_3nH_2nO_2n.

Note the "a aglycone" construction. It is also unreferenced, and so appears to be WP:OR, and should not be returned without a source, and significant clarification as to its meaning and relevance to a lede representative of the content of the entire article. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]