Talk:Schiff test

The formula seemed to be wrong. See: http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/nat_Fak_IV/Organische_Chemie/Didaktik/Keusch/p3_ald_add.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.53.203.95 (talk) 05:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

article now updated on mechanism but Regensburg website is also wrong. V8rik 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki article needs clarification based on best (1980) citation

Here is a decent summary of the '80 NMR paper, which can be adapted to this wiki article. It can be reasonably well translated using google translate. Please do not try to do better at discerning this matter than the authors of this paper, and Prof Dr Seifert. LeProf

  http://daten.didaktikchemie.uni-bayreuth.de/cnat/fa_paare/schiffsche_probe.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.123.248 (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book chapter citation needs to be standardized ...

including with authors, page numbers, etc. LeProf

On closer examination, figure appeared to be incorrect, so major edit performed.

The accepted mechanism image appears to be substantially in error, based on the Beyreuth summary, and so it is temporarily removed.

Without the accepted mechanism appearing correctly, the old Wieland mechanism was also temporarily removed, so the article is not imbalanced (by having only a non-germane, historical mechanism, without the currently accepted one).

Even though these images are removed, the mechanisms are accurately described in the text.

However, I did not check the content of the historical or biological/histological references. The text appearing based on these is essentially the same as was in the article originally, because I took on faith that these references' main conclusions were accurately described. (There was some redaction, because of language that made it appear that an earlier paper agreed with a later (!), but that prose can be replaced if suitable rewording is arrived at.)

I invite someone with chem and wiki scheme experience to visit the Beyreuth page, translating as necessary, to generate the accepted mechanism as I described it. ChemDraw or other image sources, brought into Wiki, is not one of my technical editorial abilities yet.

Finally, I reordered the mechanisms, putting accepted mechanism first for obvious reasons.

I also reduced alternating uses of bisulfite and sulfurous acid for the sake of the reader, and explained the relationship between these species.

FInally, I did "first pass" tidying of the general organic language, and removed various typos. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.123.248 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify the errors found in the images. Thanks V8rik (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no errors reported in the Wieland mechanism, it was simply removed (as stated), because having the scheme of an older believed version of mechanism present, without the currently accepted version, left the article imbalanced in scope. As for the incorrect aspects of the other removed scheme/image: Please look to the Beyreuth page appearing above, and compare that scheme to the image that appeared in the former wikipedia version. As noted immediately above, "google translate" will do a fair job with a first draft translation (though I would guess as a European chemist you already read the German).

One cannot, in chemistry, easily describe these things (in the time I have to give to wikipedia), but incorrect is incorrect, as you will see looking at the two schemes side by side. (Chemical schemes must be created direct from reliable sources; to use available schemes or to generate them otherwise is fraught with dangers, glaring and subtle.) LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]