Template:Did you know nominations/1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Nominator has been blocked and talk page access removed; they were unable to transclude this nomination, and it's clearly too late for them to pursue it. In addition, they did not respond to the editors who fixed and expanded the article so it could qualify. Closing as out-of-process and unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole
1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole
... that 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole (pictured) can prevent powdery mildew, wheat leaf rust and many more diseases in wheat and barley?Source: [1]- ALT1:... that 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole (pictured) has been known since 1888? Source: "1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole". Houben-Weyl Methods of Organic Chemistry Vol. E 8d, 4th Edition Supplement: Hetarenes III (Five-Membered Rings with Two and More Heteroatoms in the Ring System) - Part 4. 14 May 2014. pp. 93–104. ISBN 9783131812445.
ALT2... that 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole (pictured) is readily prepared by the diazotisation reaction of 2-aminothiophenol with sodium nitrite? Source: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acid Of Carbon (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Created by Acid Of Carbon (talk). Self-nominated at 06:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC).
- First hook fails WP:V. Those properties and ref are actually for a different chemical that has a a related structure and similar generic name. DMacks (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Michael D. Turnbull, as you have rewritten the article and it is now long enough to qualify for DYK, is this something you are interested in pursuing here? At the moment, the nomination has yet to be transcluded by Acid Of Carbon, so it is not active and will not be unless it is transcluded (or someone requests assistance here). You won't need to supply a quid pro quo review, but if there are questions about the remaining hooks (I've struck the first one per the comment from DMacks) or other issues with the article, we would hope you could respond to them. Please let us know, and many thanks for updating the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thanks for taking an interest in this. Actually, as my update to the article now shows, the hook needs to be for 1887 (not 1888) and give the early citation (doi:10.1002/cber.188702001423) if used at all. Personally I think that the article has little to interest general readers and would be a bit of a waste of the DYK opportunity when much better science/chemistry articles exist. However, I leave that to more experienced editors than myself to decide and complete the transclusion if warranted. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Michael D. Turnbull that this article doesn't merit a DYK. As a chemist, if the original creator had been interested in pursuing work their version to bring it up to par, I'd obviously welcome it and help edit. But nothing came of that except a nearly complete redo-from-scratch. DMacks (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)