Talk:Axial chirality
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Axial chirality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050123014310/http://siggy.chem.ucla.edu:80/VOH/30A/Dinitrobiphenyl_(COOH)2.pdf to http://siggy.chem.ucla.edu/VOH/30A/Dinitrobiphenyl_(COOH)2.pdf#search='axial%20chirality'
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Inconsistency
According to the article, the molecule is viewed from the side with higher priority. As far as I know, priority is determined by the atomic number of each atom around the stereocenter. If I'm not mistaking chlorine has priority over oxygen and therefore the molecule 4-chloropenta-2,3-dien-2-ol should have been viewed from the other side. The change would make no difference to the classification of the molecule as R or S (Ra/Sa or P/M) which was determined correctly. Please correct me if wrong about this.Infolunch (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are obviously correct about the relative atomic numbers of Cl vs O and the general idea of ranking by atomic number. But in context there is "the additional rule that the two near substituents have higher priority than the far ones." Therefore, the front are "1 and 2" vs the rear "3 and 4" regardless of how the front compare to the rear. I added a cite (with quote) from the IUPAC rules to the article. DMacks (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)