This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There's an error in the image going from cmpd. 38-39, the Heck reaction. There's an extra methyl group on the alkene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.185.163 ( talk) 04:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for pointing out the error. I am not sure how fast we can correct it though V8rik ( talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

There is an error in the scheme ( File:Danishefsky AB preparationBK-export4.svg) in this section, with the selenium in compound 19 depicted as a sulfur. The scheme File:Taxol total synthesis by Danishefsky 2.svg does not contain this error, and actually seems a superior choice for a few reasons: the colours are not so bright, which I like; the compound numbers are aligned much better under the compounds; and the bonds seem a bit sharper, maybe they are thicker? makes it much easier to read. Any reason we don't use this image instead? - Shudde ^talk 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for pointing out the error. I am not sure how fast we can correct it though: we lack editors willing to do corrections. User Calvero is well known in Wikipedia for making excellent images although it helps if you have access to an expensive graphical editor V8rik ( talk) 21:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Assuming the Se error and numbering positions were corrected in File:Danishefsky AB preparationBK-export4.svg, is there anything superior this image vs File:Taxol total synthesis by Danishefsky 2.svg? That is, is it worth correcting it, or just deleting it as incorrect and only redundant anyway even if corrected? DMacks ( talk) 16:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    • In my opinion the sulfur is an important error and worth correcting. 142.163.78.255 ( talk) 23:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply