Talk:Leptospermone

Common name of the source plant

The article gives the source plant as "Lemon Bottlebrush", but the article Callistemon citrinus says the plant is called "Crimson Bottlebrush". So somebody's wrong, or else it's called both (and both this article and the [[Callistemon citrinus] article should be edited to reflect this). Anybody have any info on this? Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

mehtnae?

Re "...using sodium ethoxide in mehtnae to produce an intermediate...", is mehtnae correct? It seems an unusual spelling construction even given that it's an obscure substance, and Google comes up completely blank, which is unusual even for an obscure entity. Is this perhaps a misspelling of "methane"? Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear to me too what it is supposed to be, so I have just removed it. The sentence makes sense without it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming?

I removed "Leptospermone is the common name for 1-hydroxy-2-isovaleroyl-4,4,6,6-tetramethylcyclohexen-3,5-dione" as it may be somewhat confusing in this context, as it is the name of one of the possible tautomers of the Leptospermone. --OneMadScientist (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Antibacterial?

In vitro activity against bacteria does not make the citation medical in nature, so far it is more biological. So at that stage where medical application / activity is not yet concerned, I believe a primary source may be feasible. 70.137.135.214 (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Any secondary sources mentioning it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No hits "leptospermone+antimicrobial" on pubmed, no article citing the removed primary source. 70.137.135.214 (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

please note that there is a strong preference for WP:SECONDARY sources for all of Wikipedia, per WP:RS. Using secondary sources is called for by the policies WP:OR and WP:NPOV. It is especially important to use secondary sources for health related content (which interpreted broadly), since research (published in what we call primary sources) so often turns out to unreplicable or a dead end. Reviews (secondary sources) point us to what a given field holds as valid results. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As the removed primary source is cited nowhere and topic gives no hits on pubmed - you convinced me. May be spurious primary research. 70.137.133.195 (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

various problems

It's a tetraketone rather than triketone (unless a specialized definition of triketone is being used). Typo - Phluroisovalerone. If "the biochemical synthesis has not been specifically investigated" how do we know that "the plants take a different approach"? "ei. C15) as the cyclisation" should presumably be "i.e. C15) as the cyclization". "the result of the decarboxylative condensation" does not make sense. 69.72.92.96 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)