User talk:Innerstream

An IP on enwiki reported a mistake in this image of yours. I annotated it with the detail. File:Guaijaverin.png seems correct. Once the SVG is fixed, that poor PNG can be DR'ed. I have no idea if the current SVG is a chemical of interest worth keeping (at a better filename) or not. DMacks (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for relaying the information to me. I have now corrected the image and put it back into the article. Innerstream (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innerstream! I noticed you created the chemical structure image for olgotrelvir File:Olgotrelvir.svg. I am by no means an expert in organic chemistry, so I could be completely off-base, but it appears that image may have an error. The image looks different on several different sources. For example, PubChem[1], MedChemExpress[2], and the automated structure derived from the SMILES (CC(C)CC(C(=O)NC(CC1CCNC1=O)C(O)S(=O)(=O)O)NC(=O)C2=CC3=CC=CC=C3N2) on Smi2Depict[3] appear different. For example, the double-bounded oxygen in the amide group coming off the carbon attached to the indole group and the double bond oxygen from the next amide group seem to be facing towards each other in the image you created, while they are not in the other images. Could you double-check when you get a chance? I apologize ahead of time if I am incorrect. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedialuva. Thanks for reviewing the chemical structure. In this case, I believe it is correct. The differences that you observe in various images are actually chemically equivalent because of the possibility of free rotation about the bonds. These are essentially conformational differences. The connectivity of atoms, which is what defines the difference between chemicals such as this, is the same in each visual representation. Innerstream (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and making sure the image was accurate, along with the explanation why; it was very helpful. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When outlining text in an SVG diagram (as you did here), please remember to:

1. Remove Category:Structured SVG if the image was generated by a program (as opposed to being hand-written/edited in a text-editor)
2. Update the {{Image generation}} parameters so that it better reflects the image's creation method:

   {{File generation description
   | SVG tool = Batik
   | W3C error count = 0
   | Topic = structural formula
   | Text as path = yes
   }}
   

I already updated the infobox for Pyrrolidine from tetrahydrofuran.svg, but just a heads up for next time. Thanks! — Alhadis (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those updates. I'll now know what to do next time. Innerstream (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting images to some of my drafts - but isn't this one depicting tetrabutylborate? Tetrapropylborate should have three carbons on each chain. I'd edit it myself but don't have a good SVG editor on hand until this evening. Fishsicles (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishsicles: You're right. Thanks for catching that. I have now corrected the image. Innerstream (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fishsicles (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your corrected structure has a methyl on the phenol ring.--2.101.54.127 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks for catching that. I have now corrected the image. Innerstream (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first structure looks incorrect. The OH should be one carbon closer to the N (en:Wenker synthesis usually requires vicinal O/N), and that whole right-hand chain one carbon shorter (otherwise it does not match the next structure's chain). DMacks (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Thanks for noticing the error. I have now corrected it. Innerstream (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why, but the edited version of this image does not display correctly. The letters are visible but not the bonds. I reverted the change so at least we have a usable (albeit opaque background, etc.) version. DMacks (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I'm certain that it looked fine when I uploaded it. Thanks for restoring the working version. Innerstream (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]