RFZYNSPY

The last step should have a simple arrow. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Smokefoot: I changed the image to have an equilibrium arrow instead of a resonance arrow. The reason I chose a resonance arrow is that it was what was used in the referenced article. I appreciate the attention to my image, but if in the future I make harmless typographical errors please consider keeping the image up while it's discussed. RFZYNSPY ^talk 07:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why suggest that an alkyl phenol exists in significant equilibrium with the enone? Smokefoot (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a question for the authors of the original article. I'm reluctant to change the arrow further because if the only justification for doing so is that Wikipedia editors predict ${\displaystyle k_{1}>>k_{-1}}$  I don't think we'd be following WP:NOR. RFZYNSPY ^talk 20:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Really? Our phenol article say K = 10^-13 for typical phenols. Furthermore, the authors of that lovely PNAS paper are probably biochemists after all. Almost always they are mediocre at chem (after all, they were the ones that used the awful double arrow implying resonance!). Enough, good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

One guess is maybe they were trying to leave open the possibility of an enzymatic effect stabilizing the enone? But that seems like a further leap than the case in which they just recognized it as tautomerization and slapped on a double headed arrow. I agree with you on the chemistry, though, and I appreciate the attention to detail. RFZYNSPY ^talk 21:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply