This page is an. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the.FEEDBACK HERE IS NOW CLOSED FOR VERSION 0.8. Thank you for giving us a lot of useful comments! If you missed the deadline, please contact us on the main.Please leave feedback here regarding the Version 0.8 offline selection. If you are representing the views of a WikiProject, please mention that, and add a link back to the relevant discussion.We will review all comments here and usually follow the advice of the WikiProjects. Occasionally, of course, there may be conflicting views, in which case members of the 1.0 team will use their judgement.

03:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Note I will be travelling until Monday October 11th, but comments below will be responded to during the week following that. 04:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC). Contents.Potential addition: AviationI'll start out by state that I am not a representative of, and thus my feedback is not of the project's overall generation but of my own personal views.

Clutch helps you with the textbook Organic Chemistry by Loudon 6th. Check out our videos for help! Organic Chemistry Loudon. 6th Edition. 9349. Ozonolysis Full Mechanism Oxidative Cleavage Radical Reaction Radical Stability Free Radical Halogenation Radical Selectivity Anti Markovnikov Addition of Br Free. Download and Read Free Online Organic Chemistry, 5th Edition By Marc Loudon. Editorial Review. Review The fifth edition of this text continues to refine the author's characteristically elegant, mechanism-based framework for introducing organic chemistry. Professor Loudon has inspired several generations of students.

I noticed an announcement by your selection bot asking for feedback, and after reviewing the list of aircraft, there are a few choice items that you may wish to add to the 0.8 Version within this subject. I believe it would be expressly important to include aircraft of a famed and unique nature: the already selected being the most obvious example that comes to mind. Two articles show promise in my opinion, the (The famed 'Harrier jump-jet' in its most well known form, one of very few mainstream V/STOL jets and the most successful) and the (the first mainstream tilt-rotor aircraft, crossing the line between helicopter and plane). Including these unique aircraft could help broaden the horizon of possibilities for those with an interest in the field yet with limited resources available, they're both articles of a high quality and are of GA class as of current revisions.

In my opinion, they're worthy inclusions. 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)On a slightly different note, I found it odd that the was included, but the was not; the latter being a far more common and useful WW2 aircraft (though overshadowed by the, it is argueably more effective in the Battle of Britain and less fussy on rapair work, and was of more use across the Empire as opposed to the Home Front).

As I am not sure of the reasons why it was not included, it may have bee discounted for valid reasons. 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)For consideration:- (GA) and (Start). The accident led to the only directly awarded to a woman in peacetime. 10:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Actually, the Osprey and the Hurricane are included (the latter scores very highly), as is the. You have so many great aviation articles (almost 1000 selected for V0.8), you need to change the default to 500 to see them.

However, it looks to be a minor bug in the bot coding that missed the - I think this was given a low score because it was recently renamed, and under the new name it had close to zero page views. Based on the hits in the last few days, this is a definite 'Include'. Thanks for catching that! As for the Gladiator, my late father might have disagreed - he was in convoys during the, and the Gladiators were about the only thing between him and the Stukas!

We can include the Gladiator too, fortunately. Regarding and, she's clearly a courageous woman and it was clearly a tragedy, but these alone doesn't merit inclusion. I'll check into the statistics more - there may be a page-move problem here like the Harrier, which may cause hits to be undercounted - but on the face of it, the scores are well below our threshold (BOAC Flight 712 scores 776, the threshold is 1240 from at least one project). 21:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know the scoring system, and will leave that to those involved with this project. As I said, the articles were suggested for consideration. The Jane Harrison page was moved recently, and I trust that my suggestions will be properly evaluated.

If the articles are not chosen after due consideration, then I'm happy with that. 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I looked into the stats some more, and it does look like BOAC Flight 712 and Jane Harrison (GC) both fall well below the threshold. For both articles, there are no versions in other languages, and there are only a few readers per day, so it's hard to make the case that they are more important than, say, (300 hits per day, 14 other languages), which it might have to replace. Thanks for your input, anyway! 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I've added British Aerospace Sea Harrier manually, but left out the flight 712 and Harrison articles. Thanks03:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) WikiProject Alternative music revisionswill post revision IDs we want to replace the selected versions here as we come upon them:.

forthcoming; article currently under Featured Article Review. 13:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Great - thanks! I'll hold off processing these until October, since you're still adding stuff. 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Immaculate ConceptionI had tagged this article for clean up and citation but an editor has removed the tags without any substantial improvement.

The content is factored with and needs quite a bit of clean up. 23:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)On Henrik's site it states: 'This article ranked 2217 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org'. Bearing in mind that its getting hits as a 'scholarly' subject (vs pop culture or sex-related) means it is an article we would really like to have. Would it be possible for WikiProject Christianity (or a sub-project) to try and resolve this problem ASAP, so we can have an NPOV version for 0.8? Otherwise it will look like we have a gaping hole in our coverage in this area. Thanks21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)The problem is with an editor there who is loading up the page with original research. He then uses Google books as citations but they don't support the claims.

The article is a mess and is loaded with fallacies. The editor there won't allow any changes to be made. He's removed the tags I've placed. The page needs to be locked and edited without him. 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Could you perhaps suggest an older revisionID - even a year ago if you like - from before this controversy began? 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Yes, I will go look now, but the problem is, this dominate editor, edits obsessively and the older pages are probably lost by now. But I will look right now.

02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)No, sorry to say there's no version currently accessible by going into the earliest history. It's loaded with errors and false sources. It needs a complete rewrite. I would do it but this editor turns every page into a battlefield. It would take me several days to do a complete rewrite using. Is there a way to lock the page so that can be accomplished?

02:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)I'm not an admin, but I think you'd need to get several other people from WP:Christianity and WP:Catholicism to support your proposal - and preferably to help with the writing, too. History2007 has been editing the article actively since early 2008, so I think you'd need to make a very strong case, otherwise he/she could argue 'There is a newer editor to the page who is trying to trash large, well-established parts of the article that are well-referenced, just to push his/her POV.'

BTW, older versions of the article don't get 'lost' - you can go; perhaps that version is uncontroversial?! Please let us know how you get on. Thanks03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC). not important enough. no compelling reason to add.

only C-Class, no compelling reason to add. OK, added. not important enough.

only Start-Class, no compelling reason to add. only 8 page views/day - not important enough. not important enough. close, but not quite. not important enough. not important enough.

not important enough. not important enough. OK, added. not important enough. not important enough. not important enough.

not important enough. not important enough. not important enough. not important enough. OK, added as an example. close! If this were B, I'd add it.

likewise, if it were improved to B I'd add it. not important enough. not important enough.

not important enough. not important enough. now - cleanup tags, only Start at present. Start-Class article on an insignificant TV station. only a Stub! Also not important enough.

not important enough. Only a Stub! Also not important enough. not important enough. not important enough. not important enough.

not important enough. close for importance, but article is poor quality. not important enough. not important enough. significant topic, but article needs a good cleanup before we can include it. if this were a GA or FA, we'd include it.

A nice FA. I'll include it. It scores poorly because there are no other languages that cover this topic, which is reasonable; however, it gets a healthy number of hits considering it's an article about a road. As you imply, it captures something of the Nevada and US highway culture, nearly all of which won't make it in - this makes a nice representative example of that.

only Start-Class, topic not important enough. not important enough. it may be famous locally, but it's not important enough for a global selective release. Even, which is much more famous, didn't make it into the selection.

01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Thanks for taking the time to put together quite a large selection. I can't add many, or I'd be accused of gross bias; anyway, many of these are poor quality (no one has even nominated a Stub for inclusion before!) or unimportant for a global release (several are listed as Low-Importance even for the Nevada WikiProject!). Pinus longaeva, Old Spanish Trail and Paiute people are the types of topics that would go down well in this collection (which will mainly be used in schools in developing countries) but the articles need to be improved first. There are a few nice things in there, which I've added, viz. CityCenter, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, U.S.

Route 50 in Nevada. Thanks04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject BhutanIm from WikiProject Bhutan and here is what i think should change for our articlesRemove. Not in Bhutan and low importance. They dont speak that in Bhutan. Bhutan has been independent all its exsistace and never ruled by foreignersAdd.

top importance and it has good quality. top imortance and has good quality.national language. GA(WikiProject Bhutan only has 4 GA so there important)Thats what i think should change 03:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Well well. Tells its readers that In Bhutan those who speak Nepali (known as Lhotshampa) are estimated at between 40 percent and 50 percent of the population, or about 1 million people. 00:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Yes but the main and offical language is. 03:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)The first three were tagged for this project - if they don't belong, the talk page tags should be removed. They will be included in the selection because of their importance to other topics.

I see that the university has architecture modeled after that of Bhutan - but it is included in this selection only because of its importance to US education. The flag can definitely be added. The other three all score extremely low on things like no. Of page views; however, in the interests of comprehensiveness, we do want to include some Bhutan content.

I think we should include Dzongkha, as it is the official language, even though the article still needs more work. We can also include Punakha Dzong, which scores very low but it WAS the seat of govt for many centuries and it is still an important historic building, and the article is GA. The palace article, however, is not such good quality, and scores very low on external interest, so I think we'll have to omit this. If it makes it to GA, we can include it next time. Many thanks07:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject NASCARRemove:.

Only made three career starts.Add:. Car owner. Major team. Three time champion. FounderIf you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note at. 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)I responded at WT:NASCAR. Thanks06:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC) WikiProject Jazzhad identified some rather puzzling inclusions in the list (e.g.

), and/or questioned their importance ratings (, ). I think part of this may have had to do with the rating from one project getting grandfathered into another. I'm not sure who can go through the entire list, or when.

Is there a plan to generate the list again, or do you prefer that the Project provide you with a revised list? - 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)I would suggest adding the following articles for the 0.8 release (they were not on the ). I based these purely on importance of the articles, and not on article quality (which may not be so helpful).

At any rate, here they are:.- 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I replied at WT:JAZZ. Thanks06:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)As the main contributor to the squash project, I Arteyu would like to propose some important squash articles to be part of Version 0.8. The articles are as per listed below:.19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)I'd prefer to see a stronger quality for these, but I understand the problems for a small project. I think we can include World Open and Jahangir Khan, but the others are a bit too specialised. Thanks 16:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject History of photographyYou have several nominees whose significance to photography is minimal or zero, but who I suppose are worthwhile in other ways.You also list of. This has several long and rather adulatory quotations about him, all unsourced.

Its list of exhibitions is also completely unsourced. Rivera-Ortiz appears to be doing very worthwhile work and to be a good photographer, but he's not (yet) regarded as particularly eminent.

Compare the article on him with, say, that on, who's in and whose article is fastidiously sourced and not adulatory. (However, the latter article is unillustrated, boring, and.) - 00:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)The article gets worse. 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I advise against, but if you want it then (current) is better than. 02:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I've discovered yet more problems with the article since then.

(The 'sourcing' for at least one claim that his work is in a permanent collection actually says no such thing.) But fixing the puffery endemic in this article exhausts me. For now I'll just say that the article merits more citation needed and similar flags than it already has. 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)I warmly recommend, and specifically of it.

This is a fine, scrupulously sourced and well illustrated article about a photographer of great importance in Japan. (And no, it's not mine.) - 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Many thanks for this. I notice that the Rivera-Ortiz article scores poorly with as well (imperfect, but can be useful for checking cases like this, it uses author reputation within WP).

The external interest scores for all of these is quite low; however, I notice that these same authors (SwissLawyer, KissMeKate) have created versions of this article in many different languages, too - that boosts the scoring in our system. I will include the Hikoma article, because although it's a bit lower in external interest scoring, it provides a scholarly article on a non-Western photographer - the kind of thing we like to include. Many thanks16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC) JainismI might add. 15:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)The article is well illustrated, but otherwise seems quite weak. I could add it if it were B or above, but not as it is. Thanks22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject Buddhism articlesI think it's truly silly to include among the Buddhism articles (listed ).

The article about her doesn't even mention Buddhism except to put her in a red-linked category for 'Buddhist Women'. The article about her until recently didn't even mention Buddhism. Now essentially it only mentions that she feels Buddhism saved her. There are dozens of troubled pop stars, and the fact that one may turn to one religion while another may turn to another religion for help doesn't shed much light about the religions themselves.

Including this article risks giving the wrong impression that Wikipedia is lightweight. 16:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)I think the articles are selected based on the placement of the banner on the article's talk page.

There are a lot of articles which I have found to be in what some might consider amusing lists, evidently based on that fact. The list is just a list of all those articles which have been deemed at all relevant to the project, generally by whoever placed the banner. We really don't have the time or people to go through and mark the lists based on any other criteria.

16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details (bold added). I'm not sure what the bottom line of your remarks is. The, quoted above, that was put on the Buddhism project page did invite suggestions for exclusion. And I notice that elsewhere on this page (e.g., Christianity subheader, above), various editors are suggesting that particular articles should be excluded because of their noncentrality.

If feedback about exclusion is not wanted, perhaps the notice should be reworded. 17:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)I think the notices were made to ask whether the articles should be excluded from the release version altogether; it wasn't necessarily operating on the assumption that the articles were in fact going to be in any sort of 'section' of the release version. So, yeah, a lot of the articles aren't necessarily particularly relevant to all the lists they might appear in, particularly regarding religious and regional projects; the lists are basically there to ask opinion about the importance and quality of the articles listed in the broader sense, not necessarily about their importance to the individual project, I think anyway. I would be interested though in whether you have any opinions about any individuals, schools, books, or other material which isn't on the list which you think should be. 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)John is right here - I would propose removing the Buddhism tag from the talk page. That article is included in Version 0.8 because of her fame as a pop star, not because of her impact on Buddhism! Thanks22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject London TransportYou might also want to include:.

history of the development of underground railways in London. an overview of the main precursor of modern London Transport. engineer who built the first underground railway. the world's first under river tunnel- 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)I'd suggest as well. It's not in a great state, but as the original underground line (and the one which gave its name to every other Metro system in the world), it's such a key topic. I'd also suggest dropping the rather undistinguished from the list and replacing it with either or, both of which are more architecturally significant. – 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and add all five from the first five suggestions. The Timeline article scores low not because it's not a useful article, but simply because other languages don't have it.

The second one almost makes it in, and looks like a good article. The next two are decent articles on significant topics. The Metropolitan line is also major, and although classed as Start, it looks better than some B-Class I've reviewed! Regarding the bridges, I don't want to remove Battersea Bridge as it's included in several WikiProject lists. At your suggestion I will add the Albert Bridge, though, which is close to inclusion anyway, and is a nice FA. Thanks23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject ChessFirst, thanks for all the work you do. As a member of the WikiProject Chess, I suggest you should add the following articles, based on their quality (all are GA or higher):.I also suggest you may consider removing the followings, based on their low quality:.

15:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Thanks for your suggestions. However, importance also plays a big part in what we choose.

I looked at all of them, but unfortunately they are all much too specialised for a general release such as this one. Regarding Board game - if we removed that there would be an obvious gap in our encyclopedia; the article isn't perfect, but it's better than most of the Starts that have been nominated on this page. It also receives almost 1000 times the number of page views that Budapest Gambit receives.

If there is a large cluster of high quality chess articles, we should instead look into producing a more specialised offline release just of chess articles. Contact me if you think this would be appropriate. Many thanks03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject AbortionYour list for inclusion on the USB key includes a 'pro life' article but not the article. I would argue for including both the pro and con arguments of this issue. Either that or omit both.

The pro choice article does not, as of this date, have any cleanup tags; so, I see no reason it could not be included.I question the inclusion of Madonna's 'Papa Don't Preach' article, as it is nothing but propaganda for the 'keep your baby' argument. It should be balanced by depictions of negative outcomes of teenage pregnancy, i. Girls whose parents kicked them out of the house, beat them or worse, who had to drop out of school and ended up on welfare. This was a courageous song in its day, but teenage pregnancy is much more acceptable in modern society than it was in 1985.

23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)I think the article on the song was probably included on the basis of general significance and notability, in this case primarily as a prominent song, rather than specifically because of how it relates to the abortion issue. I think that is true of a lot of articles, which are primarily important on one basis, but tagged and of a lesser importance to other groups as well.

No particular objections here to the inclusion of the pro-choice article, though. 17:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)I still think the song should be balanced. 09:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Responded on the WikiProject talk page. Thanks07:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC) AyyavazhiIf any other article is to be included for the above group, I would think it would probably best be, and with a number of practicioners between.7 and 8 million I think maybe it deserves inclusion. Unfortunately, I don't really know the subject in general all that well. 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Really?

For a long time that article has started by saying This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Within that, may is an understatement. 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Yeah, it is in need of cleanup. I was thinking more of the importance, not of the quality. And, unfortunately, as per something I just posted at, there seems to be bloody little sourcing available on the subject. 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC) WorcesterWorcester has been cleaned up. However it still has dead links and citations needed, back to January., 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC).User Kudpung has fixed the dead links!, 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC).I'm proposing to use from 10th November - is that OK?

Many thanks for the cleanup. 19:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Wiki Project TennisCan you please use this of as the version you have chosen has incorrect doubles ranking. This version now has additional pictures and announcement of his return. Thanks 09:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)I see that you (and others) did more work on the article after that version, so I've selected for the release, and I informed the WikiProject.

Please let me know if there's a problem. Many thanks22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Wikiproject Ancient Egypt articlesThe bot's notice gave a link.

I hope we were the only one, but could someone please fix it at. Thanks 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Now working again. I note that of has had some fringe 'numerology' either removed or made more balanced/accurate, could that be used instead? 14:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC) WikiProject MichiganSeems the selections are weak on history. Why not the, for examples? User:Rmhermen —Preceding comment added by 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I've added Sault Ste.

Marie, since even I know that's an important border town. The problem with the other articles is that they are a bit too specialized. If the 1967 riot article was better than Start-Class, and didn't have cleanup tags on it, I could add that, but until then I'm reluctant.

However, I've taken your suggestion for history, and 'been bold' and added to the collection. This is B-Class, fairly highly ranked, and it is the sort of overview article that works well in a small selection like this. Please let me know if you see any problems. Thanks22:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC) SingaporeI suggest that the following articles be added to your project:.And that the following articles be removed because they seem quite random and not important enough:.— Cheers, –– 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Sorry, but we can't possibly add even half of these! I looked through the list carefully, and looked over the stats for the most important/high quality articles for the project. I've added Coat of arms of Singapore, which is highly ranked and should have been assessed as Start, not Stub; with the correct assessment it might have been selected. For the others, they seem specialised, and I can't see a pressing need to add any of them.

However, I have a good Wikipedian friend who is from Singapore, I'll ask for him to look over the list as well in case I missed any important ones. Thanks23:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I also added, since this is a B-Class article covering an important topic, and it was scored excessively low because of lack of other language versions; that isn't because the topic is obscure, but simply because other languages include that content in.

01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) 1980sSeems very weak., 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC).But I did improve it before I got lynched., 08:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC).Thank you! The problem with these articles is that we either need all or none of them - and for the sake of completeness, we'd like to have them all. If we just miss out the 80s but kept the 70s and 90s, I'd get lynched by a bunch of people with bad haircuts. Thanks for your improvements.

23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Cervical cancer article had vandalism in itThe selected version of had some vandalism in it and some major factual errors. Suggest you update to either , which remains close to the originally selected version, but fixes the major errors; or you could use the version that is which has some more polishing (more references, updated vaccine section, etc.) Thank you.

05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Thanks, I used the later one.

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online.

Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on. BiographyJim Jetter lives in Norristown, PA;.Marc Loudon’s Organic Chemistry has a reputation as one of the most widely used textbooks for the first year of college-level organic chemistry. Loudon’s classic textbook, now in its fifth edition with a new publisher, brings some improvements over past editions.Loudon states in the preface of this edition (p XXXI) “an overarching goal of my text is to help students achieve relational understanding of organic chemistry” (emphasis in the original). As chemical educators know, complete understanding of organic reaction mechanisms is difficult for many students.

The author uses acid−base chemistry in a new approach to provide enhanced insight into reaction mechanisms and problem solving. Chapter 3 contains a nice elucidation of acid−base chemistry and the basic organic chemistry reaction mechanism. This concept is a common theme as the book unfolds.One great improvement over previous editions is the color enhancement throughout the textbook. For example, many reaction mechanisms are driven home by the use of colored arrows: a red arrow for the base nucleophile and a blue arrow for the leaving group. This use of color-coded arrows in the reaction mechanisms is new to this edition.

Not limited to arrows in reaction mechanisms, the color enhancement is also used to add clarity to molecular models, energy diagrams, and to discussions of stereo- and regiochemistry. Another improvement included in this edition is what the author calls tiered topic development, which provides reinforcement of important ideas. For example, Chapter 4 covers the structure and reactivity of alkenes; Chapters 6 and 7 follow up by addressing the application and stereochemistry of alkenes. There are also many examples of how organic chemistry affects our everyday lives. Students could benefit from photographs that accompany many of these real-life applications.The chapters covering infrared, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy are quite well written, including the problems at the end of each chapter. Chapter 18, “Transition-Metal Catalysis”, explains in great detail how transition metals are used as catalysts in forming complexes with various organic compounds.

The end of Chapter 18 presents the application of these organometallic catalysts in the Heck, Suzuki, olefin metathesis, and Stille reactions. Other advanced chapters include: Chapter 22, “Enolate Chemistry”; Chapter 23, “Amine Chemistry”; Chapter 24, “Carbohydrate Chemistry”; Chapter 25, “Heterocyclic Chemistry”; Chapter 26, “Peptide Chemistry”; and Chapter 27, “Pericyclic Reactions”.

As in the fourth edition, Appendix V displays a detailed, summarized list of synthetic methods and their corresponding location within the textbook. Finally, an index completes the very comprehensive fifth edition.The book has 1672 problem-solving activities, many of which are new to this edition and come directly from relevant literature. The textbook does not include solutions to problems, so the student needs to purchase the Study Guide and Solutions Manual for solutions to selected problems. This reviewer did not have access to the Study Guide and Solutions Manual, instructor’s material, or any online applications that accompany this textbook.In summary, the renowned reputation of the previous editions of Loudon’s Organic Chemistry is clearly preserved in this newest edition of the book. If you enjoyed using the fourth edition in your organic chemistry lecture course, then I can recommend this new edition without reservation as a viable replacement for your future use.