Talk:Lewis structure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Carbon dioxide misses electrons
Doesn't the diagram for carbon dioxide miss 4 little dots around oxygen (2 each)?
[edit] Double Bond
No, there are no missing dots, the Lewis diagram is being gay using lines to show ly is how gay it realcovalent bonds, and the double lines denote double bonds. Hence the two double bonds (without the extra Oxy electrons) is O::C::O or O=C=O
[edit] Organic Structures
Organic structures using the line notation are rarely equivalent to Lewis structures. Most organic structures of this type, perhaps other than those used for demonstrating reactions involving electron transfer, do not show the lone pairs of electrons and do not show, for instance, C-H bonds. Organic line structures should be in a separate article. ES2 16:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Someone, please go ahead with the 3 merges. But, I suggest making Lewis structure the primary article. --Gary King 05:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, Lewis structure should be the name of the article. Walkerma 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Looks like someone already merged and redirected Electron dot notation; I'm removing that merge template from Lewis structure. /blahedo (t) 06:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm working on a complete revamp of the whole shebang, may be a couple of weeks though as I piece things together. Hope I'm not stepping on toes. --ES2 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- My revamp is complete. Please note any concerns you have. The new article may need some extra link-wikification, and desperately needs diagrams. I'll try to get some diagrams in, but if someone else wants to work on them, it would be appreciated. --ES2 16:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The revamp looks really good, almost no need for the formal charge article with the revision--Jikanter 20:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Organic Structures, Take Two
Organic bond-line structures and compact notation are not Lewis structures. Bond-line notation does, however, deserve its own separate article.
There seem to be a number of various "structure" pages in the Wiki--cf. Chicken wire (chemistry), Structural formula, Chemical formula, IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry (this last describing nomenclature but heavily reliant on bond-line notation). I'll try to post something in a relevant place in the Chemistry Project and see if these can't be merged/separated/etc in a useful way. --ES2 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects not working...
I've redirected a number of older articles to this page; while they're listed as redirects on the "What Links Here" page, they seem to not be redirecting correctly for me. Can I get confirmation on this from someone? --ES2 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure they aren't working? If you click a link on the "what links here" page that would normally redirect, it has a "&redirect=no" tacked on to the URL to block that happening. Do they redirect if you go straight there? If not, could you give some examples of pages that aren't redirecting for you? /blahedo (t) 03:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they weren't working, but now they are. Maybe it's a cache refresh issue? --ES2 13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Octet rule exceptions
User:Smokefoot insists in deleting the section on exceptions to the octet rule on the basis that "it usually works only for hydrocarbons". I don't agree. First, because that assertion is false--the octet rule works perfectly well for almost all of organic chemistry (not only hydrocarbons) and many inorganic molecules as well. Second, precisely because there are many exceptions, it is important to remind the reader. A common problem among students, for example, is to place too much faith in the octet rule; but that doesn't mean that it is useless or that we shouldn't mention the exceptions because there are "too many". Itub 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I tried to delete that small section, but I will settle for a proviso or more limited language (I sound like a lawyer!). The majority of main group compounds (that is what we are discussing, right?) do not follow the octet rule once one ditches the organics. This situation is often unwelcome because most of us share the admirable tendency to simplify the world so that we dont frighten novices with brutal reality. The octet rule works outstandingly for organic compounds, which must comprise about >99.9% of known molecules. Not bad coverage!!! But most of the (non-organic) main group compounds do not conform. Ever do any tellurium chem? - well there's H2Te, TeH-, and Te2- - That's it. Try Tin. Sulfur. Cl. --Smokefoot 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The revised section is fine. As I say, we need to say that there are exceptions precisely because there are. ;-) Regarding sulfur, it depends on how you count the electrons; as you know from the three-center four-electron bond article, there are ways of counting the electrons where the rule is not broken. But that's a topic for another article. :) Itub 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tone/style of article
The article seems to be reads somewhat like a how-to or tutorial, which isn't as I understand how wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. This page covers the subject well, but could basically be printed out as is for a chemistry class. It seems perhaps more suited for Wikibooks in its current form. I'm not sure that a lot needs to be changed, its simply a matter of the writing style. There are also many sections where a second-person writing style is used, which is also more appropriate for a text book than encyclopedic article. Addressing the writing style seems the main concern at the moment, as it covers Lewis structures fairly comprehensively. Richard001 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
