From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Merger proposal[edit]

I believe Strong acid should be merged into Acid. Not only does it make logical sense, as strong acids are a sub-category of acids, but it matches the format taken by bases and strong bases (strong base is a section of Base). If the consensus is that they should not be merged, I suggest moving strong base to its own article. Neonfuzz (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that this Acid article is already very long (41K). Instead I would suggest merging the three articles Strong acid (7K), Weak acid (7.5K) and Superacid (5.6K) into one new article on Acid strength, initially with three sections. And yes, for consistency we could also merge the strong base section of Base (13K) with Weak base (7.5K) and Superbase (5K) into one new article on Base strength. Dirac66 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a great idea! I can probably get to work on it within the next few weeks. Neonfuzz (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! Having separate (much smaller) articles makes less sense than one longer article, as readers will gain more insight into the context rather than as a stand-alone topic.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think this is a good idea, but who is going to do it? I'm not sure how, and I don't want to attampt for fear of doing something wrong. I don't see why anyone hasn't done this, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W192 (talkcontribs) 18:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder. It is complicated to decide what to do exactly, but I have now started. First I created a new article Acid strength by copy-pasting the former Acid strength section of this Acid article, and deleted its subsections from this new article. Then I copy-pasted the entire content of the former Strong acid article into Acid strength, and replaced Strong acid by a redirect. For these two actions I consider that adequate notice was given, since the Merger proposal was on both the Acid and Strong acid article for several months.
Next proposed step is to copy-paste the contents of Weak acid and Superacid into Acid strength. However since the merger proposal was not previously on these two articles, I will post one now and wait 14 days for comments before proceeding. And after the acid merger is finished, I will think about bases.
And finally I will copy this discussion to Talk:Acid strength which seems the best place for further discussion. Dirac66 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep superacid separate. They are pretty particular, peculiar compounds with certain geometry and element. Leave an article that covers them and then have acid strength be about the whole concept of strength. Super acid is not just "very strong acids" but more of a class of compounds. I'm fine if you merge weak and strong into acid strength.TCO (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we did in fact decide at Talk:Acid strength to leave Superacid as a separate article, and to merge Strong acid and Weak acid into Acid strength. The merger has already been done, and I am glad you agree with the decision. Dirac66 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool! It was confusing with all the different locations of move discussions. Good luck. these are key articles with huge readership. Go GA?TCO (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vinylogous subsection errors[edit]

The subsection Vinylogous carboxylic acids contains two serious errors.

  1. It is not true the proton donor is a carbon atom. A vinylogous carboxylic acid has a structure O=C-C=C-O-H. with an O-H proton donor joined to an O=C electron withdrawing group by a C=C ("vinyl" although at least one H is missing). Ascorbic acid for example is an oxygen acid and not a carbon acid - see the structures of acid and conjugate base at Ascorbic acid#Acidity.
  2. The other example is Meldrum's acid which is a carbon acid, but it is not a vinylogous acid as it has no C=C double bond.

Possible fixes:

  1. Delete the incorrect statements and leave just the one example of ascorbic acid without comment.
  2. Change the subsection title to something like Organic acids without a -COOH group, with several types. A good source would be an article by Perez and Perez (J. Chem. Educ. 77, 910 (2000)), who discuss three types of organic acids without -COOH which are strong enough that some molecules were first named acids before their correct structure was known - a) phenols and similar, b) vinylogous carboxylic acids (including ascorbic), and c) carbon acids (including Meldrum's).
  3. Delete the subsection entirely as none of these are really Common acids, which is the section of which this is a subsection. And perhaps put the above list to the article on Organic acids.

Comments? Dirac66 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dirac66 is completely correct. I took fix #1. Eugene Kwan (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Diluting acids (might not be helpful, though)[edit]

There is no mention about dilution of acids. I failed to find any other article discussing on it. We have sections for neutralization and acid strengths, but not for this. Shall the dilution of acid, its precaution, exceptions to HF etc. be included (To make this article complete)? Vanischenu mTalk 11:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A solid used in baking[edit]

and tartaric acid (a solid used in baking).

That would be a component of baking powder, not just "baking" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "baking powder" would be more accurate than "baking". However another point is that baking powders contain not tartaric acid but rather its monopotassium salt, potassium bitartrate. If this were corrected, the example would be probably too complex to mention in the intro, so I suggest removing tartaric acid from the intro. It would still remain in the list of Carboxylic acids in the last section. Dirac66 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

The list of references tag should be at the very top of the page, above the hatnotes. Please fix that; it is getting on my nerves. Not a creative person (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)