|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
I was told by a chem major that lewis theory is really only accurate for helium and that education of the theory is really only necessary for understanding orbital theory later, that its only taught because its a very visual way to begin learning the more advanced faucets of the bigger picture... any thoughts?
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)
- I agree, Lewis structure should be the name of the article. Walkerma 22:03, 2 December 2005 (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)
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)
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)
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)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5974/18-c?rss=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
Example electronegativity flub?
why does electronegativity also involves all of the element? (special contribution to that kind of question above)
Image copyright problem with Image:GN Lewis large.jpg
The image Image:GN Lewis large.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
In the introduction: "Although main group elements of the second period and beyond react by gaining, losing or sharing electrons until they have achieved a valence shell electron configuration with a full octet of (8) electrons..." This is factually wrong. This isn't even close to being generally true. I am changing it. Should someone else desire to include the qualification that the octet rule is generally the case for Period 2 elements, usually true for period 3, and frequently true for the higher periods of Main Group elements, go ahead but it hardly seems worthwhile. I actually am not sure that "generally, usually, frequently" doesn't overstate the usefulness of the Octet Rule. It is most applicable to Period 2 Main Group elements, little else. I also argue that a "rule" should be mostly accurate; if it can not be relied on, it is of no use. The only contexts I am aware that the Octet Rule can be relied on is 1. Organic Chemistry of the 2 Period Main Group elements and 2. Inorganic chemistry of the 2nd Period Main Group elements. But even here there are many exceptions.126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Although hypervalency exists in the third period and up, and there are exceptions even among the 2nd period, it's a general rule of thumb only, which provides an intuitive understanding of why noble gases are unreactive, why the halogens usually formally gain one electron, and other main group trends. Of course, there are exceptions, but the rule is very useful for those who haven't gone into molecular orbital theory. The statement about gaining or losing electrons only refers to formal assignments of the electrons to one or more atoms, and like oxidation states, hardly represent the true charge on the atom or ion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The lead is screwed up!
(I'd fix it myself, but I ain't no chemist!)
In its first sentence, the lead says that Lewis structures are "also known as ... electron dot diagrams, ..." But a mere 3 sentences later—in the same paragraph!—it says that "they are similar to [emphasis added] electron dot diagrams ... but they also..."
- I Googled around a bit and got the impression that 'electron dot diagram' is generally used in simpler exercises, which essentially require you to draw a Lewis structure for a single atom. I think it would be difficult to find a good citation for this because the terminology is used inconsistently, but I figured I would rewrite the sentence anyway so it's at least unambiguous. splintax (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- For example, Lewis Electron Dot Diagrams.