Talk:Born–Haber cycle

Proposed Merger with Born haber

They're obviously about the same thing. I don't know anything about the subject matter, so can somehow knowledge merge the two articles? And don't forget to edit the redirect too. --154.20.114.15 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be, they are the same thing, there is no need to include the born haber bit with the Born-Haber cycle bit as this article is much better.

I've merged the two articles, but I lack knowledge about the subject, so not sure if the See Also links are actually relevant. Also, does this article belong in Condensedmatter-stub? Born haber was categorized as a condensed matter physics stub. --Nightlight 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issue

Article needs to make clear and precise, what information is drawn from what source. As it stands, information can be freely added without citation, with there being no signal or clue to the reader that the article has drifted from representing the material of the original two sources. 98.228.192.239 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Born–Haber_cycle#page_372 or a page near that page - Some of the information in this article is backed up by Kenneth A. Goldsby; Raymond Chang (2015). Chemistry (12 ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. p. 372. ISBN 978-0-07802151-0. (

{{cite book |title=Chemistry |author1=Kenneth A. Goldsby |author2=Raymond Chang |year=2015 |publisher=McGraw-Hill Education |edition=12 |page=372 |isbn=978-0-07802151-0}}

). --User123o987name (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]