Talk:Frustrated Lewis pair
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Scheme
[edit]The arrows in the upper scheme are not correct. The top arrow needs to point right and vice versa.
The bottom scheme does not show that the compound in scheme 1 is actually used as a catalyst (as described in the text).
There is also a source missing for the relevant reactions.
Please correct! --Klaproth (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Done until the author can get back to this.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
SciFinder on October, 2018: "5228 references were found containing "FLP" as entered"...
[edit]Another reason that articles such as this are guided by WP:SECONDARY and even better WP:TERTIARY. Cite only books and reviews. Wikipedia is not competing with review journals. Editors are relatively unable to decide which of the 5200+ references to cite. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Aforementioned editors are quite able to decide which papers should be included in a Wikified summary. The fully referenced and unbiased content generated by 18 PhD students spending 3 hours editing (including multiple CC diagrams) for a relatively obscure area of chemistry should not be deleted in its entirety without explanation. --Jode2018 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Your homework contributions are welcome even if you didnt do what I wanted in terms of referencing. It is more difficult to rely on broader sources. But anyway, good job. You might try to write up something about inter vs intramolec FLPs.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
How to draw a figure
[edit]Leave out English (or any language). Check out our manual of style. That way the figure can be used in other Wikis. Its the way to help Wikipedia be internationally attuned. See figues in ACIE.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Who???
[edit]The article should explain who (what scientists or institutions) are responsible for identifying this phenomenon. Don't just leave it to readers to dig through the primary sources. Particularly if the researchers won or are likely to win prizes for this work. 2603:400A:0:7EC:0:0:801E:1C14 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- We go down that road of recognizing discoverers, the "true pioneers", the real unrecognized heroes, then their institutions, then their homelands. That kind of stuff occupies a lot of space, dilutes the main message, and is often controversial. And then you wanna add the prizes for such work? We're doing well just recording facts.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)