Talk:Oxidation state

Image correction

I have added a correction to redox equation 1 which was pointed out by DIRAC66 in 2017 but which I missed until nowMcardlep (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mcardlep: thanks! I don't see which old discussion it is, but I assume the relevant change is O.S. on the carboxyl carbon in the product? If so, I can tweak the SVG. DMacks (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for fixing this image. I also cannot find what you say is my previous comment, but I note now that the real problem with the previous version is that the supposed acetic acid was missing an oxygen, so we were showing the oxidation of acetaldehyde to ... acetaldehyde!??? Of course this incorrect equation was unbalanced in number of oxygens as well as charge. I am glad you have the required software to fix the diagram. Dirac66 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't draw out the O–H bond because that detail is not really relevant to the point being made here (and it's a harder edit for me to make:) DMacks (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mcardlep 2409:4042:2313:9133:0:0:2038:40AC (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IUPAC definition

"Several criteria were considered for the ionic approximation:

1. Extrapolation of the bond’s polarity;
   1. from the electronegativity difference,
   2. from the dipole moment, and
   3. from quantum‐chemical calculations of charges.

Point b may be deceptive: in CO the negative end of the dipole is C; in pyrrole the dipole vector points from N to a direction in the middle of the ring. Patrizio 93.147.230.142 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Claims that Greenwood and Earnshaw are wrong

Several footnotes claim errors in Greenwood and Earnshaw, but not all such cases are backed by alternative sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)