Talk:Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 06:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Haven't thought much about this field since Honors Chemistry in my sophomore year of high school, but why not; I can give this a shot. Tezero (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why is "theory" part of the Acid-base reaction link? Why not just place it after?

Done.

• "the bases are the substances" - why the definite articles?

Done.

• "This concept was able to explain the catalytic action of acids and reaction of acids and bases in aqueous solution but failed to explain why molecules not having the above ions were able to neutralize acids and bases. This theory didn't recognize metal oxides as bases and acid-base reactions occurring in gaseous phases couldn't be explained on the basis of this theory" - Since these two things are examples of the Arrhenius theory's failures, I'd set them off with a colon instead. Also, "acid-base" should have an en-dash and "didn't" should be "did not".

Done.

• The whole article needs more in-line citations; "Example" doesn't have a single one.

Done.

• "Water is amphoteric and can act as an acid or as a base" - I'd prefer "amphoteric, as it can act".

Done.

• "may be partially" - I'd put "only" before "partially".

Done.

• There are a couple of contractions in "Limitations".

Changes made.

• "A Lewis base, defined as an electron-pair donor, can act as a Brønsted–Lowry base as the pair of electrons can be donated to a proton. This means that the Brønsted–Lowry concept is not limited to aqueous solutions" - Am I understanding this wrong, or does this make the Lewis base and the other member of the partnership share an ionic bond? If not, why not? This'd be worth noting.

Changes made.

• This article doesn't talk at all about Bronsted and Lowry coming up with the idea outside the image thumbnail. Of particular note is that they did it independently - was there Alexander Graham Bell-style controversy involved?

Mentioned them in the main body of the article.

Skr15081997, they're in the intro but nowhere else. Surely there's a little you can elaborate on with them? At the very least, put them coming up with it independently somewhere in the main body text. Tezero (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tezero they are mentioned in the first para under the section "Properties of acids and bases". I could not find how they came up with their theories. If I am getting it right;you mean that they should be mentioned in a separate section.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:a separate section covering them has been created.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997, after a cursory perusal of Google Books, I wasn't able to find any more either. At any rate, I think this is sufficient for GA, so let's do this. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• In citations 1-3 and 7, where do the page ranges end?

Done.

• What university or other institution is "gonzaga.edu" affiliated with? This and "chemed.chem.purdue.edu" need their institutions listed in plain English as publishers, and if these places have articles, they should be linked.

Done.

• What makes Boundless, chemteam.info, and that calendar Google site in citation 10 reliable sources?

Replaced them with reliable sources.

Ping me when you've responded to or fixed all of these. Tezero (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: the issues have been addressed.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)