Talk:Reaction mechanism
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Unbalanced lede?
editRecently, electrospray ionization mass spectrometry[2] has been used to corroborate the mechanism of several organic reaction proposals.
Why is just this one specific method highlighted in the very short lede?
178.38.90.162 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have changed this sentence slightly to specify that electrospray is one example. But what we really need is a section to summarize the various experimental methods that have been used to study reaction mechanism, including electrospray and also quite a few others. Dirac66 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have now expanded the intro to include 8 types of experimental methods (with electrospray as one item only) plus theoretical modeling, so it is much more balanced. Dirac66 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Unclear sentence
editIn general the description are evolving in time because is often difficult to sustain all the chemical facts observed in a reaction. This sentence which you have added to the intro is very unclear.
Did you mean (1) that the atomic positions are evolving in time, which is true but does not seem relevant to the end of the sentence, or (2) that scientists' ideas on the mechanism of many reactions are evolving in time, which is also true but can be said about most scientific problems. Could you explain further please? Dirac66 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well I'm trying to say that the detailed steps of a reactions couldn't in most cases be known so is important to be precise here. The mechanism is a postulate that is chosen because it's thermodynamically more feasible and has experimental support in isolated intermediates or other quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the reaction. Elkintoilustrado (talk ) 16:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is much clearer. I have replaced your first attempt with this second version, slightly copyedited. Dirac66 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, for your possitive attitude for listen my opinion and not just erase my contribution. I think that's the real wikipedia spirit and helps to improve it Elkintoilustrado (talk ) 8:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is much clearer. I have replaced your first attempt with this second version, slightly copyedited. Dirac66 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)