Talk:Inorganic chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Hmm.. silicon and phosphorus are elements, not compounds, so maybe one should revise that subsection. But I'm not a chemist, so I don't dare to. :) -Yargo

It refers to compounds of the atoms listed. Iridium77 18:49, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the allotropes of phosphorus and sulfur are indeed "compounds." i believe that was what the author was referring to

Are you sure there are only 4 types of chemical reactions because my teacher is making me find 5. -Mike

Contents 1 Big revision - comments welcome 2 Needed topics? 3 Content and layout in general 4 Some thoughts before I plunge in 5 The article is now (early Aug, 2006) possibly too big 6 I think that we're there, size-wise

[edit] Big revision - comments welcome

I strongly revised the whole article. Ideas, criticisms, and comments are welcome. Too much reliance on bullets vs. a flowing discussion? For the cluster and lanthanide folks, that will be mentioned in future revisions. Some balance needed between general discussion and illustrative examples, I feel. --Smokefoot 01:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needed topics?

I figure that we'll keep adding items under various themes and then undergo another evolutionary step:

• cluster - Fe3(CO)12 stuff, mongo Dahl-Fenske species, B-H, Mo6Cl14]2-
• polyoxo ions
• lanthanides ("paramagnetic alumiunium" for the most part?)
• supramolecular focusing on what ?
• low-dimensional stuff
• catalysis,
• industrial production figures (H2SO4, urea, NH3, etc from say C&EN).
• geometries
• stereoisomerism

--Smokefoot 02:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content and layout in general

general comments:

• lot of the current content is redundant, already covered in specialist articles. the organic chemistry article also suffers lately from the same desire by editors to treat the entire topic in one big big article and leave the specialist articles for what they are (it is just twice the work)
• general consensus in Wiki not to have links in headers (regarded as ugly)
• many key links just aren't there for example spectroscopy in the spectroscopy bit.
• the reformatted cluster compounds paragraph now aligned with chemistry article layout.

V8rik 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.

• Regarding redundancy between a general article and the specialized ones - yes such exists, inevitably. One's rejection or acceptance of such semi-redundancy is a philosophical matter as well as the price of the WE approach, IMHO.
• I was wondering about the links in headers - they will be moved.
• lots of key links need to be identified yet.
• Regarding cluster compounds - this is an area where we might not agree. The article cluster compound is very rough presently from the copy edit perspective, so I hesitate to send anyone there. Also the scope of cluster compound article is greater than inorganic chem. Once cluster compound matures, its scope will greatly excede inorganic chem - it will contain hydrocarbon clusters and lots of nanoscience.
• Also one could basically abbreviate the verbage on the subfields of inorganic chem with links to the specialized article "Main article: ..." but such a format precludes having a single overview in one place. I encourage inorganic enthusiasts to focus instead on any factual discrepancies in the content and the priorities implied with the layout. That approach seems highly productive.--Smokefoot 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but I think it still needs some clarification. The things I've noticed are:

• "Descriptive inorganic chemistry focuses on a classification and properties of inorganic compounds" - should this be "Desciptive inorganic chemistry focuses on a classification of compounds based on their properties"?
• "Classification is often based on the position of the heaviest element in the compound" - I really don't understand this phrase. I assume it's talking about the position in periodic table of the element with the highest molecular weight.
• "A more common and more successful classification scheme focuses on structural families:" - more common and more successful than which classification scheme?
• I think when talking about the main group and coordination compounds a small periodic table with the particular areas marked out would clarify things a bit. You could say these feature the elements in groups 1,2 and 13-18 (excluding hydrogen), groups 3 and 12 are also generally included.

I've decided to make some changes to this section to make it as clear as possible, rather than list problems.Terri G 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made my edits, but I think it still needs some work. There seems to be very little mention of:

• the elements themselves
• how inorganic chemistry helped our understanding of bonding (a couple of sentences with a link to the main page should do it
• that the tubes of coloured solutions that first get people interested in chemistry, often contain inorganic compounds

Also in one of the sections there are two mentions of Werner and his discovery of non-organic chiral molecules, but I wasn't sure how to rephrase it to remove the apparent duplication, when they are based on different molecules.

The opening paragrapgh deserves to be longer. Tmchk | Talk 02:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts before I plunge in

I note that this article has grown and improved immensely over the last few weeks, thanks to all have contributed. The general style seems to break up the topic in terms of sub-disciplines. I think, though, that we need to include some alternative ways of looking at the topic if the article is to reach WP:GA standard. We need viewpoints that will engage the lay (non-chemist) reader and relate it to the everyday world - consider perhaps a teenager just studying chemistry for the first time. Things I can think of to broaden the article are:

• A history section - not as subsections of the subsections, but as a section in its own right. Things like the historical division between organic/inorganic, and the revolution caused by Wohler and Liebig (use of inorganic fertilisers to help crops grow) as the barriers came down. The chemistry of how the elements were isolated and named - Lavoisier, Davy, and how periodic properties led to the development of the periodic table. The importance of ammonia in WW1, the blossoming of organometallics after ferrocene/dibenzenechromium was discovered - would this be a good theme? I think it makes an exciting story.
• Its impact and influence on the world today. This might include the use of new organometallic catalysts (Pd-based, olefin metathesis, Cativa), buckyballs/nanotubes, the relationship with materials science and nanotechnology as well as biotechnology.
• Pictures!!

Does this sound helpful? Are there other ideas? I'm principally an organic chemist, so I might want some help, particularly with the impact/influence stuff where I'm relatively out of touch compared to some of you folks. Walkerma 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree. Go for it. --Bduke 03:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good content is always welcome. But, if it is high schoolers we aim for, surely Chemistry is the more appropriate target article, which remains underdeveloped and thin on fun facts and colorful history. This inorganic article should, IMHO, target those that have "outgrown" Chemistry. The discovery of the elements was, if anything, a triumph of Analytical chemistry and Physics. The Haber-Bosch ammonia process was pioneered by chemical engineers. Of course this kind of classification discussion can be endless, amorphous, secondary to the prime mission - good content, and I pledge to help regardless. We absolutely need some good graphics in the present report.--Smokefoot 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, I didn't want to go against the flow. I agree that chemistry should be improved, but in England all A-level students (at least when I took A-level) have to take two terms of inorganic chemistry in high school. I can accept that the history involves many different fields, but I wanted to draw out the strand of things that had a big impact on inorganic chemistry (even in cases where it was not the cause of the change) - the things that changed how people saw the subject. I'll be away or busy for most of the weekend, but I hope to work on this on Monday - and if I don't do it right, please edit! Thanks, Walkerma 14:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One idea would be to combine the snippets of history that are strewn throughout the current report and weave these into an introduction.--Smokefoot 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have introduced the Key concepts bit. I noted earlier in the discussion page that the inorganic chemistry page did cover a lot of chemistry but NOT inorganic chemistry. In my view a portal page should present an overview and leave the details to the secondary pages. The target audience for this page should be the entry-level reader, any advanced topics should belong in the secondary pages. V8rik 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking forward to hearing about what inorganic chemistry REALLY is. Now I see: seems to emphasize a lot of stuff we dont teach much anymore.--Smokefoot 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC) I just reread the "Key concepts" section. Now I see the problem, which had me puzzled because it looked like my grandfather's list of topics. In the first world, the good stuff is organometallics-clusters-bio-Werner all guided by group theory and MO. Sorry to disappoint everyone who thinks they know what we SHOULD be teaching, researching, and emphasizing: The majority of compounds we discuss and research are neither ionically bonded nor water soluble. Cement, fertilizer, sulfuric acid, chlor-alkali, batteries, glass, minerals are extremely important, especially from the perspective of large-scale production and commercial applications. But inorganic chemists have abandoned that industrial-scale stuff to engineers. The feeling is that the underlying fundamentals are rather mature (no area is never "mature", of course). So the list of main sub-themes that are listed under descriptive inorganic, is a pretty good snapshot of the academic field - what is taught, what is researched in chemistry departments, and what is funded. Inorganic is this list, these are not peripheral areas. But that list may not in fact be what the field really is. The disconnect with V8rik's so-called "keys" is that academic inorganic chem is not particularly inorganic anymore. IMHO.--Smokefoot 12:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you raise an important point, Smokefoot. I was very glad to see the new Key concepts section - thanks, V8rik (though should the fertilizer be ammonium nitrate?). A lot of the reason for the disconnect, IMHO, is the fact that a lot of inorganic chemistry isn't taught as such at the intro level in many US colleges. We do cover the basic inorganic reaction types in general chemistry (the catch-all intro course most US science undergrads take in their first year), but not much beyond that. I used to spend about 3 weeks covering all of the chemistry of the periodic table in detail - but this is unusual. In many books much of this material - particularly transition metals - is buried in the late chapters that you don't have time to cover. IMHO, it's silly to teach students about redox potential or solubility of a metal compound, without teaching the basic chemistry of that metal first. In the upper level inorganic courses, such descriptive chemistry is often neglected to make room for group theory, MO, etc. The result is that we can have chemistry majors graduating who can't even tell you the common oxidation states of iron or copper.<end rant>

I think the article needs both aspects - the basic stuff to elaborate on the topic for A-level or general chemistry students, and the academic/research field. No one can deny that the chemistry of chlor-alkali and cement are part of the realm of inorganic chemistry, even if the academic researchers have become bored with them. I don't know many academic organic chemists studying the synthesis of alkanes or methanol, but those topics clearly fall under organic chemistry. Walkerma 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is time for others because I have dominated this one, possibly too much. My recommendation is that we aim to make the article forward looking. Here is the program statement from the Inorganic, Bioinorganic and Organometallic Chemistry Division at the U.S. National Science Foundation:

• "Supports research on the synthesis, properties, and reaction mechanisms of molecules composed of metals, metalloids, and nonmetals with elements covering the entire periodic table. Included are fundamental studies that underscore (1) bioinorganic reactions, (2) homogeneous catalysis and organometallic reactions, (3) photochemical and charge transfer processes, and (4) studies aimed at the rational synthesis of new inorganic molecular substances, self-assemblies, and nano-size materials with predictable chemical, physical, and biological properties. Objectives are to provide the basis for understanding (1) the function of metal ions in biological systems, (2) the behavior of new inorganic materials and new industrial catalysts, and (3) the systematic chemistry and behavior of most of the elements and compounds in the environment."

Best wishes to V8rik, Martin, and others working on this one.--Smokefoot 01:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Working on a history section offline - I'll upload it when it's complete, otherwise it'll just look silly! Walkerma 03:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, I see the article has grown immensly since the last time I had a look at it. I have just reached the 'descriptive inorganic chemistry' bit, and while I in general concur with how the subjects are described there, I feel like rewriting, and more specifically, resorting that part (question: are there too many (sub)sections in this article???). I somehow feel that it is not the compound that dictates what 'type' of inorganic chemist you are, it is the way you look at your compound (solid state chemists may be looking at the coordination, and sometimes the organic backbone is just an auxiliary at the other side of your metal). I may have a go at it during the day or this evening. (I will leave the history bits as they are, Smokefoot). I will read the rest of the article when I get there. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article is now (early Aug, 2006) possibly too big

Even the talk section is too big, so I took the liberty of breaking up the discussion, starting with V8rik's theme:

• The article continues to improve. From this discussion it appears there is no disagreement after all what the content should be. The key concepts bit will take care of the old-school inorganic chemistry (thanks, Smokefoot for the industrial chemicals addition!) and the state-of-the-art inorganic chemistry is already well covered. There is still an issue with article size and some redundancy. Now Wiki itself starts to complain about article size (go to edit mode and read): This page is 34 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. . I still think that some of the article should be trimmed down, especially the sections already covered in the secondary articles. I also agree with Beetstra in his comment above that the amount of sections should be reduced V8rik 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• I reluctantly agree, reluctantly because I had wanted a single master overview, but that seems impossible or unrealistic. As starters I recommend moving all the mini-histories to their specialized articles. I think V8rik advocated this before. --Smokefoot 03:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have moved most history sections to their main articles (we/they'll have to deal with them later), except for main group compounds .. where do I put that part? Any suggestions? By the way, the complaint is still not gone .. still over 30 kb. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Been moving around with some things, but I do not see much that could easily be lost from this article (I would even say, there are still things missing ..). I'll leave it for now, don't see anything useful to change for me now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. Perhaps one way to shorten it would be to make it more than one page. Perhaps a page on the sort of inorganic chemistry we were taught at school, and a second page, called advanced inorganic chemistry, with more of the extra interesting stuff. I also think we could lose most of the section on analytical techniques for characterisation by switching the paragraphs for links and making sure there is reference to inorganic chemistry under the relevant pages.Terri G 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• We need to trim the article a bit, but in fact that's just great as far as I'm concerned! We've got some content to spare! We just need to spin off more of the longer descriptions into sub-pages and use the {{Main}} template to direct the curious reader there. This model is typical of "high level" broad articles like this one, see Chemical substance for an example. All country articles like France are like this - you have a short history section that begins with a link to History of France, then similar sections on Politics, Geography, Economy, Culture etc. Walkerma 17:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Been thinking about the option of moving the analytical methods, indeed .. move out all the techniques stuff to the own articles, and leave it the term and a 10-word description or so (might have a go at that this evening). I'm not fond of the idea of moving the 'interesting' stuff out, I'd rather see the subject handled appropriately, not what you get learned in high-school (which is different in different countries anyway and therefore difficult to define, ánd I just think we can do a better job, people should know the things from high-school anyway). And well, if we still need 30 kb or more .. so what? Apparently we need it, but yes, it needs to be very structured, then. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• If only people knew the high school stuff anyway, in the UK some pupils get away with doing single science GSCE, before dropping it altogether, giving them a grand total of about 4 hours per week shared between all three sciences! Then there are people like my mother, who was taught biology only, because she was a girl; and my grandmother, who possibly wasn't taught much science at all. As boring as the high school stuff might seem, perhaps a lengthier explanation does need to be somewhere, even if it isn't in this article. Sorry if it is somewhere already and I haven't spotted it.

P.S. Does the size of the article include the figures, as we have 12 at the moment, most in the top half as well, perhaps, we could rationalise the pictures, attractive as they are. Terri G 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should rationalise the pictures, they make the article, as you spotted, more attractive. But I think the size does not include the pictures. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think that we're there, size-wise

Starting in early August we beat this thing down in size. No doubt it will get more polishing, but my feeling is that in terms of size, it is appropriately large without being cumbersome. It's always worth discussing items that missing or are over-emphasized.--Smokefoot 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)