Talk:Equivalent concentration

Latest comment: 1 year ago by PhotogenicScientist in topic Article still needs content improvement

Better Initial Description

edit

The first part of this page doesn't have much info, and is a little hard to understand. Many other parts of this page are hard to understand.

Njaohnt (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Equivalent concentration

edit

Equivalent concentration is a better name considering that this concentration is referring to the number of equivalents in a given volume of mixture.--MagnInd (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

sulfuric acid example

edit

I think the example of sulfuric acid is wrong. While sulfuric acid is diprotic, the second dissociation is not complete. Can an expert please comment? 2600:1000:B11D:4707:8D4:CD75:F090:8EAA (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article still needs content improvement

edit

I've tried cleaning up this article from a readability and "encyclopedic" perspective, but a lot of the content still seems lacking. Particularly, I think more focus could be put on the "reaction unit", as this definition is what determines Normality (ex: H for acid-base reactions, "electron" for redox, etc). This is also where the dislike of the term "normality" by IUPAC stems from - that the term relies on the definition of the reaction unit, and is therefore imprecise. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Nikolaih in spite of the above, I think the tone of the article is now improved. Do you think the "Tone" tag can be removed? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is a bit odd to have the heading "What is Normality?" I think it still needs some cleanup tag, can change the tone tag to a different one if you desire. Nikolaih☎️📖 17:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Good catch on that section heading. I've updated it.
I looked through the list of templates, and none stood out to me as obviously necessary. Unless you have one in mind to propose, I would just remove the "Tone" tag. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply