Thank you for the suggestion, @neheller . 
Unfortunately, isolated textbooks are not generally considered an appropriate source for citation, for various reasons. MCAT-specific primary sources are generally preferred, if not required (Kaplan, UWorld, etc.).
You might take a look at the submission guidelines here: 📚 AnKing Step Deck Submission Guidelines
That being said, since the card is, itself, discussing hydrogen bonding I’m not certain how necessary it is to specify that there must be hydrogen present. That may be somewhat inferred by the content of the card, as well as the accompanying picture.
That’s unfortunate since Kaplan and UWorld sit behind paywalls so they’re more challenging to reference. In this case, I suppose I would say UBooks chapter 2.3.03 (specifically figure 2.37). Alternatively, the explanation from UWorld QID 400478 (3522791).
My concern about the card is that it is manifestly wrong. N is not and can never be a hydrogen bond donor in the absence of a bond to Hydrogen. The content in the Extra is even more confusing, since being strongly electronegative is a characteristic of the acceptor, not the donor. I made this suggestion because of a reddit post by a confused user (https://www.reddit.com/r/AnkiMCAT/comments/1hv3bf1/this_makes_no_sense/).
Yeah, I do understand the limitation there though it sits for several reasons. MCAT-specific resources are simply the most appropriate, and textbooks run the gamut in terms of detail, suitability, scholastic level, etc. It’s a topic we’ve gone over multifold times, and the consensus is to settle on relying on MCAT primary resources.
I do get what you’re saying about the phrasing, and agree that it’s not as tight as it could be. Maybe there’s some suitable solution we can find in phrasing that suits the bill better?
I hate to make the card a ton longer, but perhaps something like (paraphrasing here, just trying to land on an improvement, and maybe we can workshop it further):
-
The oxygen atom of the C=O bond functions as the hydrogen bond acceptor.
-
The hydrogen atom of the N-H bond functions as the hydrogen bond donor.
A bit more clear, without being insanely long. We could also shorten it, in the interest of brevity; take out ‘functions as’ and just go with the simple ‘is’.
Thoughts?
I think that’s reasonable. It could maybe be as short as:
The O in C=O is the hydrogen bond {{c1::acceptor::acceptor or donor}}.
The H in N-H is the hydrogen bond {{c1::donor::acceptor or donor}}.
I think that’s a nice improvement, without adding unnecessary additional length, clarifies some potential confusions or mis-phrasings, etc.
All-in-all I think it’s win-win.
If you want to edit the suggestion to include that I’ll leave it open a bit for others to take a look at it but I’m pleased with the result
Done