@kevinpanini I actually wonder about this, since this table has been the source of some disagreements over the months as to its formatting.
In this case, the image at least serves as a source for where the information in the table comes from. In some ways I think this card (and its siblings) could use some sprucing up though I’ve never quite gotten around to it.
I think I lean slightly toward, if we’re going to keep the card as-is, leaving the image in place at least because it serves as a reference to why that (arguably not ideal) table is formatted the way it is (it’s kind of wonky and without that image as a tether I think we might end up left chasing our tails trying to figure out why the hell that table is formatted the way it is).
Or, conversely, we could potentially just clean up the table a bit if we can find a suitable way to upgrade it without upsetting the apple cart overly much.
Lemme know ur thoughts
I honestly agree that the tables are really bad, I like uworld way where they group them and make grouped. 3300 can be O-H or N-H for example. There’s another card that I despise that has an image and askes what are the 2 peaks labelled with ?. One of them is c-o bond that isn’t even on this table. I just wanted to get rid of the extra image cause its irrelevant if the other table exists. Maybe we could update the table to a more complete version like the uworld one.
@kevinpanini It would be ideal if we could update it in some way.
The trick is going to be updating it enough to improve on it, ideally without completely reworking it such that it’s likely to be disruptive to current users.
And, of course, ideally we would include a source, or table, of some kind (UWorld won’t work because of copyright). I haven’t spent enough time with it to really dial in the best option/s, but it’s for sure a series of cards that could benefit from some improvement.
@Brian_BH @kevinpanini would also likely make sense to include in the updated table the C-O bond Range and Peak appearance as it is tested in Anki id: 1560289034623. All other bonds tested in the deck via an image of an IR spectrum are included in the table.
Not sure if it’s worth including an additional card to test it alone for consistency. Curious what you guys think.
We’ve debated that. The issue/s are that I think Kaplan (IIRC) states that it’s not particularly testable, though I seem to remember having seen it on a practice question somewhere
This table has been a thorn in my side for a while, but finding an optimal solution that doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater has been challenging to land on just yet
You are correct. Kaplan states you only need to know:
O–H (broad around 3300 cm–1)
N–H (sharp around 3300 cm–1)
C=O (sharp around 1750 cm–1)
“If you need to identify other peaks on Test Day, a list or table of peak wavenumbers will be provided”
Personally haven’t seen a practice question on it yet but will definitely report back if I do find it.