This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iron(III) chloride article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Iron(III) chloride has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The article is about the 3 chloride, but one of the production methods listed is;
"Solutions of iron(III) chloride are produced industrially both from iron and from ore, in a closed-loop process.
1. Dissolving pure iron in a solution of iron(III) chloride
Fe(s) + 2 FeCl3(aq) → 3 FeCl2(aq)"
Reducing the 3 chloride to the 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.25.154 ( talk) 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Martin, this is it: as simple as that. Wim van Dorst 20:36, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Hi Wim- does this template go on the talk page, or the article page? Does it apply if we use any of the templates, or just certain ones? Thanks, Walkerma 21:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These wikiproject templates go on the talk page. Sofar 'we' have defined only two templates in the wikiproject: the {{chem-stub}} which can be used both in stub articles or on their talk page, and this {{WikiProject Chemistry}} which you see above. Note that on the Chemistry Wikiproject wikipage, I preliminarily defined this one template as applicable to all Chemistry wikiprojects and its sub-wikiprojects, although that can be elaborated if we choose so. Wim van Dorst 22:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC).
Thanks! I see I missed the bit about the talk page before (sorry!), but this clarifies it all nicely. Walkerma 22:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whoever did the bulk of the work here did a good job, because this is a nfty report. One suggestion: the article conflates anhydrous and hydrated forms, which can be misleading and even dangerous. They are quite different chemical critters. -- Smokefoot 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you did a great job on a species whose applicability I underestimated until reading your article and confirming it in my sources. About the color, I'll recheck, because I did feel uncomfortable with the factoid I found.-- Smokefoot 04:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sirs,
a discussion about the commerciality of "Suppliers" is started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.188.227.119
My main sorrow is, that these "suppliers" are in front of the literature and external links, making the commercial links seem to be more important than the scientific contents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.188.227.119
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.188.227.119 ( talk) 00:04, 2006 May 26 (UTC)
Can someone confirm if it is possible to use FeCl3 when one whant proof of H2S in a gas and how it would be done. / Martin
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.179.220.50 (
talk) 21:47, 2006 February 16 (UTC)
Id just like to say thank you to whoever added the little part about using the ferric chloride test to detect for phenols. i need info on this test for my a level coursework and its proved very helpful as there is not much info on this test anywhere else onthe net! Thank you wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.18 ( talk) 20:21, 2006 October 23 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a note for anyone to edit, as I don't know which is right, is the formula for Iron(III) Chloride FeCl3 or Cl3Fe. I'm asking because in the first paragraph it says FeCl3 but in the infobox on the side it says Cl3Fe. Can someone fix this error to which ever one is correct as I do not know the correct formula. ☺ Efansay T/ C☺ 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Conducting another GA sweeps review to re-review all Good Articles to verify that they continue to meet the Good Article criteria. This article meets all criteria except the inline citation criteria, as there are significant sections of the article that are not cited. I don't believe this is a major issue, as it looks like this can be solved by converted the 'further reading' items over to inline citations. If someone familiar with these sources could do this, the article can remain listed at WP:GA. I'll put this on hold at GA sweeps until this is done. Cheers! Dr. Cash 19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sulfur dioxide, according to the Standard electrode potential (data page), is not strong enough to oxidize iron II to iron III. The reduction potential for sulfur dioxide to sulfur is only +0.50. The potential for oxidation of iron II to iron III is +0.77. (The potential sign is reversed for oxidation, as the table is for standard reduction potentials. The reduction potential has to be higher than the oxidation potential for the reaction to occur spontaneously (e.g., without any electric current or extreme heat). -- Cheminterest ( talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the reaction with alkoxides should be clarified or altered based on this report [1] 87.102.13.111 ( talk) 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, #5 states: "Reacting Iron with hydrochloric acid, then with hydrogen peroxide. The hydrogen peroxide is the catalyst in turning iron chloride into ferric chloride" Did I understand well? iron chloride = ferric chloride, or it is supposed to be talking about a conversion from ferrous clhoride to ferric clhoride? Sorry to sneak here, I have not enough knowledge of chemistry, perhaps the sentences just confused me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothernatura ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 2014 November 22 (UTC)
Just as Copper Sulphate appears white when anhydrous AND blue when hydrated, so I would guess that Iron (III) Chloride has different colours in its different hydrated forms. WHY DOES THE PICTURE SHOW IRON (III) CHLORIDE HEXAHYDRATE *AND NOT* THE ANHYDROUS FORM (assuming that these are the only forms of Iron (III) Chloride - something I cannot be certain of myself). I have a picture of what I believe to be ANHYDROUS Iron (III) Chloride, it is dark green to the point of being black (as stated in the text). So clearly, the text reinforces the fact that Anhydrous Iron (III) Chloride is NOT Yellow (as confusingly shown in the picture) BUT that it is Dark-Green/Almost Black.
WHAT FOLLOWS MAY NOT BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE, BUT LIKELY IS and is based on past sample notes:
I also believe that Anhydrous Iron (III) Chloride can APPEAR to melt at 37 degrees C (according to the Wikipedia page ONLY the Hexahydrate melts at this temperature). This leads me to conclude that THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE *has a Devil in the detail* IN RELATION TO THE MELTING POINTS OF ANHYDROUS Iron (III) Chloride **AS** there is a tendency for Anhydrous Iron (III) Chloride to become hydrated in air and THEN melt due to its Deliquescence. Thus, naive attempts to measure the melting point of Anhydrous (III) Chloride in Air ought to take into account that energy will be directed towards evaporating absorbed moisture from the atmosphere AND the Water of Crystallisation (ie: the water that makes hexahydrate hydrated).
According to the information in the article, what happens is that the HEXAHYDRATE melts when heated, then at 100 degrees C, the water evaporates, at which point the sample becomes SOLID Anhydrous Iron (III) Chloride AND THEN, at 306 degrees C, the sample MELTS AGAIN (TWICE!). This is notable. ASavantDude ( talk) 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Iron(III) chloride/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Addition needed, in my humble opinion,
|
Last edited at 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2005 and last reassessed in 2007. This article has an orange tag and some uncited material that needs to be cited. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Steelkamp ( talk · contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to have to quick fail this good article review. There is an orange tag on the article which was mentioned in the most recent good article reassessment and is still valid. There are citation needed tags, and unfortunately, not much has changed since the good article reassessment concluded. Some other things I want to point out:
Steelkamp ( talk) 05:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dylnuge ( talk · contribs) 18:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey
Keresluna, picking this up as part of the GAN backlog drive! I'll be leaving comments here as I review; feel free to reply to them inline or wait until I'm done and address everything at once, whatever works best for you. Also please feel free to ask any questions or push back on suggestions. Thanks!
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits) 18:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Opening comments
Article is stable (5). No obvious copyvio detected (2d); note that [3] is flagged by Earwig but is clearly content lifted from Wikipedia, down to including the wikilinks (and even using MediaWiki classes in the divs), same goes for [4]. Article is illustrated and media used is appropriately captioned and licensed (6a/6b). Reference format is good (2a).
Three paragraphs are missing any citations: the second paragraph of "Redox reactions", the second paragraph of "Etching and metal cleaning", and the second paragraph of "Organic chemistry". Since these are short paragraphs it's likely the intended citation for them is nearby and just needs to be included at the ends of these paragraphs as well.
Two major things stand out on first read: accessibility and list incorporation. As a technical article it makes sense that some sections will be deeply technical, especially those which essentially require chemistry knowledge to understand. On the other hand, not all of the article needs to assume a background in chemistry. In particular the lead should be readable by someone with limited specialized knowledge, even if they don't know what everything means (I find it helps to imagine the average high school student in the US). For non-technical readers, the key information will be what the compound is and how it's used, so this is especially important to cover in the lead, and the "Uses" section in particular should be accessible by a general audience. Take a look at an article like 1-Pentadecanol for an example of what I'm talking about here—the lead there includes technical language, and the article does not shy away from including significant details likely to be most relevant to specialists, but it avoids describing things in exclusively technical terms and includes a decent summary of how the compound is used in the lead.
Lists should be used only where the article wouldn't be able to better present the information using prose. In this case, I see at least one list (the one in "Organic chemistry") that almost certainly would be improved if it were presented as prose. I'm less sure on the list in "Hydrates" or the list-like formatting of the "Preperation" section; both of these seem more likely to be legitimate usages of lists, but I am not a subject matter expert here so take a look and see if this is the ideal framing.
One more thing here: I notice Smokefoot has written the plurality of the content here (over 1/3rd: [5]) and has been recently active in contributing to this article. I think it'd be helpful to include them in this review process. I bring this up because the nominator is generally responsible for working with the reviewer to shepherd the article through the GA process and in the case where an article has been worked on by multiple people it's helpful to have major contributors participating in the process. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 19:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments
"Electrons are configured in molecular orbitals..."work here? The repeated use of "electron" feels wrong.
Responding to critique
"Electrons are configured in molecular orbitals..."work here? The repeated use of "electron" feels wrong.
--
Smokefoot (
talk) 18:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Keresluna, Dylnuge, and Smokefoot: Nothing has happened on this review in almost 3 months. Can this be wrapped up soon? RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tea with toast ( talk · contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I made a few minor corrections and stylistic changes, which I don't think changed the meaning of anything, but I took too much liberty, let me know | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Using [ this version] as reference, full citations are needed for #38, 40, 41, 53, 54. Use WP:CITEWEB for reference | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | I'm going to put the article on hold until items in #2b can be corrected. Let me know if there are any concerns. Thanks!
Tea with toast
(話) 01:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Apologies, things in the real world have been busier than anticipated. I hope to be able to finish this review by the end of the coming weekend. Cheers, Tea with toast (話) 04:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)