Talk:Iron(III) chloride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 9, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
December 16, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept
December 10, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Chemicals / Core  (Rated A-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist.
 
Note icon
This article has been listed as a good article under the good article criteria.

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Production[edit]

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)

Old talk[edit]

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 {{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)

Thanks, I wrote a lot of this. Yes, I know they are very different beasts, just like with SnCl4 and AlCl3. You're doing a nice job on rewriting the page, keep it up! I think it would be hard justifying separate pages for the anhydrous and the hydrate, we need to find a format that works well without conflating. What you see is my attempt, in effect a first attempt, I started from a blank page. Whatever you can come up with to improve on that may be worth discussing, perhaps we can apply an ideas you have to the many other halides that have similar issues. One minor thing, Greenwood & Earnshaw say anhydrous FeCl3 is brown-black; where are you getting the green-black color from? Thanks for your excellent work, Walkerma 19:41, 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)

Hey, who'd have thought it - reflected vs transmitted light! You learn something every day! Thanks for digging that up, Smokefoot, now we have an interesting quirky property instead of a boring piece of data! Walkerma 06:03, 14 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


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


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!

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

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)

The formula for Iron (III) Chloride[edit]

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. ☺EfansayT/C☺ 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Either one is right, depending on which convention you are following. The usual convention for binary compounds like this is to put the metal first, but the table uses the Hill formula system which goes C then H then others alphabetically. Walkerma 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hill sequence is uncommon for inorganic compounds, and highly uncommon for FeCl3. Therefore I corrected this in the table. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

GA sweeps review[edit]

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)

  • There is an in-line reference for each section (I added one). For the rest the article is in my perception well-enough referenced for GA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
Ok, the article looks acceptable now, although there is still information under 'Other uses' that should be sourced. That particular section is also looking rather "listy", and could be written a little better. Other than that, it looks ok. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Nasty[edit]

this stuff tastes awful, didnt know it was toxic either, make sure you dont chew your nails while etching PCBs 90.216.22.4 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I hope you're not suggesting we put a taste remark in the article? In my personal experience, the most obvious flavour is the rusty nail taste of iron in it. Or as you're talking about nail, you problably chewed on some keratine corrosion product? That foul as well, like burnt hair? Yeach. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC).


Oxidation of iron II chloride with sulfur dioxide[edit]

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)

Iron alkoxides[edit]

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)

I've clarified the text [2], but may still be worth an expert look.87.102.13.111 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Preparation, #5[edit]

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.