Talk:Gold(III) chloride/Archive 1

Well done

Nice page, Martin. Well done. Wim van Dorst 19:17, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Tyhis article has been removed from the GA list due to lack of inline citations; as well as various parts of the article with jargon. If you feel that this article was wrongly reviewed feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-reviewed and still lacks appropriate citations as a WP:GA. There are also quite a few red wikilinks in the article. Some of the sections are really short. The figures and chemical reactions look good, though. Dr. Cash 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To explain the lack of citations better, this article lacks citations in the entire 'structure' section and the entire 'preparation' section. The 'preparation' section is also rather weak, with a single sentence and one chemical equation. This could certainly be expanded. The 'chemical properties' section also generally lacks citations, except for the overly-referenced sentence at the end (with SIX CITATIONS?!?!). Seems to me like all of these would be better if they were spread out in the section, perhaps? The 'uses' section is the better referenced here, but could use more citations. There's also two red links here. 'Precautions' has no citations.

Also, with regard to references, since several of these are referencing ACS journals, it might be useful to directly link to the article on pubs.acs.org, since all of these are available online (albeit with a subscription -- most academic users won't have a problem accessing).

This one's really close to WP:GA status, though. A few citations, and it should pass easily. The figures and images look good, the chemical structures are well done. The infobox is complete. Dr. Cash 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was primarily written before inline citation become the norm. I'm away from home at the moment, but I can add in some when I get back. I wrote nearly all of the content, and there is not a single sentence that I wrote that does not have a source. Walkerma 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture problems and Chlor(o)auric acid

While chlorauric acid redirects to this page, there is also a page for chloroauric acid (with tetrachloroauric acid redirecting to it). Does this compound merit a separate article, or should both spellings redirect here? There is not too much additional information on the other page...

On a further note, the picture for this article appears to show chlorauric acid trihydrate, not AuCl₃. The ampoule pictured is labeled as "gold chloride," but a formula can be seen on the side: HAuCl_{subscript not visible}•H₂O --Pyrochem (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your perceptive comments. These issues have been addressed.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bleach method

Hi GX-NZ

Thanks for your edits. I've read the article at http://www.mine.mn/Robin_Grayson_gold_recovery_method67.pdf

I don't think they are describing the chemistry properly. They refer to a gold(II) product which is not common or known at all. In any case, it is not meant to be a way to get AuCl3 in a usable form; it is meant to recover elemental gold. So I've taken it out. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision of May 22

I cannot find anything on AuCl3(OH2), although Wiberg mentions it. Virtually nothing on this species. I have never heard of Au(CN)4]-, where did this come from? The hydrolysis bit should be stated more cautiously. IMHO. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Covalency

Somebody commented out the statement that that the bonding in AuCl
₃ is "mostly covalent" due to the electronegativity of gold and its high oxidation state. Is there a reference for that? It seems a bit dubious, or at least, not very well worded.—Tetracube (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand why there is much discussion on covalency, the former statement said that Au2Cl6 was particularly covalent because Au was in a high oxidation state, but it seems likely that Au(I) compounds are even more covalent (softer), so the logic does not work. In general, I think that describing the amount of covalency should be kept to a minimum because such descriptions tempt editors into OR-ish comments and misleadingly implies knowledge that few editors here possess, except some of the computational folk that have not worked on this article. On other points:

• There is almost zero literature on AuCl3(H2O). Certainly never been isolated. Its possible existence makes a nice tempting story for the fate of Au2Cl6 in water. Yes, Wiberg mentions it, but the primary literature on AuCl3(H2O) is scant.
• The conjugate base, [AuCl3(OH)]- has more of a track record, but it has not been obtained as a pure substance either. Discussing the species formed by dissolving Au2Cl6 in water is approaching OR, harmless OR but OR nonetheless.
• Following up from my comments above, I am very wrong about [Au(CN)4]-, I had assumed that CN- would reduce Au(III).
• The main source on this article is Greenwood and Earnshaw, that book (by my reading) is more cautious in describing the base hydrolysis. No mention of Au(OH)3. At high pH, the species in soln is [Au(OH)4]-, which I think has been crystallized.

Thanks for the conversation. I am not a super-expert on the Au theme, so I defer to your reading of the sources and some consensus. Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Density of AuCl3

The English version of the Gold(III) chloride wikipedia page seems to be the only one claiming a density of 4.7 g/cm^3. All other pages and internet sources I found claim 3.9 g^3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.216.160 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I confirmed the 4.7 value in Lide, David R., ed. (2006). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0487-3., the main data reference in English. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)