Talk:High-valent iron

Update needed

This wikipedia page on High-valent iron needs to be updated because it only includes examples of synthetically prepared Iron complexes. A section is needed that discusses the examples found in nature, such as those in metallo-proteins. If synthetic examples are going to be discussed, all known synthetic Fe(IV / V) complexes should be included.

Yet another lacking aspect of this page is the "one-sided" nature of the references. One example of a key missing citation would be that of Holm 1987 chem. Rev. v87 p1401 in which a detailed section on high-valent iron is included. The classic iron complex [FeO4]2- (which contains Fe(VI)) is only briefly mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.1.88 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"high-valent iron usually denotes compounds and intermediate in which iron is found in a formal oxidation state > 3." Says who?--Smokefoot (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC) -> Good point, I changed "usually" to "commonly", as the term "high-valent iron" is used that way. I tried to trace it back in the literature, but I couldn't find a clear definition. It's not found in the Gold-Book —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPBoyd (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Some comments:

• Wikipedia is not Chemical Reviews. So the references should mainly be to books and reviews. See WP:SECONDARY. The article is written for (somewhat narrow) academic audience and implies that synthetic inorganic chemistry is main-stream thought, which is too narrow for Wikipedia.
• No way: " All known synthetic Fe(IV / V) complexes should be included." Wikipedia is not your blog nor an comprehensive review, save those find details for a real journal. We want an overview for non-specialists.
• "high-valent iron commonly denotes compounds and intermediate in which iron is found in a formal oxidation state > 3." Says who? This kind of approach, which is common for newcomers, is called "synthesis" and is discouraged. You are (with good intentions) foisting your world view, your classification scheme on the readership. I am pretty that if I check standard textbooks, I will not find sections on high-valent Fe. This content could be condense and incorporated into iron or an article on P450.

Probably the article will evolve something useful, but better to be general and small rather than big and specialized. And again the content would have been better within iron. IMHO. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! :)

First of all: I found this orphan-article and therefore corrected some errors and inserted some citations, don't blame me for its general structure! Since this article has been there already, I just worked with what I found.

• Wikipedia is not Chemical Reviews. So the references should mainly be to books and reviews. -> Not true: Wikipedia is not supposed to contain primary research; citing primary literature is secondary and therefore absolutely alright. Furthermore I did insert reviews, since at the previous state there were no reviews included and the previous state only included four papers from a certain group of people, which was one-sided to my mind!

• concerning: No way: " All known synthetic Fe(IV / V) complexes should be included." -> I didn't write this, has been there since June! But I do think that there should be at least one reference to each type of compound class that is relevant in the context of high-valent iron. Honestly: Nobody who isn't intrested in this would look up that topic!

• "high-valent iron commonly denotes compounds and intermediate in which iron is found in a formal oxidation state > 3." Says who? This kind of approach, which is common for newcomers, is called "synthesis" and is discouraged

-> This is not synthesis as there is no conclusion drawn or implied (and I'm not a newcomer, I've been active on wikipedia since it started), but a definition of the article's title, that IS commonly used as research topic in bioinorganic chemistry. What you are talking about is a problem that arises with common scientific language generally. As the article was already there and there was no definition present, I inserted this one, which is quite accurate. If you have a better definition, feel free to insert it! If you think there should be a citation, insert one!

• Most important: Contribute to the article if you don't like this version, there's no point in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPBoyd (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I apologize for accusing you of being responsible for this article, which in fact I think is off to a bad start.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• removed old pictures, inserted new ones
• adjusted text to make it sound less paper-like

-> comments appreciated

Above edit by JPBoyd, 2 January 2011

First comment: you're not supposed to edit or delete other editors' contributions to the talk page, only to the article. Also you are supposed to sign your edits to the talk page. I have restored the previous version and added your edit at the end. Dirac66 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tags removed

Reference 7 has been added and the tags {{expert-subject}} {{synthesis}} have been removed as they are no longer needed. Petergans (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)