Talk:Nonmetal
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nonmetal 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 |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 200 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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. |
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Astatine and Polonium
Isn't astatine a metalloid (sometimes considered) ? I've even seen polonium considered a metalloid. 2603:6000:8740:54B1:98C0:1879:4C99:365D (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Both have been classified as metalloids by some authors, though the consensus isn't as clear as for the main ones (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te). See lists of metalloids for a more in-depth analysis. Complex/Rational 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've usually seen astatine regarded as a nonmetal or metalloid; occasionally as a metal. Polonium I've seen regarded as a metalloid, though usually a metal. 2600:1008:B18F:94F7:495F:FB73:818D:885A (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Astatine has an unusual history in that when it was first syntheized it was considered to be a metal. Experimental evidence and recent theory suggests it may indeed be a metal. In-between it seems to have suffered from its association with the halogens. Ergo it must be a nonmetal, ignoring trends of increased metallicity going down the group. Non-relativitic calcuations pointed to it being a semiconductor and hence a metalloid candidate. Relativity points to it being a post-transition metal.
Polonium is soluble in acids, forming the rose-coloured Po2+ cation and displacing hydrogen: Po + 2 H+ → Po2+ + H2. It has no band gap and no semiconducting allotropes. Hence it's a metal. Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Polonium is further down in the electrochemical series than hydrogen, and appears in about the same place as ruthenium. Hence, a caveat must be added: polonium often gets oxidised by media that electrochemically should not oxidise it, because of radiolytic decay products. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination
@Graham Beards, YBG, and Double sharp: Please see below. @Michael D. Turnbull, Mirokado, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: fyi. I understand that the following items had still to be checked off: A small mention of metalloid outliers (Double sharp)
Complementary pairs (YBG) Please see the new section about this, hereunder. More tendency speak (Double sharp)
An extraction periodic table (YBG)
Double up (Graeme Beards)
--- Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Complementary pairs (follow-on from previous section)
resolved
YBG (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Continued in Pairs again. YBG (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
My biggest concern [about the Nonmetal article] is related to the pairing of nonmetal classes with a “complementing” set of metals.
The pairings of nonmetal categories with metal categories appears to be this same sort of synthesis, and so I say, no matter how beautiful and symmetrical this is, it does not belong in a WP article. I would be very interested to know what other reviewers think of this concern. YBG (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your concern. Not only is each comparison cited to a different source, but the last one (unclassified to transition) is straightforwardly SYNTH (see ref. 158; neither source quoted actually spells out the connexion). Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks YBG. I'll start by removing the image pairs. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) @YBG: Could you kindly clarify what you meant by "the system as a whole ...[being] too novel to be prominently displayed"? At no time has the article displayed the system as a whole. Instead the parallels have been mentioned on a type by type basis. While this is an article about nonmetals, many nonmetallic elements are said to have some metallic aspects; and many metallic elements have some nonmetallic aspects. Hence the comparison with metals is relevant and fruitful. I've removed all the paired images except for the alkali metal-halogen image since this is Chemistry 101. Please note that the text for each of the four types of nonmetals includes a reference to geographic analogies, which I've listed hereunder for convenience:
Could you please advise me if you have any concerns about any of these paragraphs? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Pairs again
@YBG: Earlier, you wrote:
@Double sharp: Earlier you wrote:
My understanding is that it does not matter that the sources "are different for each one." The whole article is an encyclopedic compilation drawing on multiple sources. No single source captures all of the information set out in the article. That said, the status of the image pairs is now that there are only two such pairs left: noble gas/noble metal; and halogen/alkali metal. For the noble gases/noble metals image and paragraph I've added three further cites, and copy-edited the topic sentence for the paragraph. For halogen/alkali metal, I earlier noted in this thread that I retained "the alkali metal-halogen image since this is Chemistry 101." For the unclassified/transition metals paragraph I've further copy edited this and it now relies on a single source, rather than two separate sources. Could your please review my responses to your concerns? All going well, I'm aiming to relist nonmetal on Monday Nov 6, my time. thanks, --- Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
|
More thoughts
The sub-sub sections below mostly relate to the paired comparisons. I’ve added some stuff to the first paragraphs of the group 17 and 18 sections. Feel free to copy edit and add refs. (Thanks for the wiki link, @ Sandbh!)
Another detail … looking at the section headings above, I see several that include “FAC”. If someone has the time, it would ge good to append a number (FAC7 or FAC6 or whatever) before the sections get archived. |
- @YBG: Thanks for listing items of concern in an organised manner; @Double sharp: thanks for chiming in. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
NG/NM comparisons
YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, incidentally, the mention of Xe intermetallics is misplaced here. It is not really about the noble gases, but rather it is about how metallicity, or lack thereof, inherently depends on pressure. So it should rather be part of a general discussion of what happens at high pressure, like we have that deep down. Yes, all elements eventually become metals, but there is sometimes weirdness along the way (Na first de-metallises before re-metallising). Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Group 17/1 comparisons
YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@YBG and Double sharp: Thanks. I've previously addressed the 1st para. issue, and mentioned the removal of all the image pairs. Regarding −1 alkalide anions, the context is:
--- Sandbh (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Quote boxes
|
Metalloid outliers
YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Unclassified nonmetals
Just wondering … would it be good to change Unclassified nonmetals to Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|
More re complementary pairs
Metalloid / PTM comparison
The penultimate paragraph with block quote amounts to saying “The metalloids and PTM are in the middle of the periodic table, one is weakly metallic, the other weakly nonmetallic”. This is not really a fact about the M-oids and PTM, but rather a fact about the general strongly-metallic-to-strongly-nonmetallic PT trend. The text admits that the comparison is only occasionally made. Unlike the group 17 and 18 comparisons, I don't think this paragraph has anything substantial enough here to be included in the 1st paragraph of the section as I added in the now reverted edits. Best to simply delete this paragraph. YBG (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Unclassified NM / TM comparison
The penultimate “In terms of PT geography...” paragraph essentially says both classes are between more reactive elements and less reactive elements. This is not really a fact about the UNM and TM, but rather a fact about the general strongly-metallic-to-strongly-nonmetallic PT trend. Unlike the group 17 and 18 comparisons, I don't think this paragraph has anything substantial enough here to be included in the 1st paragraph of the section as I added in the now reverted edits. Best to simply delete this paragraph. YBG (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Comparisons in general
If you are willing to delete all four comparison paragraphs, I would entertain the addition at the end of the introduction to Types, a general statement describing NM L-R trend, mentioning that it mostly mirrors the L-R trend in metals. If this seems a good idea, let me know and once all four comparison paragraphs are removed, I'll add it from my offline draft. YBG (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Sandbh’s analysis of YBG’s alternative
Discussion of YBG’s alternative@Sandbh: Your longish post seems to me to have three main objections, which I would like to discuss individually. I would appreciate your effort to keep your responses brief. YBG (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC) (1) You object to
(2) You object to
(3) You object to how my paragraph fits into the section flow. I need to think about this more. Let’s wait until after we discuss the other two issues. YBG (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@YBG: It’s not clear to me why there is so much ado over a single paragraph that takes up ca. 1% of the article’s size. I’m currently time-challenged and hope to be able to add some further comments later on. Sandbh (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC) The citation is to Parish's book, The Metallic Elements. He surveys the s-block metals; the f-block metals (a chapter each on Ln and An); the d-block metals (a chapter each on the 3d metals, and the 4d-5d metals (including the noble metals); and the p-block metals. The relevant paragraph in the nonmetal article is accompanied by a table showing EN ranges for the elements. The pattern of electronegativity is plain to see. For the types of nonmetals, there is a progression from less electronegative to more electronegative. A similar progression occurs among the metals. Metallicity is broadly related to EN and to reactivity. So, the s- and f-block metals are the most EN/metallic, the ordinary TM are next, then follow the p-block metals, and the noble metals. Among the metals a similar pattern is seen in the melting point v EN chart in the post-transition metals article. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I may as well gently add, once again, it is well known that both metals and nonmetals range from highly to less reactive (even noble). The paragraph under discussion says just that. Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) |
Restating YBG’s questions
Restating and expanding my questions above in hopes of getting direct answers to each, especially from @Double sharp. YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
YBG Q 1(1) Is it helpful to mention the broad PT trend (L/metal-to-R/nonmetal) when discussing the 4-fold divisions of metals and of nonmetals (and their comparisons) ? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
YBG Q 2(2) How does § Parish (1977, p. 37, 112, 115, 145, 163, 182) present these metal-category-to-nonmetal-category comparisons? Do they reference one another (eg, ‘we see that these p-block metals correspond to metalloids in the same way that noble metals correspond to noble gasses’)? Or are they isolated comparisons without reference to one another? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
YBG Q 3(3) Other than @Sandbh’s own work, how much RS support exists for this 4-fold division of metals? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Further discussion re refining edits
Sources gathered from elsewhere on this TPAdditional source #1 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Additional source #2 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Additional source #3 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
YBG Q 4(4) Would this article about nonmetals be better without a reference to this 4-fold division of metals? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
More re YBG Qs(5) (Editors are invited to replace this placeholder text with additional questions.) Thank you! YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I think this long but fruitful discussion has now reached its natural end; I can’t think of any significant changes needed to this section now. YBG (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) YBG (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
Lead section & paragraph length
|
Whither now (post FAC7)
@Sandbh: Thank you for taking the initiative to resolve the outstanding issues in FAC-7. I wonder if it might be wise to see how many of the reviewers would be willing to become co-nominators? I would be willing to do this under certain circumstances, and I think others might also. Convincing previous reviewers to become co-nominators will improve (but delay) the FAC-8 nomination. For me to be willing to do this, I would need to engage with the FA criteria in a way I have not yet done. For each criterion, I would wish to state the extent to which I reviewed it and list any outstanding issues that need to be addressed before I'm willing to become a co-nominator. Potential problems with this:
Is there any interest in pursuing such a process? Is anyone else willing to consider becoming a co-nominator? YBG (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@YBG: The plan is to not renominate until all the discusssion on this page has been concluded. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Further comments (because at the FAC7 I stopped at Physical properties)
Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Halogen pic
How would something like this work for the picture at Nonmetal § Halogen nonmetals? |
Sources pic
I’m experimenting here with a table to replace the one at § Abundance, extraction, and uses
References Differences from the status quo:
YBG (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Abundance, sources, uses
@Sandbh, @Double sharp: What do you think of putting each graphic in its proper section? Check out special:permalink/1183897347 § Abundance, sources, and uses in both desktop and mobile views. YBG (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
It looks good. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
First row anomaly pic
The pic at § First row anomaly has a lot of detail not related to the first row anomaly. This makes the picture cluttered and confusing. I've included here an outline of what could be an alternative. YBG (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) @YBG: Please proceed, with the exception that the first rows of the d and f blocks do not need to be shaded. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@YBG: They do. The degree to which the anomalies standout is s >> p > d >f. It doesn't really matter if the d- and f- anomalies are included. Perhaps something like attached image. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Property comparisons
Why is § Comparison of selected properties in the § History, background, and taxonomy section? These tables that compare the chemical and physical properties of metals and the 3+1 types of nonmetals would seem to be more appropriate either in the Chemical and Physical subsections of § General properties or else at the end of § Types. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|
More re types
@Sandbh: I’ve trimmed the descriptions in the list that also serves as a legend. In particular I’ve tried to eliminate the clumsy X-to-Y descriptions. I restored “chemically strong”, it is much crisper than “highly to moderately reactive” and seems supported in the literature. I eliminated “high to low reactivity” which seems to the casual reader (eg FAC evaluators) to be tantamount to meaningless. YBG (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Single distinguishing properties table
As the table cells are advertised as being ordered by date, why not put the year at the beginning of each line, with a different hanging indent so that the year can function as a bullet without needing a bullet icon. YBG (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Peer review or FAC
@YBG: I feel this article is now good to go to PR or FAC. Do you concur? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Perhaps. Let me take a global look first to see if anything jumps out. YBG (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- See related topic at § Oustanding issues check below. @Sandbh, should we close this section or come back to it later? YBG (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh? YBG (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I’m happy to close and proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage namely final read through; change notes to efn; and check for redundant references, provided you and @Double sharp: have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- One suggestion might be to run the article by some of the editors who opposed the past FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was only suggestion that we don’t need both this section and § Oustanding issues check open. I've been dribbling my issues out a few at a time as I don’t have the bandwidth for multiple open discussions. YBG (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG, Double sharp, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I intend to proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage as set out above, and then ask some of the editors who opposed past-FACs. — Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I’m happy to close and proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage namely final read through; change notes to efn; and check for redundant references, provided you and @Double sharp: have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Types
@Double sharp: after a very long discussion between @Sandbh and me, I think we’ve come about as far as we can. Would you please read the last paragraph of § Types, the one just before § Noble gases dealing with metal reactivity. Is it acceptable in its current form? If not, what changes do you think are necessary? Is the article better with this paragraph or without it? Thanks! YBG (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Lead-in to types bullets
@YBG: I've changed the mention of number of types to read "three or four types of nonmetallic elements can be most commonly discerned". This is more consistent with the opening paragraph of the section. It also clarifies why "three to four" in that these are the most common approaches. I've used "discerned" rather "seen", as "seen" often refers to the act of visual perception, whereas "discerned" implies a deeper process of understanding, interpreting, or making out something that might not be immediately obvious. I feel this is especially appropriate given the subject matter, including the "are they?/aren't they" nature of the metalloids. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
|
A thought on the history
It occurs to me that there must be a missing link between Dupasquier and Dumas on the one hand, and the modern idea on the other, because they consider B and Si to be nonmetals but are not agreed on the more metalloidal elements. Dumas includes As but not Se, and Dupasquier includes Se but not As; neither include Ge, Sb, or Te. The 1911 Britannica article on chemistry thinks that B, Si, Se, and Te are nonmetals, but not Ge, As, and Sb. I assume this changed when people started using "metalloid" for an intermediate set instead, but in that case the inclusion of such elements as primarily nonmetals gets somewhat iffy, since mostly people talk about them as intermediate between metals and nonmetals. Back when there were only two categories and no intermediate ones, it does not seem as though Ge, As, and Sb were considered nonmetals that often. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thank you. I don't know if 49% of chemists would agree metalloids are nonmetals. OTOH, I presume > 49% know that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry. Per your suggestion, the article clarifies the "sometimes" nature of metalloids, in the following places:
I count ten places in which the peculiar treatment of the metalloids is mentioned. The overall emphasis is on the seventeen elements generally recognised as nonmetals, with the six metalloids being mentioned as appropriate. The metalloid article and nonmetal article work side-by-side. The first has a much narrower focus; the second has a broader focus due to the overlap of the predominately nonmetallic chemistry of the metalloids. In response to your concerns I've add a paragraph to the Development of types section, explaining the status of B and Si, and what happened to Ge, As, Sn and Te. How is the article now looking? --- Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Nonmetal(s) vs. Nonmetallic (chemical) element(s)
@Sandbh, do you use these terms synonymously?
- nonmetal(s)
- nonmetallic element(s)
- nonmetallic chemical element(s)
When I read this article, I cannot tell whether these are used synonymously or if they are intended to convey some slight distinction. YBG (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I use "nonmetallic" in preference to "nonmetal", as the first has more wriggle room i.e. it better accomodates the metalloids. What Oderberg said about nonmetals relates i.e. if something is not a metal than it must be a nonmetal. But I don't want to go to too far down that rabbit hole. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: since you prefer nonmetallic, I wonder, where just plain nonmetal is used, does it mean the same thing? Or something slightly different? YBG (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- My intention is to use "nonmetallic" when referring to anything including a metalloid, and "nonmetal" otherwise. I haven't however checked for my consistency of usage. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a good rule. Now that I know it, I will try to enforce it when it is needed. After we do a thorough review, it might be good to explicitly state this someplace in the article. YBG (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: As you read through the article, have a look at the use of "nonmetallic element" vs. "nonmetal". YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
regarding "Types, metalloids"
AFAIK, semiconducting Sb is only stable as a very thin film (doi:10.1039/D3NR03536K). If we're going to include this sort of thing, then we'd presumably have to also note that B can metallise under such conditions (see borophene). Graphene also counts, though C is placed under unclassified nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|
How many types
@Sandbh, we had previously agreed on the wording, but you just now changed “four” to “three to four”. The list following the colon is a list of four items, no more and no less, and so imo the number in the paragraph should be four. One of my previous suggestions had been “four types of elements”, to which you inserted the word “nonmetallic”, but you can remove it if that makes the number four more acceptable. Just please don’t change it back to “3 to 4” without a discussion and agreement to change our previously agreed wording. Thank you! YBG (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Scope
List article ledes often include a clear statement of the scope of the list, that is, the inclusion criteria. This is not a list article, but it seems it might benefit from a clear scope statement early in the article. This should at minimum include the exclusion of astatine because its bulk properties are not well attested and inclusion of the metalloids for comparative purposes. Another possible addition would be explaining the use of “nonmetal” vs “nonmetallic element” if we decide to use these terms consistently. I’ve thought a bit about where to put this, and it seems there are three good choices: (1) as the last sentence of the first paragraph (2) as a new paragraph inserted between the first and second (3) as a new paragraph at the end of the top section. There are certainly other choices too. I don’t feel strongly about the location except that the earlier the better and that it should be in the top section. As it currently stands, the scope dt at statement comes much later. Thoughts anyone? YBG (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@YBG: I've further streamlined the 1st paragraph. Self-evidently, there cannot be an "exact" number of nonmetals. I submit that it is not a good idea to refer to metalloids at this point given the article is about nonmetals, and metalloids have not even been defined yet. Here's how it reads now plus the two preceding versions:
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Assuming that you objected the scope statement due to its length, I shortened it in hopes it meets with your approval:
I think an explicit scope statement early on is very important, but it should be coupled with an acknowledgment that it is not universally accepted. YBG (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I can’t think of any way to improve on the two scoping sentences that now appear in the first paragraph:
|
Density and electronegativity chart
(I've removed my previous confusing comment and replaced it with this, as a picture is worth 1,000 words) I've added a periodic table to illustrate the four quadrants of the electronegativity/density distribution. I did this mostly because the long lists of metals are pretty unintelligible to me, even though I can translate the symbols into element names fairly easily. Seeing them in the PT allows me to see things in context. There are basically two ways to present the PT:
For each, there are several options for how the 4 quadrants could be formatted, shown in the accompanying table. The two forms of the PT can be viewed here: I recognize that whatever form is chosen, the color scheme must be re-thought. And I am not tied to having a PT; if you think it is too much clutter, reverting the whole thing is fine with me. YBG (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@YBG: Building on your code, I've boldly replaced the table with table 8 as I feel it has the right balance of grey's and colours. Fell free to revert or adjust. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
|
New issues
@Sandbh: More issues have cropped up with the legend.
- The legend no longer has any indication that one quadrant has only nonmetallic elements and the other three have only metallic elements. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is an unsightly line between the upper right and lower right quadrants. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The density and electronegativity labels have unnecessary line breaks. This makes the legend narrower, but leaves the whole chart taller but just as wide. The chart is wide enough to accommodate the density and EN labels without newlines. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
EN: | <1.9 | ≥1.9 | (revised Pauling electronegativity): | |
Density (gm/cm3): | <7 | All nonmetallic elements: EN≥1.9 and density<7 All metals: EN<1.9 or density≥7 or both | ||
≥7 |
@Sandbh:: There are still problems. I propose this legend with these advantages
- Less vertical space (Reduced from 5 to 3 lines.)
- Wider legend (Still fits within the table.)
- Density properly aligned vertically (Added invisible subscript.)
- Clear metal/nonmetal separation (Added detail to note. Varied width of cell borders.)
- Note focused on content (Added values and removed unnecessary term 'quadrant'.)
- Col headers clearly separate from adjacent text (Removed space after </≥ which was almost the same as space around headers.)
- Quadrant rows/cols clearly defined (Removed dividing line clutter by changing from {{legend inline}} to full-cell coloring.)
- Consistent formatting (Bolded property names; italicized units of measure.)
Throughts? YBG (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I like your coding work. I've streamlined the table and posted it the mainspace. How does it look now? --- Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nice. Did you recently move H over F? Or has it always been that way in this PT? Whichever, it looks good with all of the light blue together. YBG (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I moved the units out of the header (where they are too much detail) into the legend (where they are adjacent to the numbers being described). YBG (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’m contemplating rearranging the notes to something like this:
- D<7 and EN≥1.9 all nonmetallic elements
- D≥7 or EN<1.9 or both all metals
- This puts the Ds and the ENs above each other, which I think is pleasing, though the color boxes in the middle is a bit unusual. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I looked at your suggestion but the color boxes in the middle have the affect of unduly appearing to stretch out, and cluttering, the legend; it's not a good look. While I was there I adjusted the spacing, and removed the collapse borders from the four legend boxes. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The thinsp works ok. I added "(EN)" to the header, which I think is very important if the full word "electronegativity" is absent from the legend. I also changed the title to something shorter and to the point:
Density and electronegativity (EN) in the periodic table
instead of Periodic table shading elements by density and electronegativity (EN). YBG (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) - I might come up with another idea. YBG (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve revised the legend again. Let me know what you think. YBG (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The thinsp works ok. I added "(EN)" to the header, which I think is very important if the full word "electronegativity" is absent from the legend. I also changed the title to something shorter and to the point:
- @YBG: I looked at your suggestion but the color boxes in the middle have the affect of unduly appearing to stretch out, and cluttering, the legend; it's not a good look. While I was there I adjusted the spacing, and removed the collapse borders from the four legend boxes. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Johnson’s NM characteristics
Can we eliminate the table in favor of expanding the numbered list with sub points?
But then I got stuck not knowing what to put under (3) If the table remains, it needs to be better coordinated with the numbered list. But I prefer removing the table On wide screens, it pushes the EN/density chart down too far :YBG (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Apparently tungsten oxides are soluable in concentrated hydrofluoric acid. The dissolution reaction presumably involves protonation of the oxide with formation of soluble tungsten fluoride complexes. I'll remove reference to the oxides and maybe say something about W's anionic aqueous chemistry. --- Sandbh (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Oxides
it is clear from the note that while metal oxides are mostly basic, some are acidic or amphoteric. But what about nonmetal (or metalloid) oxides? Are any basic? Are any amphoteric? Or are they ALL acidic? YBG (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ve tweaked the wording at § Chemical properties of nonmetals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Opening PT excerpt
We hashed this out before, but I’m wondering about At again. Could it be like Cn/Fl/Og with a “status unclear” legend, relegating any other info to a note? It would make the opening graphic a lot cleaner. YBG (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@YBG and Double sharp: I've boldly updated the image to show At with a blank background, and simplified the accompanying extract. Nice idea YBG. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
H/C/N/O/Si percentages in earth’s domains
The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph reads:
The note, based on the table in § Abundance of nonmetallic elements, says:
Wouldn’t it be nicer to say:
To do this, someone ( Sandbh?) needs to look up this data in the refs:
Is it worth doing the research? Or is it just fine the way it is? YBG (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Oustanding issues check
@YBG and Double sharp: Are there any remaining matters of concern? A week has otherwise passed and there have been no new additions to this page. I have yet to do a final quality check on article prose and flow, and still need to check there are no redunant references in the list of same. I also intend to look into the feasibiity of changing the footnote tags from { {#tag:ref|...|group=n}} to { {efn|...}}. |
1st paragraph § Classification of metalloids
So what are the metalloids after all? Are they the Andorra of the periodic table? Or the Alsace–Lorraine? Or the Czechoslovakia? I have renamed this section and copy edited its 1st paragraph, pulling the first note into body text so the reader sees how impurities have complicated classification in several cases. I thought about mentioning this in the new topic sentence, but in the end decided not to. I haven’t tackled the other paragraph, which seems to subtly emphasize two related ideas: (1) (non)metal classification should properly be based primarily on chemistry and (2) the metalloids should properly be considered nonmetals, not an in-between category. Reading between the lines, it seems that when chemical properties are emphasized, the metalloids naturally align themselves with the nonmetal bloc, but when physical properties are emphasized, they assert their independence. Could RS be found to support this idea? If so, could we restructure this paragraph to treat the alternates (3rd super category vs. nonmetal subcategory) more NPOV-ly? ——— YBG (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Pics for § Classification of metalloids
I’ve reused the two boron pics in § Allotropes. For this section, I’d like pics contrasting the metallic appearance of pure silicon (or boron) with its nonmetallic appearance when it has impurities. I will look in commons to see if I can find anything; failing that, we can leave the boron pics here and drop them above, leaving only the graphite and diamond pics under allotropes. YBG (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids
@Sandbh and Double sharp: I have rephrased the 2nd paragraph (diff, result) to eliminate the subtle emphasis I perceived. Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
|
More re 2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids
@Sandbh: Sorry for the revert and unrevert. Somehow I’d missed seeing that you’d adopted my suggestion. The final text …
… is ok but I still think it could be improved. But if nothing occurs to me in a week or so, I’ll close this whole == section. YBG (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
Definitions & lists
Consider the 2nd paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements:
Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
A side question that seems interesting but probably doesn’t enter in to determining content of the article:
——— YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I think we can close this section. YBG (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
Allotropes
@Sandbh, @Double sharp: I have moved the brief mention of allotropes up earlier so that it can serve as a scoping statement describing which forms the article discusses. It also subsumes the hatnote about most stable form under ambient conditions. At the same time, I added a brief mention of hydrogen’s isotopes which seemed appropriate. I need you to verify that I listed the correct allotrope. I was not able to find information about iodine, so please add it to the list. YBG (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Double sharp and YBG: The footnote in the middle of the hatnote has been relocated to the end of the hatnote. I've adjusted the listing of stable forms, including removing the isotope reference. I've added a footnote to the end of the Definitions and applicable elements section to cater for temperature and pressure variations. I believe this thread may now been addressed. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
|
Article style
Should the style of this article be adopted as follows:
- Paragraph construction in this article follows the topic sentence method. The first sentence of a paragraph—the topic sentence—summarises what is elaborated in the rest of the paragraph. It should be possible to follow the logical flow of the article by reading only its topic sentences.
To enforce such a style decision without raising WP:OWNership issues, this should be adopted by consensus. Editors are invited to express their opinions here. YBG (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I feel this would do:
-
- The following note is offered as non-binding guidance on the structure of the article. It is not intended as a binding requirement for future contributions. The article was structured using the topic sentence method to enhance clarity and coherence, with each paragraph starting with a topic sentence that summarizes its main content. This approach was designed to facilitate understanding of the article's logical flow and improve readability by allowing readers to grasp the main points via these opening sentences.
- — Sandbh (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Density & electronegativity
The 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements says My question: does this emphasis reflect the literature? If this emphasis is not the clear consensus reflecting the preponderance of the literature, I think our readers would be better served by working from what they know to what they do not. So I suggest that in both cases the paragraphs be recast by placing the sentence about density and electronegativity last or at least later in these paragraphs. YBG (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Table of distinguishing criteria
|
Icon ideas |
I suggest that the three lists be combined into a single chronological list with the property types distinguished by background color and/or an icon, say, a flask for chemical, hammer for physical and an atom for atomic or electronic. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I feel it is more important to easily see the distinction between physical, chemical and atomic properties. The single chronological list would make these harder to discern. — Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I've inserted an example of the sort of thing I have in mind. I think the difference between the three types of properties is very clear, but this has the advantage of showing all three types in context. I picked the colors semi-randomly; I am not tied to them at all. I would like to improve this by including three separate icons, perhaps something like the ones shown. YBG (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I've tweaked the table to use letter codes instead of icons. YBG (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YGB: Comparing this suggestion with the current table, the latter is clear and straightforward whereas I feel that the former requires too much cognitive processing for no overall gain. — Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Things that I think are important for this table to show:
- the distinction between physical, chemical, and atomic properties. Both forms do this well.
- the relative frequency: physical >> chemical ≈ atomic. Both forms do this well
- the relative chronological order within the three property types. Both forms do this well.
- the relative chronological order between the three property types. Only the new form does this well.
- that physical properties were proposed in early, middle, and late of the time range. Only the new form does this well.
- that chemical properties were proposed from early to the middle of the time range. Only the new form does this well.
- that atomic properties were proposed from the middle to late in the time range. Only the new form does this well.
- The two forms (IMO) both do #1/2/3 well. Only the single chronology form does #4/5/6/7 well. Try as I might, the only advantage I can see for the status quo is that headings are slightly better than legends at labeling the three types of properties. So overall, it seems to me that the single-chronology form is significantly better.
- -- YBG (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: The purpose of the table is the foremost consideration. This is to show the physical, chemical or atomic properties historically suggested as a way of distinguishing metals from nonmetals. The current table does this well, with a minimum of clutter. Additionally, #4 to #7 are easily discernible. The extra visual clutter associated with the proposed table clouds the purpose of the current table. — Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh I think #4/5/6/7 cannot be discerned without looking back and forth a couple of times.
- Does it appear less cluttered to you now?
- — YBG (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Thank you. Since most of the properties are physical only, only the expections need to be marked, and this does not require the use of colour. I've instead used the albemic ⚗ motif for chemical; and the atomic symbol ⚛ emoji for atomic properties, and boldly made it so. I hope you like it. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: The purpose of the table is the foremost consideration. This is to show the physical, chemical or atomic properties historically suggested as a way of distinguishing metals from nonmetals. The current table does this well, with a minimum of clutter. Additionally, #4 to #7 are easily discernible. The extra visual clutter associated with the proposed table clouds the purpose of the current table. — Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Things that I think are important for this table to show:
- @YGB: Comparing this suggestion with the current table, the latter is clear and straightforward whereas I feel that the former requires too much cognitive processing for no overall gain. — Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- (←) @Sandbh:: Thank you, this looks very nice. I particularly like the use of icons: (1) they improve accessibility over just using color; (2) the bold purple of the atomic symbol is great; (3) omitting the icon for physical properties reduces clutter. YBG (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve listed some ideas here:
- Eliminate the jaggedness most apparent in 1811-1927 and 1986-1999 by restoring {{mono}}. My skin/browser uses a font with all digits of equal spacing except for a narrower "1"; others might have even worse jaggedness if the other digits differ in width. I think {{mono}} is the only way to ensure this works for all readers. You might not see this if your browser font has all digits the same width. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Separate all 3 red-link explanations from the references. You can look at old versions of the article to see what I did there which was not reflected on the talk page which you used as your starting point. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Try to find a better chemical icon. The current one has two issues IMO: (1) even at high magnification I can’t tell what it is meant to be; and (2) it doesn’t stick out boldly so nicely as the purple atomic icon. Using a background color with a mostly transparent icon might go a long way to rectifying this. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The G-H metalizarían criterion has an unsightly link underline in the hanging indent white space that did not exist in the talk page version. I’m not sure why. This might be browser dependent, I see it in the article but not the TP using the same browser, so there is some difference I don’t understand. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The icon placement at the end makes it harder to notice the difference between the property types. I see several ways to rectify this:
- put the icons before the year. This would require ensuring that the icons are the same width and using an equal width of white space for physical properties. The extra white space might be a feature or a bug; I’m not certain.
- add background color to the year that matches the atomic or chemical icon. The two indicators would thus bracket the property description.
- put the icons before the year AND color the year. This might be too much.
- put the icons after the year with no white space for physical properties. I think this would be somewhat unsightly.
- put the icons after the year AND color the year. Offhand, this seems like the least likely to be visually pleasing.
- I think any of these would be better than what we have now. If you like any of 1/2/3 that works for me. If you choose 4 or 5, I’d want to see it before passing judgment. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Done. I trimmed the table title and incorporated the legend into it. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve moved the typographic "icon" marks to before the year and added color to make them more visible. They had almost disappeared before. YBG (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Still looked too cluttered. I've removed the icon "marks" and used underline or italics. The title has been streamlined. There's now no need to refer to the entries being listed by year. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh. I don’t see this listed as one of the uses under MOS:ITALIC. If I as a sighted individual find this hard to comprehend, I suspect it would be even worse for those using screen readers. I suspect that the bulk of the problems were caused by the cyan and pink colors, which I chose because they had only four letters. Please restore the left-justified °/^/nbsp and try to find some nicer colors. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: I've dispensed with all the clutter and replaced the double table with a single table of four columns for year, property, type, and cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh. I don’t see this listed as one of the uses under MOS:ITALIC. If I as a sighted individual find this hard to comprehend, I suspect it would be even worse for those using screen readers. I suspect that the bulk of the problems were caused by the cyan and pink colors, which I chose because they had only four letters. Please restore the left-justified °/^/nbsp and try to find some nicer colors. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Still looked too cluttered. I've removed the icon "marks" and used underline or italics. The title has been streamlined. There's now no need to refer to the entries being listed by year. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve moved the typographic "icon" marks to before the year and added color to make them more visible. They had almost disappeared before. YBG (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Check the double-year entries for 1956, 1977, 1999, and 2017 to make sure they are in the best order. (This is a real nit, feel free to completely ignore it.) YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do something about the 1811 entry. Maybe add a note explaining that this criterion requires that all three properties be met, possibly adding that all others are single property criteria- unless you add other multiple property criteria. Or maybe drop it from the list (but I don’t think this would be good.) YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Done. I've replaced the 1811 entry with an earlier version from 1803. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh, I’m fine with adding the 1803 entry, but I don’t understand why you removed the 1811 one. YBG (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: The 1811 ed. was the 2nd ed. of the work, which first appeared in 1802. The 1802 ed. is not online however the 1803 US edition is. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: The now-deleted 1811 entry said
Fusibility, malleability, and ductility
. The new 1803 entry saysDensity and electrical conductivity
. Is there a reason why you chose not to include both combinations? YBG (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) - @Sandbh: I believe this is now the only remaining issue in this section. YBG (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Both references, among other properties, say that metals are denser than other substances, fusible, malleable and ductile, and good conductors of electricity. The 1811 version contradicts itself by then going on to discuss some brittle metals, and is outdated with regard to density given the discovery of Na and K in 1809. The 1803 version include arsenic and bismuth as metals, which is wrong since arsenic is not fusible and it and bismuth are brittle. The 1803 version is right when it refers to the high density of metals since this was the case at that time, hence I have included it in the list. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: The now-deleted 1811 entry said
- @YBG: The 1811 ed. was the 2nd ed. of the work, which first appeared in 1802. The 1802 ed. is not online however the 1803 US edition is. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh, I’m fine with adding the 1803 entry, but I don’t understand why you removed the 1811 one. YBG (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Done. I've replaced the 1811 entry with an earlier version from 1803. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ensure accessibility of icons for screen readers. Perhaps add
{{abbr|⚛|Atomic property}}
like ⚛ YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve signed each item individually to facilitate threaded responses. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
talkrefs
|
---|
References
|
More re Table of distinguishing criteria
(section header added because I started this comment in the wrong section. YBG (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)) (section changed from == to === and moved into appropriate == section YBG (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
- Are fusibility, ductility, and malleability one or three properties? YBG (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Three separate properties. — Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh, Should they then be on three separate lines? YBG (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Should the table have an entry for density and electronegativity? YBG (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: No, because: (1) aside from the 1811 first entry, all such suggestions have been based on single criteria; and (2) AFAIK nobody has ever suggested distinguishing metals from nonmetals using quantitative density and EN criteria. In any event, the table can always easily be updated. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @YBG: Three separate properties. — Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Vast/Overwhelming majority
@Sandbh, I think the article was better before you removed "vast" and "overwhelming".
The revised lead gives the reader no clue of the superlative nature here - it could just as easily be a bare 51%. I think it would be better to express this superlative in both places, but especially in the lead. YBG (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Some more thoughts re § Abundance of nonmetallic elements:
I think everything in this section has been resolved. YBG (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
Pre-FAC check
@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Mirokado, Jo-Jo Eumerus, YBG, and Double sharp:
Since this article was last at FAC in Oct 2023, I’ve been fine tuning it with the help of the latter two editors.
Much of this work has been discussed on this talk page, onwards from the section "Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination".
Aspects of the article worked on have included prose, the definition, history, tables and images.
On a no obligation basis could you please now let me know if you have any concerns about the article before I list it at FAC? Thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- 'fraid that after the work on Llullaillaco, I'll be too burned out to help to any substantial degree here. I'll note that there are still some red links at "Suggested distinguishing criteria" that could be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. Those red links now have accompanying notes. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mirokado
I am travelling at present, but will comment as opportunity arises. So far, I'm seeing Use of English issues, but no factual problems with the content. See also any copyedits to the article.
Lead: since the first sentence is in the singular, the second sentence should start "These range ..." rather than "They range ...".Definition and applicable elements:"... lacking properties common to metals namely shininess, pliability ...": we need punctuation before "namely". Perhaps just a comma will be OK since "namely" is itself introducing the list, otherwise a colon."About a fifth ...": Is this intended as a completely separate statement, or to place the preceding lists in context? In the latter case (and as a better stylistic choice) we could say "Thus about a fifth ...".
Physical properties of nonmetals, Chemical properties of nonmetals: "of nonmetals" seems redundant in the section titles?Allotropes: "Over half of nonmetallic elements": "Over half of the nonmetallic ..." would be correct here.Chemical properties of nonmetals: "As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged or polarized atoms or ions, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions (or polarized) atoms.": this sentence need rephrasing, perhaps: "As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms."-- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Property overlaps: there is no information about why homopolyatomicity is regarded as a property of metals given that so many nonmetals can do this too. Perhaps the note can be expanded to give a bit more context.Higher oxidation states: "... that better tolerate higher positive charges.": this risks confusion since the bonding in anions such as NO3− is covalent and although the oxidation state of N is −5, the charge on the anion is only −1.Halogen nonmetals: "... under white light is a metallic-looking.": we need to lose "a", I think "... under white light looks metallic." would be better.Suggested distinguishing criteria: I suggest a section link for "electronegativity (revised Pauling)".Notes:Those consisting of multiple sentences are terminated with a full stop. Others have no terminating punctuation. I would add the full stop for all the notes (including dagger notes for tables), but I guess that is the author's choice. I'm referring only to notes here, having the Citations section consistently without full stops is fine.Note g: "These elements being semiconductors.[ref]": The amount of extra information here is so small I think it can be included in the content: "Moderate electrical conductivity is observed in the semiconductors[ref] boron, silicon, phosphorus, germanium, selenium, tellurium, and iodine." This will also avoid the problem that the note is not clear on its own without repeating the list of elements.
I have now read through the article. The points I have raised here are all fairly minor and this is very much an improvement on the previous FAC candidates. -- Mirokado (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mirokado: Thanks for your astute pick up of grammar issues, and the other suggestions, and for doing so while travelling. I've rectified all of the issues bar the periods at the end of footnotes, which is a suggestion I'll look more closely at. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: FWIW, I think single sentence footnotes should always have periods, but incomplete sentences usually should not. But like @Mirokado, I’d leave the fragments up to your discretion. YBG (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mirokado and YBG: Done. For notes I use periods only when a note (1) has more than one sentence; (2) includes a bullet-point list; or (3) includes a quote that ends in a period. I've now checked the notes for consistency with this practice, and corrected them where needed. Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate the consistency. I would have used periods for all complete sentences; I suspect someone will complain about sentences without closing punctuation. YBG (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with YBG (and would make all the notes at least short sentences for general legibility). Complex formatting criteria for a single article are a long-term maintenance problem so I will leave this point open. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Mirokado and YBG: Done. For notes I use periods only when a note (1) has more than one sentence; (2) includes a bullet-point list; or (3) includes a quote that ends in a period. I've now checked the notes for consistency with this practice, and corrected them where needed. Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: FWIW, I think single sentence footnotes should always have periods, but incomplete sentences usually should not. But like @Mirokado, I’d leave the fragments up to your discretion. YBG (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
There are four occurrences of "behaviour" although the article is specified as written in American English. Someone who can proofread for American English needs to check for other such problems.-- Mirokado (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Chemical: I think it would be useful to wl oxidation state.-- Mirokado (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
This talk page is massive
See title. Are there any objections to upping the frequency which lowercase sigmabot III archives this page? I'd suggest something in the realm of 30–90 days, as opposed to the two years at present. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: I’ve changed the algorithm from 730d to 200d which will leave everything related to the current FAC preparation effort. YBG (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=n>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}}
template (see the help page).
- Talk pages with reference errors
- Wikipedia featured article candidates
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Physical sciences
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- GA-Class chemical elements articles
- Mid-importance chemical elements articles
- WikiProject Elements articles
- GA-Class Chemistry articles
- Mid-importance Chemistry articles
- WikiProject Chemistry articles
- GA-Class Materials articles
- Mid-importance Materials articles
- WikiProject Materials articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Pages using multiple image with auto scaled images