Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive6

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 June 2023 [1].

Nonmetal (chemistry) edit

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nonmetal, like hydrogen or carbon, is a chemical element that is not a metal (such as aluminum or iron).

This is my sixth time at FAC for this article; attempt #5, when the article was then called "Nonmetal", was closed on September 26, 2022, some seven months ago.

A further copy edit was requested and this has now been completed by Dhtwiki, an uninvolved editor and a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors. The article had previously been copyedited in part by SandyGeorgia and John.

Pinging Reaper Eternal and Graham Beards, who were involved in FAC #5. I will also notify WP:ELEM and WP:CHEM.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Nonmetal redirects to this article and it was done without a discussion. How does this not violate WP:PRECISION? -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JJ posted comments on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tx Guerillero. The redirect from "Nonmetal" --> "Nonmetal (chemistry)" occurred as a result of changing the name of the article. This happened as an outcome of discussions here, here and here. Concurrently I created new articles for Nonmetal (astrophysics) and Nonmetal (physics). --- Sandbh (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of JJ's comments. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by UC edit

Saving a space. Not a chemist, so I'll mostly be commenting on prose, as well as clarity/accessibility from a (definite) non-expert's point of view. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First read done. I realise that this is quite a big job; I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do a full review, but will make some comments aimed at improving clarity, readability and prose.

Thanks very much UndercoverClassicist. It may take me a little while to address your comments as I expect to have intermittent and unpredictable internet access for the next four days. I’ll see how I go. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts in responding to my comments. I'm going to hold off before voting, partly because I don't have the technical expertise to endorse the article's content, and partly because I've only been able to copy-edit part of the article so far. I'll keep an eye on this page; my perspective here might change as more reviews come in. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit

The article seems to be inconsistent as to when to write out numbers as words, and when as figures. For instance, we have " Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals" and "Two nonmetals, hydrogen and helium, make up about 99 percent of ordinary matter in the observable universe by mass. Five nonmetallic elements...". I don't think the MOS has a strong opinion either way, but this should certainly be consistent within a sentence, generally be consistent within a passage, and as far as possible follow some logic across the article.

I follow an Australian style guide, which I don’t have access to right now and that I recall says numbers up to 109 written in figures and larger numbers are spelt out. I suspect I’ve followed this convention consistently but will check the article again. Sandbh (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article checked. I believe it follows the numbering convention consistently. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article breaks that rule in the lede, with "Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals". We've also got MOS:NUM: Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headslap! Sorry!! I explained the rule the wrong way 'round. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very idiosyncratic (does it seriously expect you to write out e.g.six million, forty-three thousand, two hundred and four in words?), and against MOS:NUM, which has the same rule as you described. Please don't take these comments as some kind of test: the idea is to improve the article to a point where reviewers can support, not to tick off all the comments. It's the improvement of the article and the final product that count, not having a response to the questions raised. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, single numbers appearing in text (one, two, three…nine) are written in words, larger numbers are written as figures e.g. 6,043,204. That is what I meant to say the first time. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals varies on the classification criteria": not quite grammatical: according to the criteria used?

Changed to "depending on the classification criteria used." Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals.": this reads oddly. Do most people say that there are between 14 and 23, or do most sources have a specific intervening number in mind? We could either do something like "most chemists recognise between 14 and 23", or something like "14 elements are unanimously recognised as nonmetals, with a further 9 debated", or similar.

The subject sentence occurs at the end of the following paragraph:

"While the term non-metallic dates from as far back as 1566, there is no widely agreed precise definition of a nonmetal. Some elements have a marked mixture of metallic and nonmetallic properties, and which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals varies on the classification criteria. Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals."

By itself I can see it could read oddly but, but the context is given by the preceding two sentences. Does that make what’s going on clearer? Sandbh (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and applicable elements edit

Lots of technical terms here could/should be wikilinked.

I recall wiki-linking all first uses of technical terms; I’ll check again. Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed some: just to clarify, it's normal practice in longer articles to link the first use in the lead and the first use in the body text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I believe this section may be OK now in terms of its wlinks. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"property or properties" can be condensed to "properties" (and so on for similar phrases elsewhere)

It is written that way since most sources attempt to distinguish nonmetals using one property. This is elaborated in the distinguishing criteria section. Sandbh (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The decisions involved depend on which properties are regarded..." grammatically includes that possibility, but this one might be somewhat a matter of taste. "Any persons who enter the camp will be shot" doesn't mean that you're safe if walk in alone: the plural is understood to include the singular. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a wlinked footnote saying, "Metallic or nonmetallic character is usually taken to be indicated by one property rather than two or more properties." --- Sandbh (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an 1892 source seems odd for "there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal", which is implicitly talking about present-day science. Three sources are cited separately here; elsewhere, they are bundled into a single footnote. Would suggest adopting the latter approach throughout.

The age of source does not necessarily affect its relevance. In this case the three citations are listed in reverse date order to show that the difficulty of defining what a nonmetal is dates back ca. 150 years. In other cases I recall it was not technically possible, in some instances, to have multiple citations bundled together. I’ll check that again. Sandbh (talk)

All the double or triple cites have now been bundled. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steudel: who/what is this, and why is their opinion being given such prominence in the article?

Steudel’s monograph is an updated translation of the 5th German edition of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019. After five editions over four decades, there is no other comparable source. Sandbh (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent: attributed sources should always be briefly introduced, so make that clear in the text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a footnote that explains the significance of Steudel. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(see e.g. Larrañaga et al): parenthetical citations shouldn't be used (see WP:PAREN); more generally, this reads like an address to the reader, which is strongly discouraged by MOS.

I’ve removed the parentheses and adjusted the "remove the address to reader" aspect. Sandbh (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still have the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, as given by (for example) Larrañaga et al, which has all the problems of a parenthetical citation except the parentheses. Since you're claiming to cite something undisputed, the precise source of the information shouldn't feature in the text (since, in theory, any reliable source would say the same): it should simply be part of the footnoted citation. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Larrañaga et al. and replaced it with the name of the monograph: Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary. I agree with you; any reliable source would say the same. The insight that Hawley’s provides is mentioned earlier in that any list of nonmetals is open to challenge, as the next sentence in the article illustrates with regard to carbon, phosphorus and selenium. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry": I'm not sure what "their nonmetallic chemistry" means here, given that their properties seem to be partly those of metals, partly those of nonmetals. Do you mean "the chemical properties they share with nonmetals" or similar?

The whole passage is:

"The elements commonly recognized as metalloids (boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium) are sometimes counted as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive. At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry.

I suspect the sentence of concern is clear in the context of the preceding sentence but if not could you please let me know?

It's not, I'm afraid, at least not to me. I'd suggest expanding that sentence to be clearer about which nonmetallic characteristics you're talking about. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence now reads, "At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their predominately nonmetallic (weakly acidic) chemistry." --- Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored": I'm not sure you mean "ignored": sources don't forget it exists, they choose not to count it. More generally, why would Astatine's rarity and/or radioactivity count against its being a nonmetal?

The full sentence is:

"Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored on account of its rarity and intense radioactivity;[17] theory and experimental evidence suggest it is a metal.[18]

It’s rarity and intense radioactivity make an assessment of its metallic or nonmetallic status quite difficult. Nobody has ever seen astatine, for example, since a visible quantity would immediately vaporise from the intense heat emitted by its radioactivity. While general sources don’t forget its existence they regularly ignore further consideration of its properties. Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant: some explanation of that would help considerably. I'm still not sure that "ignored" is the right word; it suggest carelessness or arrogance, and so is arguably WP:EDITORIALISING contra WP:NPOV UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for Bodner & Pardue says, "When the chemistry of these elements is discussed, hydrogen is separated from the others and astatine is ignored because it is radioactive." The citation for Cherim says, "Astatine is often ignored because of unavailability." --- Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"their status has not been confirmed" seems to be crying out for an {{as of}}.

Done. Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z = 112: can this be explained for non-chemists?

Done. Sandbh (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General properties edit

I've never seen a hatnote like "Physical properties apply to elements in their most stable forms in ambient conditions": how does this usage compare with other Chemistry FAs?

Metalloid is an FA that uses a similar notes, here at the top of the Common applications section, and here at the top of the Elements commonly recognised as metalloids section. I’ve copy-edited the note in question. Sandbh (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation density in this section isn't great; in the first paragraph, for example, we have three sentences, bundle-cite to three pages of a text. It would be clearer, more verifiable and more reassuring to break down precisely where each claim comes from, or at least to bundle only by the claims on each page. The bundle-cite for the second paragraph would also benefit from the same treatment: telling readers that everything in this (not overly small) chunk of text is somewhere in seven pages of two different sources isn't ideal.

The first paragraph has two citations and two notes; in turn, the notes have seven citations.

The second paragraph has one bundle-cite of two citations: Herzfeld (1927), and Edwards (2000). The whole paragraph is a condensed summary of what Edwards says (in ten paragraphs, over ~2.5 pages), as part of a 29-page chapter in the book, The New Chemistry. I originally showed the cite as four pages but one of the pages has an historical picture which adds nothing to Edwards' explanation so I’ve trimmed that one page from the cite. He manages to spread out his explanation over the 2.5 pages hence my citation (now) refers to three pages. The first cite is to Herzfeld, as mentioned by Edwards, who first explained the microscopic electronic origins of the differences between metals and nonmetals. I have now switched the order of the cites in the bundle, since Herzfeld is there only because he is mentioned by Edwards. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid abbreviations like "e.g." in prose; use "for example", "such as" instead.

Done---Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3D should be spelt out as "three-dimensional", similar to the above.

Done---Sandbh (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the third paragraph appears to be uncited, or at least it isn't clear what's cited to where.

I’ve rearranged the paragraph and added some further citations. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmetallic elements are either shiny, colored, or colorless: isn't everything either coloured or colourless? And aren't some things both colourful and shiny?

No, everything is not either coloured or colourless. Only a few metals such as gold, for example, are coloured, the rest have a lustrous, shiny or “metallic” appearance. Among the nonmetals there are shiny nonmetals like graphite; coloured ones such as sulfur, and colourless ones like hydrogen. Sandbh (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For boron, graphitic carbon, silicon, black phosphorus, germanium, arsenic, selenium, antimony, tellurium, and iodine, their structures": clearer to rephrase subject-first: "The structures of boron, graphitic carbon ..."

Copy edited for consistency with the rest of the paragraph. Sandbh (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As further up, WL terms like "delocalised electrons", and consider explaining in text or a footnote if understanding them is crucial to the reader's comprehension of the text.

I've added "(free-moving)". --- Sandbh (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"colored nonmetals (sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, bromine) absorb some colours (wavelengths)": we've crossed the Atlantic in terms of WP:ENGVAR here.

I replaced all English spellings of colour with their US versions except for direct quotations. —-- Sandbh (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"transmit the complementary colours": what does this mean?

I've added "or opposite" and adjusted the following mention of chlorine to serve as an example. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For chlorine, its "familiar yellow-green colour...is due to a broad region of absorption in the violet and blue regions of the spectrum"": per WP:PLAGFORM (and usual practice on plagiarism), material quoted or closely paraphrased (as opposed to summarised) in the text also needs to be attributed in the text.

There is a citation to Elliot immediately following the quoted text. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; citation isn't enough here, there also needs to be attribution (e.g. "According to Elliot..."), per WP:PLAGFORM. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have followed the WP:PLAGFORM guidance and added an in-text attribution, since the quote encompasses nigh on a complete sentence. I did the same for one other such example I found upon checking the article (re "snowflakes"). --- Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For the colorless nonmetals (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases) their": this and similar examples need a comma after the brackets

Done, noting that sometimes the decision as to wether or not to add a comma seemed to be rather finely balanced. --- Sandbh (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the sentence written without the brackets: "For the colorless nonmetals, ~~(hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases)~~ their". UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"free moving" and similar need a hyphen when used as adjectives.

Done for free moving. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Plasticity occurs under limited circumstances only in carbon, phosphorus, sulfur, and selenium": are these the only nonmetals to show plasticity, or do these specific nonmetals only show plasticity in rare circumstances? More generally, I don't think this statement is actually cited anywhere.

Yes, the “only” means only in those nonmetals. The footnote immediately following lists in what forms these four show plasticity. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant: that should be clarified in the text. The citation does show that those four show plasticity; however, there's nothing cited to say that only those four do. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good. I removed the “only” and merged the footnote into the text, after some trimming of the main body text. It looks much better now, thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography edit

There's nothing technically wrong with the way that it's currently set up, but having such a colossal bibliography formatted entirely manually seems like asking for trouble in WP:DURABLE terms.

Hmm. WP does not, AFAIK, have a preferred style of citing/bibliography construction aside from deprecating parenthetical cites (nor do the FA criteria). The formatting of the bibliography e.g. in the case of journals and monographs is fairly self-evident. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, and so my comment that there's nothing technically wrong with it: this is an advisory comment. However, using (for example) {{cite book}} would make the article more durable (in other words, idiot-proof) for future editors. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a short html note to the front of the Bibliography section setting out a referencing style guide. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel in a position to support, I'm afraid. Scanning through the remainder of the article, there's still work to be done on prose, clarity and MOS. I'm not sure whether that makes me an oppose, but it certainly makes me a not yet. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like the title and scope edit

Sandbh (principal author of this FA nom) and I have been around this issue previously: I like neither the title nor the scope of the article. It is written like a old-fashioned high school-level overview of a theme that does not exist in my world as an inorganic chemist. Fuddy-duddy. "Nonmetal" is a demarcation in some depictions of the Periodic Table about the properties of elements. IMHO, the topic should be expanded and relabeled to Main Group Chemistry, a vibrant area of inorganic chemistry. The cutting edge topics in main group chemistry are missing (or scattered throughout Wikipedia). But again, I have tried to debate this distinction previously with little traction from other editors but eliciting a robust defense (territoriality?) by Sandbh. I also am opinionated. The article looks nice, presents truths, and is well organized. Good luck with the FA. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Thanks for your closing comment that, "the article looks nice, presents truths, and is well organized."

NB. Smokefoot and I had previously politely discussed the topic of Nonmetal (chemistry) here. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging as well @Double sharp, YBG, Dirac66, Doncram, Michael D. Turnbull, Petergans, Mirokado, ComplexRational, CactiStaccingCrane, Guerillero, and SandyGeorgia: all of whom have previously reviewed the article. All are invited to comment, but none are obligated. I would've included DePiep but for him being site-banned. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the ping, Sandbh; I wish I could help, especially considering all the time I put in to this article last year, but real life has not been kind to me of late, and I am struggling to keep up with health issues on the homefront and barely keeping up on Wikipedia. So sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for the ping. I will be happy to look at this starting 6 June or thereabouts, but cannot do much before then. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Materialscientist and Nick-D who commented during FAC nomination #2. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging buidhe, Hog Farm and ComplexRational who commented during FAC nomination #1. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: I seem to have run out of prospective reviewers. Is it OK to ask for help at the FAC talk page? --- Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your previous pings may have malfunctioned; square brackets yield piped links, not pings. Perhaps asking on their user talk pages would work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Or should that be “d’oh” I see. Good thing I asked and will try again. —- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Materialscientist and Nick-D: who commented during FAC nomination #2. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram edit

Responding to ping. This will not be a complete review. I just read the lede and some more.

As I recall about this topic, the term is not one in general use. My impression is that it is an artifact of the early days when people were trying to make sense of the elements and compounds and tried "metal" vs. "non-metal" as a classification, as part of a way of understanding. The lede speaks as if this is a modern thing, however. I believe it must be explained this is a framework once believed to be helpful, and then what its current status is (either not regarded as helpful by anyone, or regarded helpful by some (whom?) for some reasons to be explained in the body of the article.
As I recall from before, perhaps the most salient thing about this topic is that there is NOT general agreement about what defines non-metals, what elements are included or not. The lede states that, but then goes on to speak as if there exists objective criteria:
The superheavy elements copernicium (element 112), flerovium (114), and oganesson (118) may turn out to be nonmetals. As of April 2023 their status has not been confirmed.

This begs the question of who will make the determination and on what basis. And if there is a basis, then why are non-metals not really definable?

I do appreciate the box at the top right showing a portion of the periodic table of elements, identifying non-metals vs. metalloids. And the inclusion of the recognizable small version of a complete periodic table at the bottom. In my past comments, I believe I was adamant that graphical presentation like this, up front, was needed. Thank you for that.

I am sorry not to be more helpful, but the first two items I just mentioned undermine my ability to see this as featured-ready. I do hope this is helpful nonetheless. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please discount my opinion greatly. I have no relevant expertise at all, and i sort of wish i never butted in (though i vaguely recall maybe i was invited somehow) at all. I originally thot my "outsider" perspective would be helpful but i think it was not. In fact i feel for my own peace of mind i shouldn't have commented here. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, please do not worry on this point. In so far as we can the FAC coordinators require a non-specialist's input and support on technical articles. We are writing an encyclopedia and it is always nice to know that such articles are not merely informing those who are already informed. So you have provided a valuable service. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Doncram. Thanks for your comments and your "outsider" (as you put it) perspective.

AFAIK, the term nonmetal remains in relatively popular use. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry's English Chemistry Curriculum Map for KS4 (Years 10 and 11) says, "Trends in the periodic table; Explain the reactivity and general properties as related to the atomic structure of groups 1, 7 and 0; between metals and non-metals."

Closer to home, a search of American Chemical Society journals for the terms "non(-)metal/s", yielded the following numbers of hits over the periods shown:

Period	Hits
2018-2023	3,519
2012-2017	2,077
2006-2011	1,812
2000-2005	713

Copernicium (element 112) may turn out to be an insulator and flerovium (114) and oganesson (118) may turn out to be semiconductors, rather than metals, due to relativistic effects. Bulk quantities of these elements have not been synthesized so all we can go on is theory and inference. Since there are no semiconducting or insulating metals the classification decisions for these superheavy elements should be relatively straightforward.

The semiconducting or insulating status of an element is not always helpful in determining nonmetallic status. So, carbon as graphite—which is as good a nonmetal as any—is a semimetal (in the physics sense of the term) along its planes but a semiconductor in a direction vertical to its planes.

Would you be in a position to review your ability to see this article as featured-ready? Thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Mike Turnbull edit

As I said in an earlier review, it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases. Nevertheless, as an organic chemist, virtually all the compounds I care about are made from combinations of these elements and together they represent the overwhelming majority of known compounds. The term "nonmetal" may indeed be falling out of fashion, as Smokefoot suggests but, given that Wikipedia has such an article I think it is reasonable to evaluate it by the usual FA criteria. On that basis, I support its promotion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards edit

These sentences in the Lead "Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic applications". "Nearly all nonmetals have individual uses in medicine, pharmaceuticals, lighting, lasers, and household items" are also true for metals. The article still doesn't come across as authoritative. I can't see how our readers will gain an understanding of what a nonmetal is (if indeed such a thing exists) when even the authors seem unsure. Graham Beards (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham.

Re the uses of nonmetals I have adjusted the subject paragraph in the Lead to read:

"The distinctive properties of nonmetallic elements allow for specific applications that often cannot be fulfilled by metallic elements alone. Living organisms are composed almost entirely of the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Nonmetallic elements are important to industries ranging from electronics and energy storage to agriculture and chemical production."

I have likewise adjusted the corresponding section in the main body of the article.

Re the authoritativeness of the article, chemistry has all sorts of fuzzy definitions. For example, there is the IUPAC definition of a hydrogen bond. Rather than a black or white categorisation, the definition provides that the greater the number of criteria satisfied, the more reliable is the characterisation.

The situation with regard to what is a nonmetal is no different.

The lead paragraph of the section Definition and applicable elements seeks to accommodate this situation as follows:

"A nonmetal is a chemical element that, in the broadest sense of the term, has a relatively low density and high electronegativity.[7] More generally they are deemed to lack a preponderance of metallic properties such as luster or shininess; the capacity to be flattened into a sheet or drawn into a wire; good thermal and electrical conductivity; and the capacity to form a basic (rather than acidic) oxide.[8] Since there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal,[9] some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such. The decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character."

Do my foregoing responses address your concerns? --- Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham Beards, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel uncomfortable seeing this article on the Main Page as TFA. It does not give me the impression that the concept of a "nonmetal" is anything more than a vague, and an ill-defined one. Despite reading it, I am still left wondering if indeed they exist! Since you asked, I oppose promotion. Sorry Sandbh. Graham Beards (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose is OK by me Graham Beards, for the following reasons:

1. I understand that FAC opposes are judged based on the merits attached to the oppose rather than the oppose itself.

2. Chemistry is full of fuzzy definitions.

3. The article notes that there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal; that some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such; and that the decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character.

4. As Michael D. Turnbull (an organic chemist) observed, virtually all the compounds they care about are made from combinations of nonmetals; and it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases. Nevertheless, and here it is me who is resuming the narrative, whole books have been written about nonmetals, the most recent of which was an updated (2020) English version of the German 5th edition on nonmetals of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019.

5. As Mike further noted, combinations of nonmetals represent the overwhelming majority of known compounds.

6. Any chemistry textbook will refer to the concepts of metals and nonmetals, and their differences. Yes, some fuzziness occurs in the frontier territory where the metals meet the nonmetals, and the article captures this, consistent with literature and the nature of chemistry. --- thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing if the article is of FA standard and I don't think it is. I also think there are problems with the title, (do chemists have a unique concept of a metal that material scientists don't share?) and current scope of the article. I find the noisy table confuses me more than it informs me. The article just doesn't come across as an "example of our best work". Sorry. Graham Beards (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado edit

§Unclassified nonmetals: "In periodic-table terms, a geographic analogy..." There is a stray double quote mark at the end of the paragraph. Is there a missing opening quote mark (in which case embedded quotes should be single) or can it be removed?
§Cost: "Based on the available literature as of April 2023, while the cited costs of most nonmetals are less than the $US0.74 per gram cost of silver,[ref] boron, phosphorus, germanium, xenon, and radon (notionally) are exceptions:" The lack of distinction of silver as not part of the rest of the list makes it a bit difficult to parse this on first reading. I suggest two sentences, for example: "Based on the available literature as of April 2023, the cited costs of most nonmetals are less than the $US0.74 per gram cost of silver.[ref] Boron, phosphorus, germanium, xenon, and radon (notionally) are exceptions:"

I have read through to the Uses section and will continue later.---- Mirokado (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mirokado. I have removed the stray double quote mark, and split the long costs sentence into two, as you suggested. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments after reading through the rest of the article. It gives a good overview of the various aspects of not-being-a-metal. It is a pleasure to support. -- Mirokado (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Given the comments by UndercoverClassicist and Graham and in spite of the supports the nomination has garnered, it seems that a consensus to promote is not going to form. So, with regret, I am archiving this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.