Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive9

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) 4 June 2024 [1].

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having attempted to go around the FAC buoy eight times without success, here’s my ninth nomination. Over the course of its FAC history, the article has attracted 10 supports and two "inclined to" supports, but never with enough clear air.

Your consideration and feedback will be gratefully appreciated.

If it succeeds this time, it will complement the metalloid FA. The long-term aim is to then bring the metal article up to FA status, completing the trifecta. Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've read through this article and commented on some of the previous nominations. In my opinion, it now meets the criteria. Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article is great, but has way too many distracting non-reference footnotes. Footnotes should be rare and only used to clarify non-informational aspects. For example a footnote might explain why a formula in the article differs from a reference. Incorporate on-topic footnotes into the article and use wikilinks for related material. (I made a similar comment on the Talk page).

Johnjbarton (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: Thanks for your feedback. Here’s my perspective on the use of footnotes in the article, in the context of the Wikipedia FAC criteria:

1a. Well-written: Its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.

1b. Comprehensive: It neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.

1c. Well-researched: It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.

Footnotes are particularly useful for the subject matter, which is characterized by nuances, caveats, exceptions, and fuzziness. This is especially true for nonmetals in chemistry, where complex details often require additional clarification or context.

As I understand it, footnotes are often used as an alternative to:

Comments or annotations
Additional information
Longer explanations
Qualifications

These might otherwise be too digressive for the main text.

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy requiring footnotes to be rare and only used to clarify non-informational aspects. Instead, I believe their use can enhance the article's depth and readability without overwhelming the main content. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, I'm going to review the footnotes, and will let you know. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the footnotes is explanatory, data-related, or commentary, which I feel is appropriate rather than being incorporated into the text. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by YBG

I will add comments here as they occur to me. YBG (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) In § Abundance, we read the following note:

In the Earth's core there may be around 10¹³ tons of xenon, in the form of stable XeFe₃ and XeNi₃ intermetallic compounds. This could explain why "studies of the Earth's atmosphere have shown that more than 90% of the expected amount of Xe is depleted."

My question: are all of three of these facts directly stated in the reference (Zhu et al. 2014, pp. 644–648)?

(a) The amount & forms of Xe in the core
(b) The quote re atmospheric studies
(c) That (a) "may explain" (b)

—— YBG (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Yes. The title of the article is relevant: "Reactions of xenon with iron and nickel are predicted in the Earth’s inner core". The authors write:

"Studies of the Earth’s atmosphere have shown that more than 90% of the expected amount of Xe is depleted...under these conditions, Xe and Fe/Ni can form intermetallic compounds, of which XeFe3 and XeNi3 are energetically the most stable. This shows that the Earth’s inner core is a natural reservoir for Xe storage and provides a solution to the missing Xe paradox...The Earth’s core, which contains approximately one-third of the Earth’s mass, has also been considered a potential Xe reservoir...If Xe were captured in the Earth’s inner core, it would have to form chemically stable compounds with Fe and Ni to resist any release into the atmosphere. Here, we establish just such chemical reactions of Xe and Fe/Ni...Our results reveal that XeFe₃ and XeNi₃ are readily stable under the conditions in the Earth’s inner core...Accordingly, the Earth’s inner core is a viable natural reservoir for depleted Xe...the total mass of depleted Xe is on the order of 1 × 10¹³ kg (ref. 2), which is about ten orders of magnitude lower than that of the Earth’s inner core (9.67 × 10²² kg). Thus, storage of the entire missing Xe would therefore make a negligible contribution to the total mass and density of the Earth’s inner core. The present findings might also shed light on the Earth’s evolution by virtue of the model of the missing Xe in the Earth’s inner core. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(2) § Uses has little cohesiveness; the previous version was better but not by much. The lists of element symbols are understandable only to the expert; replacing them with element names would make it almost as tedious as the previous list of uses.

I suggest developing this section along these lines:

Characteristic uses of nonmetals. Uses shared by all (or almost all) nonmetals and by no (or almost no) metals. List three or maybe four; no need to be comprehensive. You’ve got a start to this already, just grab the references from the (to be deleted) table. If you can connect the use to some shared chemical or physical property of nonmetals, so much the better. Expected reader reaction: This set of elements really is a cohesive set with shared uses based on shared properties.
Characteristic uses of nonmetal subsets. Maybe start this with semiconductors and insulators which contrast with the use of metals as conductors. Expected reader reaction: This set of elements may be cohesive but also display variability.
Variety of uses. A half-dozen or so uses that display the variety and variability of nonmetals, contrasting with the relative sameness of metals and uses of metals. Expected reader reaction: Wow, there is so much variety.
Exotic uses. Perhaps an extension of the previous list of uses, perhaps a list in its own right. Expected reader reaction: What a bizarre bunch of elements!
Surprisingly common. Here’s where your household accoutrements come in. I see this as a list of all nonmetals with where you would find them used in your home. Expected reader reaction: These bizarre and exotic elements are right here under my nose!

This is just one idea of how to organize this section. Above all, I’d say ditch the tables. I generally prefer tables to paragraphs, but in this case, I think pure paragraphs would be better. YBG (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Thanks. I've just read your suggestion will give it further thought. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smokefoot

This article is the hobby horse of a clique of editors who composed the article and defend their turf very effectively. Those characteristics are weaknesses.

Comment. Not so; 80.9% of edits to the article have been made by me. About 83.8% of the text has been added by me. There's no clique of editors. Nor is there any evidence of a clique defending their "turf". Quite the contrary; from the nonmetal talk page there's an abundance of critical feedback, which I've taken into account; ditto applies to the past eight FAC nominations. Along the way, nine differing editors have expressed support, or indicated they were close to, inclined to, or believed they could support. Between them, these editors have made about 13% of edits and roughly 8% of content. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that your position Smokefoot, is compromised by your view that "I am not a fan of classifications within chemistry". I offer this in the context of classification being deeply rooted in chemistry literature, and widely utilised. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by @Smokefoot is not about the article content. Who wrote the article and why is irrelevant and should be ignored. Johnjbarton (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article? Let's see:

"Fourteen elements are almost always recognized as nonmetals:..."

but

"Three more are commonly classed as nonmetals, but some sources list them as "metalloids""

still not finished:

"One or more of the six elements most commonly recognized as metalloids are sometimes instead counted as nonmetals"

So, scope = 14 elements ± 3 ± 6.

The point of the article is unclear. If one wants to read about noble gases or about halogens or about chalcogens, and other columns of the main group, then fine: these articles exist (and always invite improvements). But the article on Nonmetal is a collection of only some of these elements. So who wants to read about a clique's idea of their subset of elements (which ranges in numer from 14 to 24)?

Comment. The point of the article is made clear by its title and hatnote. It's not about groups of the periodic table. As the article makes clear, the classifications involved have a history dating back to as early as 1844. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some elements are nonmetals, which are defined by certain physical properties for those elements. Most of the article is not about the elements, but about compounds. The non-metal aspect disappears once the article crosses into compounds. There is no effective distinction between nonmetal halides and the halides of neighboring elements. Futhermore, even within the group of nonmetal halides/oxides/nitrides... there is little commonality. The article struggles to delineate how the chemistry of these compounds defines them or holds this article together. So, again the scope is unclear.

Comment. As the article makes clear, the literature defines nonmetals by certain physical or chemical propeties, including the acidic or basic nature of their compounds. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The applications section is one area that clearly illustrates the struggle. Carbon is a one of the nonmetals. Does this article usefully summarizes the applications of carbon compounds? The article seems to allocate more words to the applications of radon than it does to carbon. A reader would be misinformed.

Comment. That's a good call Smokefoot; I've adjusted the section so as to show which nonmetals have which uses. Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation: The article is packed with factoids and eye candy. Nonexperts will be impressed, because collections of technical facts required advanced knowledge.

Advice: crop the article into:

discussion of the scope of the term "nonmetal"
present properties for those elements
discuss history of the term "nonmetal" (vs "main group", "metalloid")
transfer other content to well defined article on elements or groups (halogens, noble gases, etc.).

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel that the extant structure works well: 1. Definition and applicable elements; 2. General properties; 3. Types; 4. Abundance, sources and uses; 5. History, background and taxonomy Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red fuming nitric acid

.

In the previous FA nomination, I challenged this very visible component of the article, but my challenge was basically disregarded. I reiterate my challenge and invite this tight group of editors to ask the wider community some of the following:

is Red fuming nitric acid even a compound? (ans: no)
is Red fuming nitric acid even nitrogen-rich? (ans: no)

My point is this, even when an expert and a colleague (i.e. me) challenges their view, these editors stick with the party line. Now maybe these editors are more expert than me (entirely possible), but jeesh, please break out of the huddle: if one very experienced colleague is perplexed by this caption, certainly nonexpert readers would be even more misled. Here I am only raising one snippet of a long article. The article is packed with claims.

My point is that these editors dont want input, they want to steamroller into FA-dom by relentless effort. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In FAC #8 all you said was, "Some possibly problematic details - nitric acid (which might not even be a compound) is "nitrogen-rich"?", to which I responded, "The term "nitrogen-rich" refers to the presence of dinitrogen tetroxide in red fuming nitric acid, which is responsible for its distinct color." As you say, even what is commonly thought of as nitric acid i.e. HNO₃ at a concentration of 68% in water, is not really a compound due its diassociation into ions. All that said, I've changed the caption so that it now reads, "Nitric acid (here colored due to the presence of nitrogen dioxide) ..." Sandbh (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response: With this HNO3 figure, I needed to challenge and re-challenge. Ditto for the Applications section (radon trumps carbon). These two examples cross the line from the usual glitches to downright misinformation. And we're on the 9th revision! And the responses from the editorial clique were obstinate. So what am I supposed to do now? Comb through this article and gird myself to debate other gaps?

In any case, good luck with your work.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tx Smokefoot. For HNO3 you made a passing comment the 1st time, to which I responded. This time you've made a more substantial comment, with I've addressed. For the applications section you asked if they were for the element or its compounds, which prompted me to add a footnote to the article. Feel free to post your evidence of an editorial clique. Elsewhere, your other sensible comments have resulted in improvements to the artice. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Esculenta

Was wondering if you've seen doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0213; it's a 2020 review article that discusses some of the historical background of this topic, and argues that the Goldhammer–Herzfeld criterion for metallization is conceptually better than is usually acknowledged. It also discusses Sir Nevill Mott's (seemingly important, but I'm not a chemist) ideas on the metal-non-metal transition; I notice that Mott isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Esculenta (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion incorporating the overall viewpoint of this review would substantially improve the article. Some highlights:
- A strictly chemical point of view. Does not involve issues related to nuclear properties (stellar abundance)
- Discusses transition between metal and nonmetal, eg under pressure. This fundamental to the topic but is only touched on in footnotes.
- Discusses the abundance of nonmetallic compounds as the significant observation.
Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request

@Gog the Mild: Could you please withdraw my nomination. I would prefer to take on the good suggestion by YBG, the pertinent comment by Esculenta, and the interesting commentary by Johnjbarton, including on the nonmetal talk page, in more considered time. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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) 12:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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