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[edit]
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[edit]
@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)[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
|
Metalloid outliers[edit]
YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Unclassified nonmetals[edit]
Just wondering … would it be good to change Unclassified nonmetals to Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|
More re complementary pairs[edit]
Metalloid / PTM comparison[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
Discussion of YBG’s alternative[edit]@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[edit]
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[edit](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[edit](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[edit](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[edit]
Sources gathered from elsewhere on this TP[edit]Additional 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[edit](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[edit](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[edit]
|
Whither now (post FAC7)[edit]
@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)[edit]
Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Abundance, sources, uses[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
@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[edit]
@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[edit]
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)[edit]
@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"[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
(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[edit]
@Sandbh: More issues have cropped up with the legend.
@Sandbh:: There are still problems. I propose this legend with these advantages
Throughts? YBG (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
|
Johnson’s NM characteristics[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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)
More re Table of distinguishing criteria[edit](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))
|
Vast/Overwhelming majority[edit]
@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[edit]
@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[edit]
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[edit]
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)
Colorize distinguishing properties?[edit]
@Sandbh: What do you think of these ideas, either with or without the divider? Or possibly just coloring chemical and atomic? YBG (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
(←) @Sandbh: I think with the right pastels, this isn’t a problem. And, it would be nice to create some stubs to get rid of the red links. ————— YBG (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) @YBG: I find the tricolour scheme to be garish. It's inconsistent with the lack of colour schemes used in other list-like tables in the article. The yellow and green shades are hard to distinguish upon a quick scan. For all of the work done on this table we could have gone back to the original version which nicely and clearly separated out the P/C/A properties into their own subtables, and left it at that. No new information is conveyed by arranging all the properties into one long list and then indicating which is P, which is C etc.--- 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Chemistry of arsenic[edit]
For reference, I post here some mentions in the literature as to to the nonmetallic chemistry of arsenic, 1917−2012:
- "Arsenic is in the main, however, an acid-forming element and plays the part of a non-metal in its compounds."
- --- Schrader FC, Stone RW & Sanford S 1917, Useful minerals of the United States, Bulletin 624, United States Geological Survey, Washington
- "…arsenic, antimony and tin are decidedly nonmetallic, particularly in their higher valences…" (Agassiz & McLaughlin 1919, p. 62)
- --- Agassiz L & McLaughlin HM 1919, Notes on qualitative analysis, Ginn and Co., Boston
- "The nonmetallic nature of arsenic and antimony is shown by the formation of complex anions during the reaction of the elements with nitric acid." (Brinkley 1945, p. 370)
- --- Brinkley SR 1945, Introductory general chemistry, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York
- "When non-metallic elements react with the oxidizing acids, acidic oxides or acids are formed…The trisulphides of arsenic and antimony are acidic, forming salts with yellow ammonium sulphide and alkali, while that of bismuth is typical of a metal." (Moody 1969, pp. 267, 321)
- --- Moody B 1969, Comparative inorganic chemistry, 2nd ed., Edward Arnold, London.
- "Negative electron affinities of nonmetallic elements…we will restrict ourselves to the elments O, N, S, P, Se and As…" (Pearson 1991, p. 2856)
- --- Pearson R 1991, "Negative electron affinities of nonmetallic elements", Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 2856–2858
- "Incorporation of the nonmetallic/metalloid element As into the trinuclear MoIV3 incomplete cube [Mo3S4(H2O)9]4+ has been achieved for the first time…" (Hernandez-Molina at al. 1998, p. 2989)
- --- Hernandez-Molina R, Edwards AJ, Clegg W & Sykes G 1998, "Preparation, structure, and properties of the arsenic-containing corner-shared double cube [Mo6AsS8(H2O)18]8+: Metal−metal bonding and a classification of different cluster types", Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 2989–2994
- "Arsenic…its appearance is not clearly metallic or nonmetallic, it is an electrical conductor (not a semiconductor), and its chemistry resembles that of nonmetals." (Hawkes 2001, p. 1686)
- --- Hawkes SJ 2001, "Semimetallicity", Journal of chemical education, vol. 78, no. 12, pp. 1686–1687
- "Arsenic, for example, possesses many of the physical properties of a metal, but chemically it is much more like a non-metal." (Pascoe 2012, p. 3)
- --- Pascoe KJ 2012, An introduction to the properties of engineering materials, 3rd ed., Von Nostrand Reinhold (UK), Wokingham, Berkshire
--- Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Inappropriate Notes[edit]
This article is awesome! But it has a ridiculous number of Notes, most of them are inappropriate. For examples:
- These six (boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium) are the elements commonly recognized as "metalloids", a category sometimes considered to be a subcategory of nonmetals and sometimes considered to be a category separate from both metals and nonmetals.
This comment is core to the topic, should not be in a note, and should be referenced.
- "The most stable forms are..."
No reference.
- At higher temperatures and pressures the numbers of nonmetals can be called into question. ...
Core to topic.
- The absorbed light may be converted to heat ...
Off topic, omit.
- Solid iodine has a silvery metallic appearance...
Off topic, omit.
And so on. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: Thanks Johnjbarton for your kind words, and assessment.
- 1. The first note clarifies why the elements shaded grey in the lede image are only sometimes counted as nonmetals. I've now added two cites to it. The content of the note is elaborated in the main body of the article.
- 2. For the most stable forms, I've added five cites. I was not able to find a single list.
- 3. Higher temperatures and pressures are not core to the topic since the article refers to nonmetals in ambient conditions.
- 4. The context for the note about absorbed light is given by the preceding text, "For example, chlorine's "familiar yellow-green colour ... is due to a broad region of absorption in the violet and blue regions of the spectrum".
- 5. Iodine is not usually regard as having a silvery metallic appearance hence the footnote clarifies that this is indeed the case.
- The nonmetal article is currently undergoing an FAC assessment if you may be interested; there's no obligation. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I disagree. Just for example, the lede caption:
- sometimes counted as a nonmetal [hidden info]
- could read
- metalloids, sometimes counted as nonmetals.
- In my experience 90% of the rest of the footnotes can be handled similarly. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: The lede captions reads that way for consistency with the preceding caption, "usually/always counted as a nonmetal". So, the two legend boxes are, "always/usually" and "sometimes". --- Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll check the rest of the footnotes and let you know. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I disagree. Just for example, the lede caption:
Hydrosphere?[edit]
In the table in Abundance we see a line labeled "Hydrosphere". I guess this is Hydrosphere and thus 100% water. Water is H2O, O is 16amu, H is 1au, so mass ratios are 1:8 right? How can Hydrogen be 33% by weight of the hydrosphere? Seems more likely that Hydrogen atoms make up is 33% of atoms in the hydrosphere. This makes me question the rest of the table. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Hydrosphere entry was for the relative numbers of atoms of each element present, rather than presence by weight. I fixed this entry and updated the rest of the table. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"Abundance, extraction, and use" seems like synthesis.[edit]
The section "Abundance, extraction, and use" is not, as far as I can tell, about "nonmetals". Rather it is a section about elements restricted to the category nonmetals. The section does not summarize knowledge in verified references about the abundance of nonmetals, their extraction as nonmetals, nor the use of nonmetals. Rather it summarizes articles about elements selected by wikipedia editors based on the element being one discussed in the article. The concept of abundance, extraction and use of "nonmetals" is synthesized from these references.
I don't believe that one can have a section on the abundance, extraction, and use of nonmetals because the characteristics that define the category "nonmetal" do not predict unique abundance, extraction or use issues. It's easy to prove me wrong with a reliable reference. If one exists it is not cited in the section AFAICT. (To be sure I think this was well intended and not designed with an agenda other than creating a good article.) Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnjbarton: Thanks. Most of Wikipedia represents information synthesized from multiple sources—in an encyclopedic manner—there being no single article in which all the information in the article is set out in one reference.
- While it's somewhat true that the characteristics that define the category "nonmetal" do not predict unique abundance, extraction or use issues, this is not an issue.
- Rather, all the information about the abundance of nonmetals, their extraction, and uses is supported by reliable sources. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I disagree with your characterization of what Wikipedia represents. Yes, multiple sources are cited in (hopefully!) every article. But the sources are in support of a concept described in the sources. That is not the case here. These sources do not describe "abundance extraction or use of nonmetals" because the characteristics of "nonmetal"-ness does not affect the abundance of nonmetals, extraction or use of nonmetals. The section is just places the information in conjunction and cites it. The information is not related to the concept of "nonmetals".
- Just to give examples:
- "The nonmetals hydrogen and helium dominate the observable universe"
- What about "nonmetal" relates to the domination of the observable universe? If nonmetal-ness causes domination of the universe, why is Xe rare? (I expected to read about nucleosynthesis of nonmetals here)
- The Earth's mantle and core...
- mentions facts with references, but says the composition is split between nonmetals and metals. That is referenced fact but it is not about nonmetals, it's about the Earth. The paragraph is devote of information about "nonmetal" ness. In fact the Goldschmidt classification of elements according to their geochemistry, is a well developed science and it does not rely on "nonmetal" as described in this article.
- Nonmetals and metalloids are extracted from a variety of raw materials
- Nothing in this section relates the content to the article topic. It is just a laundry list of raw materials, with no connection. Is there anything special about nonmetals that uniquely or commonly alters how they are extracted? Not according to this section. Per the point about geochemistry, I suspect no such connection is known to science. This section creates the impression of a connection, there is none.
- Now let me contrast this with other sections. Earlier in the article, in "Chemical", we learn that nonmetal oxides are acidic never basic. This is fact about "nonmetals". Compounds of nonmetals and metals are ionic: a fact about nonmetals. The multiple references in this section are about nonmetals as a category of elements.
- I hope this is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @John: Tx for your detailed feedback. While the section on "Abundance, extraction, and use" doesn't strictly connect these aspects to the defining characteristics of nonmetals, I feel there's value in presenting this information collectively.
- Aim of the section: The aim is to provide a consolidated overview of relevant information about nonmetals.
- Value of a comprehensive overview: An encyclopedic article benefits from summarizing key facts and data points about a topic. The "laundry list" approach allows us to cover various facets of nonmetals in one place, making it easier for readers to grasp the broader picture without needing to consult multiple sources.
- Supporting information with references: The information in the section is supported by reliable references. This ensures that the content is verifiable and based on established knowledge.
- Concluding thought: The section provides a useful overview that enhances the general reader’s understanding of these elements. I feel that this approach aligns with the goal of creating a comprehensive and informative encyclopedia entry.
- All that said, I've added some contextual material in an attempt to meet you half-way. So the abundance of H and He is explained, there is now a link to stellar nucleosynthesis, and Xe gets a look in. There is some elaboration of the crust, and why the CHONPSSe nonmetals feature so much in the biomass. The extraction section makes reference to the physical and chemical properties of the elements concerned and gives some examples. A similar start has been added to the Uses section.
- How does it look now?
- BTW: You wrote earlier, "[The article] summarizes articles about elements selected by wikipedia editors based on the element being one discussed in the article." Not so; I developed the article based on the literature, rarther than WP articles on individual nonmetals. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- (Just a minor point to clarify: by "selected by wikipedia editors" I meant "developed based on inappropriate selections from the literature". In my opinion literature in "Nonmetal" should be about "non metal", not randomly selected facts). Johnjbarton (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- "How does it look now?" Sorry, I think you are missing my point. Adding more random facts unrelated to the topic is not meeting me half way, it's going further away.
- What these sections need is references that connect "nonmetal" to abundance, extraction, or use. Even one reference in the entire section that discusses "nonmetal" would be a start.
- Now there is a strong connection between "metal" and abundance:
- Consequently using the term "nonmetal" in the context of cosmic abundance means only H and He, and in my opinion discussing stellar abundance of "nonmetals" without mention this fundamental difference is confusing. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Abundance chart[edit]
I’ve tweaked the chart in § Abundance so the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most common elements are in separate cells. This allows easy comparison. I did this after the 3% nitrogen was removed by @Sandbh from the biosphere row. Some other ideas for improvement occur to me:
- Add a 4th cell to each row
- Remove the inner vertical borderlines from the table
- Add some color to the table by coloring the cells, either
- (a) either using the four nonmetal types with the colors used in the previous section, plus a gray for metals
- (b) or else using just 3 colors, one for the elements that dominate the visible structures of the earth, one for other nonmetallic elements, and one for metals.
These are independent of each other. Any thoughts as to which (if any) should be implemented? YBG (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the topic on this Talk page "Abundance, extraction, and use" seems like synthesis.". Unless you have a reference that discusses the role of "nonmetal" in abundance of elements, the chart is not appropriate here. The origin of the abundance of elements in the universe, atmosphere, etc, are long and deeply studied, with hundreds of scientific papers. The section is creating an impression of a relationship by cited sources focused on various elements, rather than citing source that explore the root causes of the relative abundance. I claim "nonmetalness" has no role in the root cause. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have read that section, which I understand to be an argument to delete the entirety of § Abundance, extraction, and use. Your ideas are thought-provoking, but as my thoughts have not jelled, it seems inappropriate for me to respond at this point. In the meantime, i initiated this thread to suggest improvements to the abundance section, not to advocate for its retention. YBG (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I’d be interested to know what you (and any other editor) think about improving the abundance chart by (1) adding the 4th components, (2) removing inner vertical borders, and (3) adding color. YBG (talk) 14:24, 3 June 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).
- 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