Talk:Nonmetal

message: I feel this article is now good to go to PR or FAC. Do you concur? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sandbh: Perhaps. Let me take a global look first to see if anything jumps out. YBG (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

text: See related topic at  below. @Sandbh, should we close this section or come back to it later? YBG (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

text: @Sandbh? YBG (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I was only suggestion that we don’t need both this section and  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Sounds good. I will continue my slow pace of working through the article. YBG (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Foornotes have now been switched to efn --- Sandbh (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Redundant ref check completed. Final read through to follow; hopefully tomorrow. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review or FAC 

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: @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)
thread_title:  Nonmetal(s) vs. Nonmetallic (chemical) element(s) 

message: 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|...}}.
Thanks, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sandbh: I continue working through my list of issues. I think  would be a big improvement. YBG (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oustanding issues check 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've copyedited the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Since the presence of impurities was only an intrinsic issue for Ge, I've restored the footnote. While impurities were present in amorphous forms of B and Si, these were nevertheless allotropic forms which natually lack lustre. I trust the 2nd paragraph reads OK now. PS. For the same reason I've removed the image of the two allotropes of B. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've now added an image of Ge. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: @Sandbh: Can the boron pics be restored to ? And while we’re at it, since it is the most common form, I’d like to restore the pic of graphite, either instead of or in addition to BFene. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The issues raised here have been subsumed in  below. YBG (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st paragraph {{slink|Nonmetal| Classification of metalloids| nopage=yes}} 

message: I’ve reused the two boron pics in . 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)
replies: text: This issue is resolved with the germanium pic. YBG (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics for  {{slink|Nonmetal| Classification of metalloids| nopage=yes}} 

message: Consider the 2nd paragraph of :
*Current text: There is no precise definition of a nonmetal;[12] any list of such is open to debate and revision.[13] Which elements are included depends on the properties regarded as most representative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[n 2]
*Issue with current text:  Many precise definitions exist.
*Proposed text: Many ways to define "nonmetal" have been discussed; none precise enough to determine all edge cases has gained general acceptance.[both refs] The elements listed as nonmetals depend on which properties are regarded as most representative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[same note]
*Issues with proposed text: Do existing refs support it? Where to place the refs? Is it WP:SYNTH?
Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is that there is no "precise widely agreed definition". That is likely all that needs to be said. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I suspect most authors don't have a chosen definition in mind apart from appreciating that nometals don't have predominately metallic properties. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Might they have an unconscious assumption of how certain elements should be classified and evaluate particular definitions based on how it assigns those elements? YBG (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably most of those authors recall the limited or zero attention paid to metalloids from the textbooks they were exposed to in their youth. Probably they recalled that which elements were counted as metalloids, if at all, varied. Aside from my suggested quantitive definition in JChemEd, there is only one other quantitative textbook definition of metalloids that I know of. So, no, it’s very likely that the great majority of authors writing about metalloids flew by the seat of their pants. Either that or they parroted someone else’s work. — Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: On a related subject, I think you could write an interesting journal article on the various single-property definitions listed in . The article would be essentially an annotation of a huge table with one row for each of these properties and one column for each element, with the cells colored to show whether the definition classifies the element as a metal or nonmetal. A note or a different color could indicate that the element wasn’t yet discovered at the time. YBG (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to explore those single definitions in a chapter of the book I pm’d you about. — Sandbh (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions & lists 

message: (section header added because I started this comment in the wrong section. YBG (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More re Table of distinguishing criteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text:  Thanks. Those red links now have accompanying notes. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  All footnotes are now in sentence form, including periods. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. YBG (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  Likewise thank you. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC check 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  All footnotes are now in sentence form, including periods. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. YBG (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  Likewise thank you. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Mirokado

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  This talk page is massive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chemistry of arsenic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hydrosphere? 

message: I’ve tweaked the chart in  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have read that section, which I understand to be an argument to delete the entirety of . 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)

text: @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)
thread_title:  Abundance chart 

message: @Bruce1ees/b Johnjbarton added this section
:==Other uses for the term==
:This article focuses on the use of "nonmetal" in chemical and electrical fields. In astronomy, the term "metals" refers to  elements creating in stars, so only hydrogen and helium are considered nonmetals.
I believe the hatnote at the top of this article explains that this article does not cover astrophysics:
:
However, it may be that the hatnote could be worded better  Thoughts?
—— YBG (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I added that content. Sorry I did not see the About template content. It reads fine to me and removing the section is ok. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes! I misread the history and pinged the wrong person. @Johnjbarton, please accept my apologies! YBG (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: NP Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrophysics 

message: On first glance this article seems quite comprehensive and finely honed. As I read more and learned more about the topic I became more confused. To me the article content is a combination of two topics at the expense of a third. In part it reads like Nonmetal elements, in line with other articles on collections of elements, like Pnictogen, Chalcogen, and so on. As such it is outstanding. In part it reads like Nonmetal (chemistry), but I could agree that this content fulfills the "characterization" for an article named Nonmetal elements. What's missing is content one might read in Nonmetal (physics) and what is conflictingly present are topics like abundance that are driven by physics not chemistry.
I suppose renaming the article to Nonmetal elements would be a possibility but it looks like this name was selected to fit in with other articles.
I don't know that adding a bunch of physics here would be the best fix. Rather I think a section named "Physics" with few short summaries of other articles would greatly improve the balance. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Johnjbarton This idea has promise. It would clearly eliminate uses such as . Such a distinction would be even more critical in the corresponding metal article. It might even be good to use nonmetallic elements; that would mean that the metalloids are included. And I note that these titles comply with WP:PLURAL as they fall under the first exception to the general rule. YBG (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonmetal elements?