Talk:Metalloid/A2

Metalloid

I'm requesting a second A-class review.

With help from Double sharp and some other eagle-eyed editors, I've restructured and improved the article in response to feedback from the first A-class review. Changes are:


 * Polished the lead by moving the more detailed paragraphs into the main body.
 * Main body now starts with a survey of the elements commonly and less commonly classified as metalloids.
 * Added an explanation as to the location of the metalloids in periodic table terms.
 * Added prose in front of and after the two properties tables.
 * Moved the properties tables from section 1 to section 4.
 * Added properties of metals and non-metals to the distinctive properties subsection.
 * Added redundant text, captions, and tags to improve accessibility.
 * Turned some of the very short bullets into prose.
 * Sundry style and content edits and additions.

I kept the properties tables in table form rather than turning them into text. Such tables are common in chemistry text books, as are tables generally in encyclopaedias—if memory serves, hard copy Britannica, for example, includes multi-page tables. The original issue with the tables was that they swamped the start of the article. I've addressed this by moving them further down the article as well as adding more before and after explanatory and summary prose.

The lead still has some citations. I gather the nub of the original feedback was that having so many citations in the lead was overwhelming. I've addressed this by pruning the lead and relocating the clippings to other parts of the article.

Despite my initial surprise in response to the first feedback I'm pleased to say the end result is a much better structured and presented article. The feedback was very helpful, insightful and thought-provoking in that regard.

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have requested a peer review to help with this Sandbh (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the legend of the diagram at the top at all ("Common, Less common, Uncommon, Rare") - it looks like it's talking about relative abundance of those elements in the earth's crust of something like that

A problem for this article is that "metalloid" is not really a rigorous term, and so does not lend itself well to exhaustive factual articles! I also dislike the way it says the "metalloid status" of some of them is "disputed" - it is too emotive a term. Whether it is useful to call something a "metalloid" is only ever going to be done on the basis of that element's chemical and physical properties - and none of those properties are disputed! All that we're really talking about here are a few lazy websites or textbooks which labelled something as a "metalloid" based on its position in the periodic table, rather than checking what its properties actually were. There's refs for this in the polonium article, for instance. I don't think there's any "dispute" at all--feline1 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the legend, but the article does talk about the chemical and physical properties of the elements in question. The article mainly discusses the facts and leaves the history of the term "metalloid" to last. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Feline1. Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree that the term "metalloid" is not really a rigorous term. I don't think this is a problem, however, as the article notes the lack of rigour when it talks about the fuzziness of the term, and the absence of a universally agreed definition. I agree the usefulness of calling something a metalloid will depend on the properties of the element in question. And there certainly are a lot of references that you could say are a little bit casual when it comes to labelling some elements as metalloids. Mostly this is done on the basis of what other authors have written, without any critical thinking (but at least they got into print). There is some good content out there (but it takes a lot of looking to find it) that touches on various parts of the metalloid jungle but nothing that I've been able to find that pulls all the threads together. Wikipedia is great for presenting this kind of thing, especially with its citations requirement.


 * The metalloid status of some elements described in the literature as metalloids, especially polonium and astatine, is disputed, so I disagree with you on that item. Rochow (1977, Modern descriptive chemistry, p. 14) for example, writes that, 'Some of the eight elements designated as metalloids may be disputed, but the existence of a buffer zone of metalloids between the metals and nonmetals is conceded by all.' Citations for the disputes are included in the article. These citations include discussions of the properties of the elements in dispute. The disputes are about what qualifies as a metalloid, rather than so much about the properties of each element. Thanks again for the feedback. Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)