Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive2

Metalloid

 * Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm resubmitting this article following its first unsuccessful nomination, here, and here.

Since that time I've attempted to address all the issues raised by previous reviewers. These had to do with the use of lists; reliance on List of metalloid lists (another Wikipedia article); the structure of the article; use of notes; citation formatting consistencies; and citations to multiple editions of the same work.

Lists have been converted to prose. The List of metalloid lists is now referenced in a peer-reviewed academic journal (as is also the case with the metalloid article itself). The article structure has been overhauled so that the focus is on the metalloid category as a whole, rather than the commonly recognised metalloids. I've checked and adjusted the notes to make sure the article can be read and understood without necessarily needing to refer to the notes. I've checked and adjusted the formatting of citations for consistency. Multiple editions of the same work have been removed where redundant. Other minor improvements were made along the way.

I thank the earlier reviewers, Squeamish Ossifrage and John for their comments in response to my initial nomination. Despite my (unhelpful) initial misgivings the article is significantly better now. Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment Just having a look at the mind-numbing "References" section, I am reluctantly leaning towards oppose. The citations are not properly and consistenly formatted -- for example, title case is not used, and ISSNs and ISBNs are missing for some of the print publications (ISSN 0040-1692 for Technology Review, ISSN 1536-3686 for American Journal of Therapeutics, ISSN 0165-0513 for Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays-Bas, etc). This makes them difficult to digest and verify. I would like to know of Nikkimaria's views of the references first before I go any further.

Having said that, I appreciate your work on this important article and hope that you'll be a regular on FAC (if you aren't already). Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 14:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Have switched to title case for all references. Have added ISSNs per WP:ISSN (and learnt how to format them, proper-like). Sentence case was in use the last time I was at university several yrs ago and I'd gotten used to that. Appreciate the feedback. RL will get in the way of me being an FAC regular; I do have a look and make comments/edits now and again though. I hope the referencing looks better now. Tx again, Sandbh (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * a dead link but no DABs.
 * Fixed. Removed dead link; replaced with Pyykkö 2012 citation and ref.


 * I took a quick look over the article... referencing the article to the article itself (i.e "The generic definition set out at the start of this article") to me is not good writing, but I think I've seen this at FAC before (brain comes to mind). I've also seen this on other broad topics, but I haven't seen an actual FA containing such phrases...
 * Fixed. Good call; I've had a go at rewording the start of the Generic section.


 * "In 2003, arsenic trioxide (Trisenox®)..." I don't think the trademark symbol is needed, and can you link "essential element"? Seattle (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done (x2). Thank you for the comments. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I've had this article in my Watchlist for a long time, since its first FAC, but wasn't really looking at edits and how it was changing. During the first FAC, I felt it was far from FA standards for a number of reasons; now, however, the article looks a lot better. I gave it a quick read and now it is a decent work. Specifics will follow, but knowing the main author cares about the article, I feel positive about it.--R8R (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here goes:

Lead is very good. One thing I have to ask is, why show aluminum and carbon in the main diagram. I mean, selenium as a metalloid can be found easily in literature (esp. environmental and such), but Al and C are a lot rarer hits.
 * Tx for the kind words re the lede. I've shown Al and C for three reasons. The first is the almost iconic status of the dividing line between metals and nonmetals. The second (related) reason is that metalloids, as a whole, are most often thought of as being adjacent to the dividing line. However, there is no agreement as to just which of the elements next to the line warrant being classified as metalloids. So, I've simply shown how often the elements next to the dividing line are classified as metalloids, based on 194 metalloid lists. The third reason is in acknowledgement of the fact that—even though, taking myself as example, I would never not consider aluminium to be a metalloid—aluminium and carbon were the elements next most frequently recognised as metalloids after B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po, At and Se. Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got it.--R8R (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Germanium was also thought... -- I can't find this in the main text of the article, where it would be benefitial (for example, in the Origin and usage subsection, or elsewhere)
 * Done: Copied text to end of germanium mini-bio; copy edited and added some extra content. Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In the Generic subsection, you first mention the common metalloids, then you mention Se, Po, and At; next, I would expect Al and C. At least in the list of elements "ocassionally classified as metalloids."


 * Fixed: The paragraph that talks about the common metalloids is limited to talking about that topic. It starts with a citation to the common metalloids and follows this with citations that vary the membership of the common metalloid club. Al and C are left out because there are no citations saying they should have the same status as the common metalloids. Have copy edited this para a tiny bit to try and make it clearer that the topic is the elements commonly recognised as metalloids. The next paragraph talks about the other elements that are still less frequently classified as metalloids, including C and Al. Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(for example, nitrogen; carbon) -- why a semicolon here?
 * Oh, a semicolon is normally used to separate items in a list. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, "for example, nitrogen or carbon" would be more like natural (and still neutral) language.
 * Done

Why use "same" in the table when you can just copy the word in the cell above?
 * Done Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(see the mini-example, right) -- "right" is little use when, for example, you use a mobile version of Wiki


 * Fixed: Changed to 'see the mini-example, in this section.' Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It could be cool if you managed to find someone to turn the dark gray color square into a line of the same color (since you use a line of that line, with the color of the line having a different function than other colors. Don't know if this is a requirement, but this could be a good idea.


 * Could you explain that some more as I don't understand what you mean? As well, I just noticed the dividing line isn't access friendly per WP:ACCESS so perhaps I also need to add some descriptive text. That could remove the need to have a legend box for the line. Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you have colored squares for element categories and a colored square for the line color in the legend. Instead, you should have colored squares for element categories and a line segmant for the line. Is this description clearer? I can attach a picture.
 * That's fine too.


 * Fixed template streamlined and text expanded a bit for accessibility purposes Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

First you say two of the six are toxic, then you say all six are. I've removed the first phrase, but if you want it back, you can do that (but please explain why).


 * Fixed: Have rearranged this paragraph. Reads better now. Tx. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding -- this word is too fancy for me. Fancy is not maybe the word, but there is a MOS rule you should use less complex words when it's possible (for example, always "on" and never "upon," except for quotes and proper names). This might be an issue here. (If it's not, please let me know.)


 * Fixed. Changed to 'Even so'. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlike metallic antimony -- made me think for a second I'd missed somrthing. Maybe better use "While metallic animony is relatively non-toxic" or smth like that?


 * Done Good idea. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(I'm somehow glad there's no polonium radioactivity mention here :) (no action required)

type III-V semiconductors (such as ...) -- I think a small parentesized explanation would not hurt, for example "type III-V semiconductors (a semiconductor composed of one or more group III elements and one or more group V elements, such as ...)" Don't insist, though.
 * Fixed. Have added wikilink. Sandbh (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, let's say it's okay now.

Cadmium telluride (CdTe) -- previosuly, you refer to a compound either by a name or a formula, and two lines later you have just "bismuth telluride" (don't know if such consistency is a good idea, just noting)


 * Fixed: I believe the approach I tried to follow was to use just prose, with the following exceptions: (a) when saying something like, 'the oxides…readily form glasses', where the ellipsis = the formulae of the oxides in question; (b) when there is no easy prose equivalent for a compound; (c) when the formula is not obvious, in which case the formula is added after the prose; (d) when industry usage is to refer to a compound by its formula moreso than its prose name (e.g. CdTe) in which case the formula is included, even if it is simple. I had a look at WP:MOSCHEM but it doesn't address this. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Reasonable enough. For future editors, I'd suggest you leave this guideline on the talkpage, so others can understand it too.
 * Done

When I find time, I'll continue from the section Elements commonly recognised as metalloids--R8R (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, intended for easier editing via mobile devices
It is about 10% less dense than aluminium but, unlike the latter,[219] is hard and brittle. -- a somewhat questionable antithesis. 10% isn't that much. I think the point was about as dense as Al, but a lot harder, then I suggest you remove the mention of percents. same for Si.


 * Done x2 Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

figures in the end of the same para, and almost all figures in this section --- mmm. not so great. I do realize what these figures are for and find them useful, but only because I know what they mean. Many, many people won't. Note that later on, you have the following: "with an electrical conductivity of 1.0–1.3 × 104 S•cm−1, a value similar to that of liquid mercury." (a very good note). This is a serious question. Luckily enough, it's not too difficult to solve. I suggest you do the following: you explain the difference between metals, nonmetals, and metalloids in the corresponding section, so you can explain the typical values for the parameters in that section as well. You should also explain what those parameters even are (by the way, it gives you possibilities for some awesome notes, like (hence metallic bonding) when explaining the band gap). Readers' love will be all yours ;)
 * Fixed. Clarification request to follow. I removed the content about superconducting transition points to lighten the dataload. For the boron entry, the first of the "big-six" biographical sketches, I added an electrical conductivity comparison (to tap water), and I added a note about the relative width of boron's band gap compared to the other semiconducting metalloids, and Se and white P. 'Band gap' also currently has a wlink and there is also more info about electrical conductivity values for metals, metalloids, and nonmetals in the existing 'Compared to those of metals and nonmetals subsection', including notes with numerical ranges. All the names of the parameters in the 'Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals' table in that section currently have wlinks, too. I hope this looks OK now; if not yet just let me know. Sandbh (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * band gap yet to be explained. Unlike electrical conductivity, which is a intuitively clear term, band gap will not be understood by those who have little understanding in the topic. So it could be cool if you squeezed in a short definition if the term. This is doable.

the energy required -- makes sense, but raises question about P (no action required, just noting)

aluminum: electron potential: It's very cool that you have that external link here. seriously. (no action required)
 * Thank you good catch Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Up to polonium's profile, the only thing I have concerns about is the understandability of figures. Astatine's profile, though, reads as if it were written by another person in a different writing style (encyclopedia vs journal). My personal feeling is, that is because here, there are many authors names. I suggest you drop them because the text is always easier to read when it has fewer names unless we're discussing a story. There are a lot of reasons. Some are psychologic (for unprepared readers, names are attractions and deviate them from the point, etc.). My concern is that 99% of readers won't ever need these names, but, again, for an unprepared reader, these names are a ballast. This is different for journal articles. Even the 1% that needs them, will find them in ref descriptions. A de-personified text is easier to read, when it comes to an overview article. In a journal article, this is not relevant. Moreover, in journal articles, a reader may need those names. This is rarely the case for Wikipedia.


 * Done Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The text is a lot better now!
 * Tx

The next section is hard to write without names, though. Actually, it can go w/o names as well, but this would require rewriting. Besides, I don't see a point in having the 1954 and 2007 classifications when discussing near-metalloids (the text has only metalloids). Actually, are these authors crucial to the near-metalloid definition? Can't you go with something like "In 1935, a new concept of near-metalloids, elements that behaved like metalloids, but also like metals or nonmetals, emerged. This concept has occured in many works since then, and the elements classified as such were ..., ..., more rarely also ..." Authors are really secondary detail. They could be fine in a close-up spinoff article, but not in the overview article.


 * Done Trimmed and rewritten to tighten the focus; also changed the section title from special cases to honorable mentions (to better reflect the fact that the elements involved are ordinarily classified as metals and nonmetals). Superfluous refs still to be removed from References section. Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On aurophilicity, see also.[23] -- shouldn't this very sentence be "see also [23]," as [23] isn't just a ref, but also a part of the sentence
 * Fixed

IE -- better spell out
 * Done

A more technical thing -- wikilinking is not always done at first occurrence. (Maybe there's a script that checks this. If you don't have it, tell me, and I'll fix it. errr, I only have the duplicate links script, sorry) An outsourceable thing. (I only noticed band gap inconsistency.)
 * Fixed, I believe. band gap wikilink. I have the script that checks for duplicate links but wasn't able to find a script for checking the first occurrence of wikilinks. Am checking this manually :( Done manually. I followed the WP guidance that said, 'Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.' and 'But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article.' Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, a very good article.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your considered comments. A few items for me still to attend to. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Four items to go, in total Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two to go; one about changing the legend box for the dividing line into a line segment; the other about figure overload in the biographical sketches of the commonly recognised metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One left (the legend box). Sandbh (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All done. Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)