Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive1

Nonmetal

 * Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Carbon, bromine, helium and like chemical elements is what this 78 KB article is about.

It has had several global iterations since my first edit in 2013, as influenced by input from WP:ELEM.

I’ve drawn on my experience with three other FAs.

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose significant uncited text, use of images where it's not clear what they are showing about nonmetals (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Where are the citations? There are chunks of text without a source. Graham Beards (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you  buidhe  and Graham Beards. Citations were included for all potentially controversial text passages and harder to verify statements. Citations were otherwise not included. The gallery images, and the black P image, have now been embellished. Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For Featured Articles the standards are high and it is most unlikely that this candidate will be promoted unless these citation issues are addressed  rather than  dismissed. Graham Beards (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:FACS, at FAC it is practice to require that every material statement, unless self-evidently true, be supported by a citation, not only material likely to be challenged (per WP:V).. Once all the immediate citation concerns here are addressed, a full source review will also be required. I'll also note that many book sources are used, which may not be available online to everyone.

ComplexRational (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:ComplexRational. 1. WP:FACS is not wp policy, it is a personal opinion, nor is it mentioned in the FAC criteria. 2. There is no FAC requirement to conduct a full source review. It is normal practice to audit of a selection of sources for an FAC put up by a first time author. This is a fourth time FAC. 3. That many book sources are used which may not be available online to everyone is not a consideration of the FAC criteria. Libraries are still available to everyone, including overseas interlibary loan services. Sandbh (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. I never said book sources are a problem, it was just a quick observation for the source reviewer to note. (On my end, I have a digital copy of a couple of sources, though with university library access or similar, some others may be available as well.)
 * OTOH, I have seen pretty rigorous source reviews even for (semi-)regular FA contributors, so while first-time nominations may be treated differently, I have no reason to believe the standards are any more lax here. ComplexRational (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course ComplexRational, such a rigorous "full" source review can be conducted at any time. Is this a requirement of WP:FAC? No. Is this custom and practice at FAC? No. Sandbh (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - for input into the existence or nonexistence of this requirement. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, and probably send through WP:GAR. Too much uncited text. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Graham Beards and Hog Farm. Are there some unwritten expectations that FAC need to go well beyond the FA criteria?
 * The FA criteria say claims need to be verifiable and supported by citations as per WP:WTC. The latter says sources are needed for quotations; close paraphrasing; contentious statements about living people; exceptional claims; and opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work. Sources may not be needed in cases of general common knowledge; subject-specific common knowledge; and when something is cited elsewhere in the article. As far as I can see, the article currently meets these requirements.
 * I'll be very glad to add to the 120 current citations if you feel there are some specific passages that do not yet meet whatever the unwritten FA criteria are. Did you have one or two specific examples in mind? Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Essentially, if it's not self-proving or reasonably obvious, the current FAC expectation is that it will be cited. For instance, it's not obvious where the citations for a lot of the stuff in the tables are, "Radon does not appear to be available commercially." is another likely citation need. Radon and astatine were discovered in 1898 and 1940, with the former credited to Marie and Pierre Curie. is another spot that likely needs one, especially since RS such as this and this attribute the discovery to F. E. Dorn in 1900. Hog Farm Talk 01:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you muchly. I'll strive to add at least one citation to any paragraph lacking such, aside from statements of the obvious. Clarifying the data sources for the lack of commercial availability of radon could be tricky since I wasn't able to find any commercial supply sources but I'll look again. Maybe I'll just list the chemical suppliers I checked. And I'll add a source about the discovery of the elements, and maybe a note about any dispute to do with Rn. Sandbh (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The virginia.gov and RSC sources on Rn discovery do not seem reliable. I've added a note to the discovery section of the article to this end. Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The RSC source is the Royal Society of Chemistry, which I'm very confident is reliable. My guess is just that what constitutes the "discovery" of an element that wasn't all that well-understood all the time depends on what each sources determines "discovery" constitutes. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems very odd to me to suggest that the Curies discovered radon. In 1899 they did not think that it was a substance, whereas Rutherford and Owens had the idea right from the start: see this journal article for a historical summary. This historical retrospective from Nature makes it clear: the Curies only noted an "induced radioactivity" (and, as the first article I linked states, mistook its nature), but Rutherford and Owens understood that it was a substance. In Bull. Hist. Chem there were some articles just after the turn of the millennium pointing out that Rutherford has the best claim to be called the true discoverer of radon: one, two. The authors of the first have written another detailed exposé here. If you want more, Norman E. Holden prepared a history of the discovery of the elements for the 50th IUPAC General Assembly Conference, and he wrote: "Dorn had followed the procedure of Ernest Rutherford, who earlier the same year had isolated and characterized “thoron” (220Rn, half-life 55.6 seconds), the gas emanating from thorium. Hence, Rutherford should be considered the discoverer of radon."
 * As for why the RSC lists Dorn (who cannot be the discoverer, since he cites Rutherford's work): this is classic confusion between radon the isotope and radon the element. See, in the past the element was often called "emanation", and "radon" just meant the isotope of atomic weight 222. But later "radon" became the name of the element. Except that the old informal use of it meaning just the 222 isotope still persists, making for ambiguity. Dorn discovered radon in the sense of 222Rn but not in the sense of Rn the element. And, incidentally, he did not correctly figure out its nature either.
 * It seems to me that the need for such a long explanation is precisely why these things need citations and probably explanatory footnotes. Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Double sharp. In 1901, Rutherford and Brooks credited the Curies for the discovery of the element: Rutherford E & Brooks HT 1901, "The new gas from radium", Trans. R. Soc. Can. 7: 21–25. Sandbh (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 14 citations have been added to the article. It now seems the only stuff needing more citations is the comparative tables. I hope to attend to this shortly. Sandbh (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did. But while they certainly found the element, they didn't have a correct idea of what it was. That, as I just demonstrated, seems to be the criterion being used by most of the sources focusing on this knotty question of history: thus they credit Rutherford and Owens. Those that do not focus on it, but mention the discoverer in passing, mostly credit Dorn. The Curies are seldom the ones credited.
 * In any case, perhaps we should point out the comments of Marshall and Marshall: "We have found that identifying “the” discovery date of an element can be difficult, owing to uncertain criteria for the elements previous to modern times..." This is of course an even more serious issue for the elements before Rn (e.g. dephlogisticated air for oxygen). Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Curies has been removed and replaced with a comment about At. I'll continue the Curie discussion at Talk:Radium. Sandbh (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a further 23 citations in an attempt to nail down the stuff in the tables. I'll revisit the radon discovery question tomorrow. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for now., I strongly believe that a peer review would be more appropriate at this stage in the article's development in order to tidy it up and ensure it complies with all the featured article criteria. At the moment, from close-reading a few sections, I'm not sure that the article meets criteria 1a (well-writen), 1b (comprehensive; this is one thing I believe a PR will help with), and 1e (it is still being heavily edited and expanded), and I see several sections where citations are insufficient by modern FAC standards (from what I understand, one per paragraph is rarely enough). Additionally, since this entire article has been rewritten, it hasn't even been checked against the good article criteria (GAR?), which makes this FAC feel all the more hasty.
 * Below are a few things I noticed, in no particular order, though should we go to a PR or the FAC not close quickly, I can offer some more detailed comments.
 * 1. We should firmly establish an WP:ENGVAR, then do a full copyedit and MOS check. I, and a few other editors, have made a few minor MOS fixes over the past few weeks.
 * 2. Section Origin and use of the term – more citations needed, one in the footnote won't cut it.
 * 3. – citation needed. Also, though summary-style is a fundamental component of an article like this, this really feels rushed and doesn't read too well. It introduces some more technical terms such as specific heat capacity (?) with which a layperson may not be familiar, at least not before reading the section on properties. Could also use more wikilinks (such as the one I linked here if that's correct) and a few other MOS fixes.
 * 4. – inline citation needed, preferably from Lavoisier himself.
 * 5. Section Properties – it might be helpful to introduce some of the more technical terms, or at least what they mean in a practical (application) or observational sense. I'd do this before highlighting the contrast with metals.
 * 6. – I wouldn't use the term nearly all when 6/17 (or 12/23 if metalloids are counted as nonmentals) are solid or liquid. If this was not the intended meaning, parts of this paragraph may need to be written. The next part of the sentence,, could also be covered under the nearly all...; I suggest breaking up this run-on sentence.
 * 7. – with a bit of rephrasing, this would be a good place to start a new sentence.
 * 8. – this may be clearly presented in a data table, but an inline citation is needed here.
 * 9. – what conditions?
 * 10. – WP:SELFCITE, especially when saying generally regarded. To fix this, I suggest having another editor review and perhaps elaborate on this, as well as additional citations from other authors to make it clear that this really is a generic statement.
 * 11. – inline citation needed, preferably from Lavoisier himself.  oops
 * 12. – reported by whom? Also, for such a short section, this really feels like undue emphasis on the recent classification of one author. Has the subset of unclassified nonmetals been historically considered as such? This section could also be expanded to describe the various classifications of these elements.
 * 13. Section Nonmetal halogens – also feels too short and only has one inline citation (plus another in a footnote).
 * 14. – too colloquial. This would read better as "In periodic tables, they occupy the rightmost column" or something similar. It's a fairly straightforward fix, but I just included it as an example for 1a.
 * 15. – citation needed.


 * This is not an exhaustive list, but I hope this gives a clear(er) idea of where this article still needs some considerable work before meeting FAC standards. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to commit to the review process (whichever it may be), but I'll happily nitpick specific sections or help with copyediting in the next couple of weeks. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ComplexRational, including for your interim oppose. I'll address your observations shortly. Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ComplexRational: I've numbered your dot points, and my mine, to make things easier to follow.


 * Re: "…it is still being heavily edited and expanded" — since posting to FAC, and judging by eye, the sizeable majority of edits have been to add citations (49 now added), the rest has been some trims, converting some text to a table; and some ce's. B4 posting the article at FAC, criteria for FAC and MOS were checked, including the requirements for support by inline citations where appropriate. The article was GA when work started to bring it up to FA standard. This involved trimming from 125K to 89K; rearranging and refining existing content into 3 to 4 classes; and adding citations and notes. Copyediting was undertaking several times.
 * 1. The language variety was checked pre-FAC and found to be US. That being so, no language notification was posted. Spelling was checked and corrections made for US language.
 * Was it? I still see mixing of en-US and other varieties. We have both oxidize and recognised, as well as vapour, and inconsistent use of, for instance aluminum, potassium and iron and chlorine, bromine, and iodine. One way or the other, this should be consistent. If we go for en-US (if ENGVAR permits), I'll help with the copyediting.
 * Yes, it was, manually, in the absence of a tool. After pasting into Pages (Word not permitting a language change), and picking US Eng., ca. 17 further instances of non-US spelling have now been amended. "Aluminium" is the IUPAC spelling. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP style is documented in MOS:ALUM YBG (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2. The Origin and use of the term section was/is supported by four citations, rather than one. To make this clearer a note has been added saying, "(see the taxonomy table in this section)".
 * 3. A citation referring to the basicity of quicklime has been added. "Specific heat capacity" was/is nowhere used in the article
 * Citation looks good. I only mentioned specific heat capacity because I'm not sure if that's what you meant by capacity to conduct heat – be it correct or incorrect, a wikilink would help here if there are technical details to discuss.
 * Changed to "ability to conduct heat"; link added to thermal conductivity. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4. Subſtances ſimples non-métalliques and métalliques had no inline citation since the work in which these words appeared i.e. Traité élémentaire de chimie was wikilinked in the same sentence. A citation can be added if this will not represent citation overkill?
 * It won't be citation overkill because the article currently states that Lavoisier described nonmetals as such, but not actually sourcing this claim directly. Only if both Lavoisier's work and a secondary source describing that were included would there possibly be overkill.
 * Thanks; citation added. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5. Section  Properties. Technical terms in this section were/are wikilinked.
 * 6. goes on to say—as noted above—"or polyatomic solids". Here, of 23 nonmetallic elements all but Br are diatomic or monatomic gases, or polyatomic solids. The sentence has been edited and broken up into two smaller sentences.
 * 7. —as above
 * 8. —cite added.
 * 9. —copy edited and wlink added.
 * 10. —That the subject elements are too diverse for a collective examination has been discussed and acknowledged on and off for about the past ten years at WP:ELEM. Four more citations have been added to this effect—two specific across four authors and three referring to the expression "other nonmetals".
 * 11. "– inline citation needed, preferably from Lavoisier himself." Lavoisier (1789) only distinguished between metals and nonmetals. As discussed at WP:ELEM over ten years, there is no record in the literature of a widely accepted name for the unclassified nonmetals. Citations are now there for the originators of the names metalloid, halogen, and noble gas.
 * My mistake on including Lavoisier here (oops), I meant that in point 4 with Lavoisier's quote. In the case of there not being a widely accepted name, it would be best to give equal weight (NPOV/UNDUE) to the most commonly used names. The citations you added look good at first glance, as does the mention of other nonmetals.
 * Thanks for that. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 12. "– reported by whom?" Reported by: Cao C, Vernon R, Schwarz E, Li J 2021, " Understanding periodic and non-periodic chemistry in periodic tables", Frontiers in Chemistry, vol. 8, 10.3389/fchem.2020.00813. The nonmetal article states: "After the nonmetallic elements are classified as either metalloids, halogens or noble gases, the remaining seven nonmetals are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur and selenium."
 * The proposal to refer to "unclassified nonmetals" was notified to WP:ELEM and well received. If followed the decision by WP:ELEM to deprecate the use of fixed colour categories in the lede periodic table appearing in that article in order to provide more flexibility in discussing sets of elements, and given how many variations there are in the literature around the borders aside from the alkali metals in group 1. As noted, the unclassified nonmetals are what is left after the nonmetallic elements are classified as either metalloids, halogens or noble gases. A basic taxonomy of the nonmetals involved was set out in 1844 by Dupasquier. To facilitate the study of metalloids (i.e. nonmetals), he wrote that, “they will be divided into four groups or sections, as in the following: Organogens (O, N, H, C); Sulphuroids	(S, Se, P); Chloroides (F, Cl, Br, I); 4th	Boroids	B, Si." But his taxonomy never caught on. See: Dupasquier, A.: Traité élémentaire de chimie industrielle. Charles Savy Juene: Lyon, 1844, pp. 66–67. Since that time the closest there is in the literature is to the "other nonmetals", as supported by three citations. There is a wp article on the CHON elements and CHONPS, however this does not cover Se. The pre-FAC version of nonmetal surveyed various arrangements of the nonmetals. Since none of these caught on in the literature, whereas metalloids are, albeit inconsistently; and halogens and noble gases are universal, and that leaves the unclassified nonmetals, the previous various arrangements of the nonmetals were left out of the current iteration of nonmetal. They could easily be spun out into their own child-article if preferred.
 * Re "This section could also be expanded to describe the various classifications of these elements", a new article has been created, List of alternative nonmetal classes, and a foonote added to Nonmetal. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 13. "Section Nonmetal halogens – also feels too short and only has one inline citation (plus another in a footnote)" — It is short as it has its own hatnote referring to the Halogen main article. Four more citations have been added.
 * 13a. – page range too wide, this is the entire chapter on halogens, can you narrow it down or include multiple cites?
 * 13b. – I skimmed some of that chapter while checking the source, and I see many types of bonds on a spectrum from ionic to covalent are described (p. 823, for instance). Perhaps this might be worth a brief mention somewhere if it's pertinent in the context of nonmetal chemistry. Also, although it's in the table already, you might want to note that O is an exception to the remaining nonmetals (i.e., it forms mostly ionic compounds with metals) because of its high electronegativity. This looks like a very nuanced matter, though, so the more intricate details can be saved for a sub-article.
 * 14. " – too colloquial. This would read better as "In periodic tables, they occupy the rightmost column" or something similar." — What is colloquial and what is more formal will vary from person to person. For example, "In periodic table terms" appears in the FA periodic table article. The former + "outermost right column" appear in literature. The accompanying table further illustrates the location of the noble gases in the outermost right column. I have edited the passage in question.
 * Reads much better now. Indeed formality is subjective, and different authors have their own unique style. I also find sometimes that it's not only a matter of formality, but when the same ideas can be equally well described with fewer words, it's usually better to do so.
 * Thanks for that. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 15. " – citation needed." – Extant citation relocated.
 * Good. I'll double-check this later and maybe add a citation used in another article. Of course I assume good faith, though a more accessible citation may also aid the reader.
 * Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Grateful for advice on items 4, 12. Thanks again, Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to help,, and thank you for numbering the points. I am responding slowly and in pieces; some things I crossed out, and some things I left additional comments on. I also think everything would be kept neater if you replied indented (as I have here) rather than echo the list. ComplexRational (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly ComplexRational. Elsewhere it has been written that indented replies are considered to be less than civil. Never mind. When in Rome… Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Given the number of unstruck and reasoned opposes I am going to have to archive this. It wasn't and probably isn't yet ready for FAC. I suggest that the issues flagged up above are resolved off-FAC, possibly at WP:PR, before a renomination is considered. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)