Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive2

Nonmetal

 * Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the right half of a fundamental distinction in chemistry namely between metal and nonmetal chemical elements.

I referred the article for peer review after a less than stellar experience the first time round at FAC. The peer review experience far exceed my expectations, with seven reviewers participating over two months. The article benefited tremendously.

I feel it now meets all current FA expectations.

Along the way I learnt a lot more about the subject matter and the FAC process.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article looks much improved from the last time we were here. I do see some places that I'm not sure what source the information comes from, especially the table "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you buidhe; I nearly missed your contribution. Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources for the table, "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements" are given in the accompanying text. Nick D raised some concerns about four tables appearing to contain unreferenced information and I'm addressing this in their section of this page. Do you have any other concerns about a lack of source information? Sandbh (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello buidhe. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to review my recent response to your comment above? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the tables "Some cross-subclass physical properties", "Some cross-subclass chemical properties", and "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements" are verifiable. Some quick spot checks did not allow me to locate the info in the body (which is not necessarily a good idea as you want to avoid excessive duplication). For example, the row "cryogenics and refrigerants / H, He, N, O, F and Ne". If you're citing individual cells I would expect to see a source cited for every cell to make it more clear what source supports each info. Another option is to list references for each row in a separate column on the right, but that only works if the entire row is supported by only 2-3 sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review
 * Given the number of images and tables, there are some layout issues throughout. Suggest removing pull quotes and reducing number of images.
 * Don't use fixed px size
 * An_acrylic_cube_specially_prepared_for_element_collectors_containing_an_ampoule_filled_with_liquefied_xenon: does the uploader have the right to release this image?
 * File:Graphite2.jpg: second source link is dead
 * File:EN_values_of_chalcogens.png should include a source for the data presented
 * File:Die_chemischen_elemente_cl.jpg: licensing tags given appear to conflict - to what does NC-ND apply?
 * File:Kansas_Helium_Marker.jpg: what's the copyright status of the marker?
 * File:Airbornelaserturret.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Argon.jpg
 * File:Joseph_Wright_of_Derby_The_Alchemist.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. Sandbh (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed/relocated some of the images. Pull out quotes kept since the early ones illustrate some important concepts, and the last one nicely fills a space vacated by an image.
 * Removed all the fixed px sizes for images
 * For the acrylic cube image, the uploader Rasiel Suarez is the General Manager at Luciteria Science, who make such cubes, so I'd say he has image release rights. He's uploaded several other images of elements in lucite cubes.


 * Removed the dead link for the graphic image. There's a version of it in the Internet Archive, however it's identical to the image at the first link.
 * Added an EN data source
 * Removed File:Die_chemischen_elemente_cl.jpg given the licensing tags conflict


 * Removed historical marker for helium discovery image
 * Updated the source for the Airborne laser image
 * Argon.jpg as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a long discussion from the editor who took the image and uploaded it (2007) here. The licensing details, as granted by that editor, look fine. Since they are no longer active as a wp editor I’ve added a link to the 2007 FPC discussion. Will this suffice?
 * Different image, different uploader - File:Argon.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wayback Machine has a copy of the image, here. Clicking on the image, there is a comment under image properties saying, "Access: publicly available". Going back to the source page, here, William Viker says "FYI, I'd like you all to add a little copyright statement that makes it clear that theese pictures "belongs" to me. Add something like: PHOTO: William Viker william.viker@gmail.com smile: then it's all fine." Our image summary page, here, says the author is William Viker, and the permission field says, "Copyrighted image that an be used as long and attribution is provided". It all seems to be OK. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That second link redirects to the homepage for me - is there another link? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Try this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20070311060741/http://my.opera.com/devblog/blog/2006/11/03/server-room-grand-opening Sandbh (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a  tag for the alchemist image
 * --- Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Nikkimaria is this one ok now? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Still not thrilled with layout, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the layout of the Van Gogh FA, and made some adjustments to the nonmetal article layout. I also removed one quote box and two tables. Does that look better? Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Somewhat. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Materialscientist

 * Why do you capitalize names (of elements, but not only) in tables? This does not seem necessary at all.
 * Many references do have free text sources, such as PMC; I've added some, but many more can be added.
 * Efforts should be spent to reduce the code length, which is much too long (>175 kilobytes), considering that there is not much text in the article.
 * "The diamond allotrope of carbon is clearly nonmetallic, being translucent and having a relatively poor electrical conductivity" - electrical conductivity of diamond is not poor, it is hardly measurable at ambient conditions, unless diamond is heavily doped (e.g. with boron).
 * "Under sufficiently high pressures, just over half of the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators,[n 59] starting with phosphorus at 1.7 GPa, have been observed to form metallic allotropes" - WP:REDFLAG (very strong statement that should be properly cited or removed). This research area is very active, and many new metallic phases are being reported every year; "just over half" is probably plain wrong.
 * "Since there are 118 known elements, as of September 2021, the nonmetals are outnumbered several times." - outnumbered by what? Ok, by something, you can fix that, yet this phrase is meaningless. Virtually any class of elements is outnumbered by all the elements of the Periodic Table. Materialscientist (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "iodine is known in amorphous form" - a useless comment, as all solid elements exhibit amorphous forms. What is so special about iodine in this regard? Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I mention iodine as the common perception, it seems to me from reading the literature, is that allotropy among the nonmetallic elements is confined to groups 13 to 16. Looking further, Te and Tang (2008, p. 194), as a secondary source, note that (I2)n chains occur in amorphous iodine, hence iodine too is a catenator. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I see no answer to my point that all solid elements do occur in amorphous state, and that iodine is not exceptional in this regard. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The section concerned is about allotropy among the nonmetallic elements. I mention a-I not for the fact that it is amorphous, but for the fact that it is an allotrope of I.



Thank you for your interest Materialscientist.
 * Caps: I use caps since they are used in the table examples in the MOS, and elsewhere in wp.
 * Negative, they are not used in the table examples, at least not in the form I mention (comma-separated caps). Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any of these in the nonmetal article. Could you please provide an example? Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See, e.g., the table titled "Some cross-subclass physical properties" that uses "Alkali, Alkaline earth, Lanthanide", etc., etc., ad nauseam, in this table and in the table below titled "Some cross-subclass chemical properties". Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Caps now removed; they were added by another editor so long ago, that I'd forgotten about them. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * PubMed Central etc: Done. Thank you. I checked this and was not able to find any more articles. I was surprised I could not find e.g. Zoroddu et al. 2019, "The essential metals for humans: a brief overview", Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 195. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Code length: the article runs to 10,655 words or about 16b per word. OTOH, the Barack Obama FA runs to 15,835 words and 379,000b = 24b per word. The metalloid FA article runs to 12,900 words and 245K or about 19.4b per word. The nonmetal article has 65 footnotes, 313 citations, and about 270 references that I expect would contribute to code length.
 * The code length is associated with the five smaller tables and three larger tables. Sandbh (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Diamond: Done. The passage now says diamond is an extremely poor electrical conductor, as per an extra citation.


 * Allotropy: The allotropy reference to "just over half" of the elements now reads, "at least half" and is supported by three citations, two from 2019 and 2020. I've added a footnote saying, "This is an active field with new metallic phases being reported every year".
 * Sigh .. a dummy answer with dummy references: Yousuf 1998 is from 1998; Arveson et al. 2019 is a primary ref. on S; Elatresh & Bonev 2020 is a primary ref on O. So we end up with zero recent references to confirm the fact ..
 * Yousef 1998, a secondary source, confirms metallization for ten elements: Si, P, S, Cl, Ge, Se, Br, Te, I, Xe. Of the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators, that leaves ten elements: H, Ge, B, N, O, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Rn. The leftover elements are the semimetals C, As, Sb. Yousef goes on to consider the question of whether whether all the other elements from the upper right-hand comer of the periodic table will transform into the metallic state within an accessible range of pressure. He specifically mentions H, B, C (diamond), N, Xe in this regard.
 * Yousef 1998 is a 23-year-old source, and I can only repeat my statement - high-P research is a highly active field. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * With respect, the metallization pressures cited by Yousef confirm that the elements concerned form metallic allotropes. That is the only binary consideration that this section is concerned with---has the nonmetal concerned being metallized under pressure or hasn't it. In this context, it does not matter that he is a 23-year old source. High-P research is for sure a highly active field. That said, to my knowledge of the literature, none of the other nonmetals I mentioned have yet been metallized.
 * Hmm – but metallization pressure gives cited metallization pressures for all nonmetals but F and Rn? And seems like Sb metallises at high pressure too, according to this article. Double sharp (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Double sharp. The extra metallization pressures in the metallization pressure article, as I recall, are theoretically predicted rather the experimentally confirmed. That is the case too, for the Sb article link you provided. While it does refer to some experimental studies, the conclusion notes metallization has not yet been achieved. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Arveson et al. 2019, a secondary source confirming the metallization of sulfur, is thus not required and I've removed that cite, thank you.


 * Metallization for H has not yet been confirmed as I understand it.


 * There are no reports that I could find for the experimental metallization of B, N, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, or Rn.
 * With all due respect, see WP:NOR - personal research is not the way to write a WP:FA. For example, see this report on nitrogen . Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by personal research. The section in question is about high-P metallization of nonmetallic elements. To compile it I conducted a literature search. Yousef, as a secondary source, confirmed metallization for quite a few of these elements. Metallization for O was confirmed Elatresh & Bonev, a more recent source. Both sources are cited in the article.
 * The Nature article reports the metallization of nitrogen under pressure and high temperature (ca. 2500 K) whereas the nonmetal article refers to metallization under pressure, rather under thermobaric conditions. The Nature article includes a phase diagram for nitrogen showing that metallization is apparently not possible in the vicinity of room temperature.


 * Recently synthesized "black" N, which is apparently transparent, has a reported band gap of ca. 2.2 eV.


 * Elatresh & Bonev 2020 is a secondary source in the sense that they cite the experimental metallization of O as reported by (1) Y. Akahama, H. Kawamura, D. Ha¨usermann, M. Hanfland and O. Shimomura, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1995, 74, 4690–4693; and (2) S. Desgreniers, Y. K. Vohra and A. L. Ruoff, J. Chem. Phys., 1990, 94, 1117–1122.
 * Yet it covers only one element, while we're discussing a blanket statement about an element group. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The section of the article discusses allotropy among the nonmetallic elements. Yousef covers quite a few of these, but does not mention oxygen. Elatresh & Bonev, as a later secondary source, do.
 * Hence just over half the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators, have been metallized. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, the issue lies deeper - you write on a general subject, yet excessively use primary sources. Do use (recent) books instead.
 * Further on refs. Why "Allotropes[184]" ? Ref. [184] is "Addison 1964, passim" - it is 60 years old and has no page number. Allotropy has been actively studied after 1960s. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I cite Addison as a unique, as far as I know, monograph on the allotropy of the elements. There is no page number as he discusses allotropy throughout his book. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This excuse had been used on this Wiki for decades, and it never addressed the actual issue: the reader is not expected to read the whole book. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I've added a page range for Addison, wherein he surveys the incidence of allotropy across the PT; and a more recent citation to Wulfsberg wherein he discusses allotropy in the p-block. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No. of nonmetals: Done. Mention of the number of nonmetals now reads, "The nonmetals are outnumbered by the metals several times." Since distinguishing between metals and nonmetals is a fundamental aspect of chemistry, I feel this is OK as a contextual statement. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ​ Materialscientist. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to further review my recent responses to your comments above? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D
The sourcing remains deficient for a FA: I'd also add that 65 end notes is excessive: in general, material in articles should be significant enough to be included in the body of the article, or not significant enough to be included at all. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an unaddressed 'citation needed tag'
 * Some other text in the body of the article and some of the end notes is not cited. This includes at least two paragraphs with no references at all.
 * The four tables appear to have large quantities of unreferenced material.
 * Thank you Nick-D.
 * Citation needed tag: Done. replaced with a citation, and associated ce. Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uncited text (main body): Done. All paragraphs now have citations. Sandbh (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uncited (endnotes): Done. There is now one footnote without a cite:
 * In the physical properties comparative table, Crystal structure row, the endnote says, "At point of solidification for bromine, mercury and gases", which clarifies that fluid elements need to be frozen, in order to discern their crystal structures. I feel this does not need a cite.
 * Too many endnotes: Done. I generally use endnotes to elaborate items which would otherwise seem to make the main body text too detailed for the general reader. At the same time, the footnotes may appeal to the specialist reader. For a technical subject, I feel this is a good way of addressing FA criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Still, there may be scope to reduce the number of footnotes and I'll look at that too. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 27 of the endnotes are in tables where the end notes would otherwise take up too much room. I propose not to do anything further about these.
 * Endnotes in the main text are now 37. I have yet to look more closely at these. Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are now 33 endnotes in tables, and 32 in the main text. For a technical article such as this I feel the number of main text notes is OK. I could incorporate some of them into the main body of the article however I feel this would reduce readability, for no real gain. Accordingly, I've changed my status marker for this item from pending to done. Sandbh (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uncited (four tables). Done. All information in tables is now sourced. Sandbh (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello ​Nick-D. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to review my recent responses to your comments above? Thank you.

Honing the concept
To enhance the flow of the article, I've added a ca. 200 word subsection by this name, between "2 Origin and use of term"; and "3 Physical properties". It acts as a bridge between the two sections somewhat like the noble gases bridge the halogens and the alkali metals. Sandbh (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the large number of uncited statements, a number of other basic issues and the outstanding oppose, this does not yet seem to be ready for FAC. I am archiving the nomination for the article to be further worked on. Hopefully we will see it here again, although the usual two week hiatus will apply.