Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive5

Nonmetal

 * Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

A non-metal, like oxygen or sulfur, is a chemical element that is not a metal, like aluminium or iron.

This is my fifth time at FAC for this article, attempt #4 having closed on February the 5th. All feedback up to then has been considered and acted on accordingly.

The article was subsequently referred for its second PR, which was recently archived on 2 August. SandyGeorgia (to whom, thanks very much :) helped me copy-edit the early part of the article. Sandy also helped me with images, listiness, stylistic considerations, prose, sourcing and the overall structure of the article; based on what I learned from her, I copy-edited the rest of the article. I thank Double sharp, DePiep, Graham Beards, Z1720, Bruce1ee and Jo-Jo Eumerus for their contributions to PR2.

I have hidden pinged participants in FAC4 and PR2, aside from the FAC coordinators. Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Reaper Eternal
Prose: I'll leave this more to the English experts.
 * First section: "Broadly, they lack a preponderance of more metallic attributes such as [list of attributes]." This sentence has too many "generalizing" terms. Perhaps something more concise like "They lack a preponderance of metallic attributes like [list of attributes]." (Additionally, "such as" is being used incorrectly here. The word should be "like".) Never mind, I was wrong about "like".
 * First section, third paragraph: The introductory sentence should be much more concise.
 * Similar minor phrasing improvements can be made elsewhere, but I'm no expert in this area.

Technical review:
 * Technical information under the sections "General properties" and "Subclasses" seems accurate, at least from my education as a mechanical engineer.
 * Carbon has additional forms beyond the graphite and diamond allotropes. (Section "Allotropes".) This sentence should, at least, be reworded to explain to the user that the list given is not exhaustive. In its current form, it implies that elemental carbon only exists in the form of graphite and carbon. It is explained much better further down the section, but the introductory paragraph shouldn't set a false impression.
 * Allow me to clarify this point. As it currently stands, this is the start of the section: "Most nonmetallic elements exist in allotropic forms. Carbon, for example, occurs as graphite and as diamond." This, to me, reads like "carbon" is an example of "nonmetallic elements with allotropic forms" with two allotropes "graphite" and "diamond".

Source review:
 * The "Boise State University" article is basically a press release. You should cite the underlying studies.
 * Same with the "Cambridge" article, and probably any other similar ones. What even is "carbon candy floss" anyway?
 * The citation "Evans RC 1966, An Introduction to Crystal Chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge" appears to be inaccurate or incomplete. See here. Can you include an ISBN or similar tracking number for better tracking? Additionally, you should probably include which edition this is.
 * Thanks for adding the edition, but I believe the 2nd edition was published in 1964, not 1966. Can you verify?


 * Should the citation "Fraps GS 1913, Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, The Chemical Publishing Company, Easton, PA" contain an ISBN or similar tracking number? This also applies to other books cited throughout the article which do not contain ISBNs. This (and the edition number) is somewhat important since a lot of your citations are to textbooks, which frequently get updated and changed.
 * I wasn't trying to say that ISBNs were necessary&mdash;they're more of a nice-to-have for a reader who wants to locate a book source. I'll strike this point to make it clear I'm not going to hold up the FAC over a couple ISBNs.


 * Why are there citations to two different editions of Glinka's book?
 * What makes "Free Thought Magazine" a reliable source?
 * Your response doesn't really justify why "Free Thought Magazine" is a reliable source for this topic. It appears to be a magazine centered more around humanism and religion rather than natural sciences.


 * Why are there citations to two different editions of Zumdahll & DeCoste's book?

Citations & references:
 * The second paragraph of the "Discovery" section is uncited. If you are importing material from the main article, there's a big banner on that article informing readers that the article lacks adequate citations.

I'll continue this review later. There's a ton of stuff to review. As this is basically my first FA review, if the FA coordinators see any issues with my review, please bring it up to me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Responses by Sandbh
 * Thank you very much, and a warm welcome to the FAC review experience.
 * Prose:
 * I've replaced the "Broadly" in the first section with "More generally" since this sentence follows on from the more specific first sentence. On the question of "like" or "such as", I've followed the guidance here, which seems to favour "such as". For example, "luster" is not like "deformability".
 * I've shortened the introductory sentence and adjusted the rest of the paragraph accordingly.
 * Probably any FA can be further improved in terms of phrasing improvements. Over the course of four FAC and two peer reviews this article has been seen or commented on by about 38 unique sets of eyeballs so I hope that scope for phrasing improvement is approaching an effective end. But please feel free to have your say.
 * Technical review:
 * Good to hear the technical information looks OK.
 * The mention of carbon in the allotropes section says, "Carbon, for example, occurs as graphite and as diamond." As such, it doesn't imply that C only occurs as graphite and diamond.
 * Headslap! I've adjusted the prose accordingly. Thanks!
 * Source review:
 * Re the Boise University press release, the underlying study only refers to the high cost of black phosphorus, and the low cost of their proposed method. Certainly the listed price is consistent with what I can recall of prices from commercial providers. I'm not aware of any WP prohibition on citing media releases, especially from an organisation of the presumed calibre of Boise University.
 * I've (reluctantly) replaced the Cambridge article with a journal reference. Carbon candy floss is basically "spun" carbon nanotube wire.
 * Per WP:HOWCITE, ISBN's are optional when citing sources. I believe I accessed Evans's Book from here, which lists the date as 1966. There are two further 1996 listings here. I've now added that it's the 2nd ed. Per WP:HOWCITE, since the ISBN given at the Cambridge site is for the 1964 printing I haven't included it.
 * Evans was reprinted with corrections in 1966; that was also the year of the first paperback edition.
 * For Fraps (1913), books before about 1970 usually don't have ISBNs (although if published in the UK during the 1960s, they may have an SBN).
 * For the two Glinka's, thanks, I've removed the 1965 edition, and corrected the entries for the earlier edition.
 * For Wakeman (1899) I cited this as the oldest (English) source I could find for CHNOPS. I've added a hyperlink to it.
 * I feel that reliability is not relevant here; rather, what the source says is correct:
 * "To this carbon is added, in chemical combination, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and a touch of phosphorus and sulphur; these five [sic] elements make the chemical symbol word C. H. O. N. P. S."
 * For Zumdahl, thanks, I've removed the later edition and adjusted the originally later citation.
 * Citations & references:
 * I suspect the second para doesn't need citations since it serves as an introduction to the remaining paragraphs of the section, in which the citations are included.
 * Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated. Sandbh (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you able to indicate your overall position with respect to the article? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only just got back from a business trip. I'll give it one more look through over the weekend., then I should be good to support once other people do a prose review and an image review. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandbh, I believe I can support this article once another more capable reviewer does a proper prose review. I can do the image review if nobody else does in the meantime, but I'd rather not since that's not one of my strong points. I still disagree regarding "The Free Thought Magazine" and would like another editor to give a third opinion, but I won't hold up the article over that one thing. Specifically, I believe that the article "Nonmetal" meets the featured article criteria 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2a, 2c, and 4. I'm not sure about 1a, 2b, and 3 right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild, while I'm capable of performing the image review for this article if nobody else wants to, I'm not the best editor at prose analysis. (You can see that my review primarily only covers sourcing and breadth of content.) Furthermore, I believe this article needs a reviewer who can take a detailed look at the prose before I can support. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose is not up to FA standard and the article needs more work in this regard. For example, there is redundancy ("being") and fused participles ("with most of these involving" and "with the latter being"). I suggest we request a copyedit from an uninvolved editor who can bring fresh eyes to the prose before considering promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I'll happily seek a ce by an uninvolved editor in the event the nomination is archived. Sandbh (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this needs further work off FAC if it is to generate a consensus to promote, so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.