Wikipedia:Peer review/Metalloid/archive1

Metalloid
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is currently rated as B+ class. I'm requesting a peer review to assess if it meets the WikiProject Elements A-class criteria. These criteria are:
 * A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style (using tags and cite book and similar templates), and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
 * A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
 * A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
 * A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
 * A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

Much of the literature about metalloids is superficial. There is some good stuff out there in chemistry land but the signal-to-noise ratio is very low, and the history is convoluted and relatively obscure. I think the article is comprehensive and pulls all of the many threads together, into a cohesive whole. Grateful for others' views about this.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – At first glance, the article appears to have far, far too many single sentence paragraphs. Please see Writing better articles. Thanks. RJH (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this feedback. Stand-alone one sentence paragraphs now make up around 10 per cent of the paragraph count. Half of these occur in the Origin and usage section which, by its nature, includes quite a few chronologically ordered usage examples. Hope this helps. Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by R8R Gtrs
The article reads decent. Really decent. It has a specific style. I don't know if that's a feature or it should be changed-- so I won't give general comments about this.

Visually, the refs seem good, except for non-standard author names, and many ISBNs are missing (but also maybe don't exist) If the refs are fine, only cutting some excessive detail (you maybe think there's no excessive...recommend a daughter article), some more superconductor info, [Done] and a slightly longer lead probably qualify for A.
 * The lead seems too short (there should be a style guide). I personally think you could add a para discussing basic properties and uses slightly more closely
 * Stand-alone one sentence paragraphs. Know, already mentioned, but I think they can be further integrated. Know they sometimes seem good, but (again) I personally would integrate most (not all, maybe though)
 * Liked your short descriptions, especially the Mendeleev note on tellurium
 * Would maybe enlarge slightly the common uses (especialy glasses and semiconductors -- the latter are among my first associations with the term "metalloid."
 * Sections Other metalloids and alike-- maybe useful to point out the whole spirit of the term "metalloid" may vary (given different authors and purposes, chemical or physical, etc.) Got the idea?
 * In 1954, Szabó & Lakatos-- many of such could be treated somewhere else, in a daughter article maybe (although I remember one such), do they really need a place here? The article is very long anyway. The same maybe applies for the History section-- the info could be copied into a new article called "Outline of metalloids" or alike.

(I've been short in writing, yet hope the comments are helpful)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is great feedback: concise; constructive; balanced; thoughtful; and doable. Thank you very much! Sandbh (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62

 * In order to improve readability, some of the citations in the lead may be removed per WP:CITELEAD. In a nutshell, information in the lead should (usually) be presented elsewhere in the article along with a citation, so it is (usually) not necessary to give citations in the lead.
 * Good advice. The lead has some citations because there is some controversy associated with the term metalloid, its meaning, and its application. I'll look into your suggestion further, however.
 * I've now removed most of the citations from the lead, in order to improve readibility Sandbh (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it rather odd that the lead describes the classification scheme (or lack thereof) before giving any meaningful information about metalloids or their significance. I strongly suggest rearranging the content in the lead.
 * Well, since there is no agreed definition of a metalloid I thought it would be useful to start with a general definition, and then take it from there i.e. what is a metalloid?-->which elements are metalloids?-->what are their properties?-->what are they good for?


 * "They are metallic-looking brittle solids," Solid at room temperature? Or always solid?
 * I don't think there's a need to be that specific, at least in the lead. Same as there wouldn't be much point in saying, 'Iron is a (metallic) solid, at room temperature'. Later in the article, when it matters, these things are clarified e.g. when noting the electrical behaviour of the 'common' metalloids in liquid form.


 * "with intermediate to relatively good electrical conductivities" Good for whom? If a material scientist is trying to reduce the electrical conductivity of a particular alloy, "relatively good" might be bad. Perhaps you mean "relatively high"?
 * No, I mean relatively good in the common-use sense that 'metals are good conductors of electricity' (Hill & Holman 2000, p. 41). This is elaborated in the physical properties table, which notes that metals have 'good to high' electrical conductivity values; metalloids 'intermediate to good'; and nonmetals 'poor to good'.


 * "Chemically, they mostly behave as (weak) nonmetals, and have intermediate ionization energy and electronegativity values, and amphoteric or weakly acidic oxides." I'm not a fan of the "fact, and fact, and fact" construction. Are any of these characteristics related to each other? If not, consider this phrasing instead: "Chemically, they mostly behave as (weak) nonmetals, have intermediate ionization energy and electronegativity values, and form amphoteric or weakly acidic oxides."
 * Nice rephrasing, thank you.


 * "Being too brittle to have any structural uses they or their compounds instead find common uses in glasses, alloys or semiconductors." Does "they" refer to the metalloids, or their oxides? Does "structural" mean "load-bearing" or "having a well-defined shape"? If they are too brittle for structural use, why are they used in alloys? "Or" should be "and". Possible rewrite: "Semimetals find common use in glasses, alloys and semiconductors, though they are too brittle to blah blah blah..."
 * Good call on 'they' and 'or'. Will fix that. 'Structural uses' means as in, '...pure As has no structural applications' (Russell & Lee 2005, p. 421) or 'The precious metals gold, silver, and platinum are transition elements used in coinage and jewelry. Others, such as iron and its alloy, steel, are valuable for their structural uses.' (Moore, Stanitski & Jurs 2008, Chemistry: The Molecular Science, vol. II, 3rd ed., p. 1063) or 'Because pure tin is relatively weak, it is not put to structural uses unless alloyed with other metals.' (The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1994, vol. 11, p. 785). Not all alloys have structural uses, e.g. common solder, so I'm not sure what confusion arises around saying metalloids are too brittle to have any structural uses, but do find uses in alloys.


 * "the development of solid state electronics, from around the 1950s or early 60s, onwards." Is it up to the reader to decide whether it was the 1950s or the 60s? The development only happened once.
 * Good call. It depends on who you read and what is regarded as the start point. I think Double sharps' edit, 'from around the 1950s to early 60s onwards' has addressed this.
 * This edit just introduces a new problem. It suggests that the 1950s was the starting point (fine), and that the development continued to the present day (fine)... but then what's the significance of the early 60s? I suggest employing either of the following: "the development of solid state electronics, from the 1950s onwards" or "the development of solid state electronics, from the 1950s to the early 60s".
 * Have addressed this by being clearer re which decade goes with what item. Sandbh (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't use single-sentence paragraphs. Ever. There may be exceptions to this rule, but they are so rare that I have never come across one. Expand, merge, or delete all single-sentence paragraphs. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the reader, not to present them with a barrage of unrelated statements.
 * WP:BETTER and WP:LAYOUT both provide for the use of one-sentence paragraphs, albeit sparingly (which is a good qualification). I note the advice given in Usage and abusage: A guide to good English (Partridge 1999, 3rd ed, p. 238): 'II. Do not shred the story...into a sequence of very short paragraphs, for this is an irritating trick...of slick journalists. III But to interpose a one-sentence paragraph at intervals – at longish intervals – is prudent. Such a device helps the eye and enables the reader (especially if 'the going is heavy') to regain his or her breath between one impressive or weighty or abstruse paragraph and the next.' Other authors dismissing the prohibition on one-sentence paragraphs include Trimble (Working with style 2000, 2nd ed., pp. 92–93); Garner (The elements of legal style 1991, p. 67); and Bernstein (The careful writer 1965, p. 324). All the one-sentence paragraphs in the article are related to their predecessors and successors. I understand your point however and will look again at the one-sentence paragraphs to see if they really are warranted as such. Sandbh (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, so "never ever ever" might have been a bit of an exaggeration, but I do firmly believe that some of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs in this article should be addressed. Near metalloids contains a plethora of teeny weeny paragraphs that could easily be merged or expanded.
 * OK I've consolidated the 'near metalloids' paras. Sandbh (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I don't know that I would recommend adhering to the guidelines proposed in the stylebooks you've mentioned, or at the very least they should be taken with a grain of salt. Those books were, after all, published before Wikipedia was created. The very nature of information has changed drastically since then. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that there is a continuum of rules pertaining to the use of one-sentence paragraphs. At one end of the continuum is scientific writing in respect of which, as far as I can tell, all style guides say never use a one-sentence paragraph (except maybe for the last paragraph). At the other end of the continuum are tabloid newspapers, which seem to be written using only one-sentence paragraphs. I gather encyclopedias are somewhere in the middle, probably more towards the scientific paper end. Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "and has a melting point several hundred degrees higher than that of steel." citation needed
 * The intent of the sentence was to give the reader an idea of the relative fusibility of the applicable metalloid. Since the sentence could easily be verified I wondered if it required a citation. Judging by the spirit of WP:VERIFY ('…in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for…any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged') I thought not.


 * "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small size" Size meaning mass? Or volume?
 * As in the common use meaning of height, width, depth et cetera. For example, 'The chemical nature of boron is influenced primarily by its small size…' (Greenwood & Earnshaw 2002, p. 145). Since this is the language used in the literature I thought it would also be OK for the article.


 * "This gives an idea of how close boron is to the metal-nonmetal borderline" This phrasing may be appropriate for a textbook, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The simplest solution would be to replace "gives an idea of" with "indicates".
 * Well spotted. Will do.


 * In Tellurium, what is the purpose of quoting Mendeleev? I appreciate that he contributed to the foundations of modern chemistry, but his words are both outdated and easily paraphrased.
 * I included Mendeleev's words for several reasons. The primary reason is that I was inspired by Bond (2005, p. vii) who wrote that, 'I can also remember papers that are becoming lost in the mists of time, and I shall refer to some them, as they still have value. Age does not automatically disqualify scientific work; the earliest paper I cite is dated 1858.' Other reasons are: (2) Mendeleev's writings, for his time, are amazing in their coverage, presentation and continuing relevance; (3) this particular quote seemed to be particularly apt; and (4) as way of prefacing Mendeleev's later reference to the concept of metalloids, although he didn't refer to them as such: 'It is...impossible to draw a strict line of demarcation between metals and nonmetals, there being many intermediate substances'.
 * Upon further reflection I've relocated this quote into a note. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to provide the above feedback. Sandbh (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)