Talk:Nonmetal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateNonmetal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleNonmetal has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 5, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
October 18, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 18, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 5, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 10, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
August 2, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
September 26, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 24, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 22, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Astatine and Polonium[edit]

Isn't astatine a metalloid (sometimes considered) ? I've even seen polonium considered a metalloid. 2603:6000:8740:54B1:98C0:1879:4C99:365D (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been classified as metalloids by some authors, though the consensus isn't as clear as for the main ones (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te). See lists of metalloids for a more in-depth analysis. Complex/Rational 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've usually seen astatine regarded as a nonmetal or metalloid; occasionally as a metal. Polonium I've seen regarded as a metalloid, though usually a metal. 2600:1008:B18F:94F7:495F:FB73:818D:885A (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astatine has an unusual history in that when it was first syntheized it was considered to be a metal. Experimental evidence and recent theory suggests it may indeed be a metal. In-between it seems to have suffered from its association with the halogens. Ergo it must be a nonmetal, ignoring trends of increased metallicity going down the group. Non-relativitic calcuations pointed to it being a semiconductor and hence a metalloid candidate. Relativity points to it being a post-transition metal.

Polonium is soluble in acids, forming the rose-coloured Po2+ cation and displacing hydrogen: Po + 2 H+ → Po2+ + H2. It has no band gap and no semiconducting allotropes. Hence it's a metal. Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polonium is further down in the electrochemical series than hydrogen, and appears in about the same place as ruthenium. Hence, a caveat must be added: polonium often gets oxidised by media that electrochemically should not oxidise it, because of radiolytic decay products. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination[edit]

resolved. YBG (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards, YBG, and Double sharp: Please see below. @Michael D. Turnbull, Mirokado, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: fyi.

I understand that the following items had still to be checked off:

A small mention of metalloid outliers (Double sharp)

"If you like, there may be room for an "Outliers" sub-sub-section at the end of the Metalloids section. This could address Po, Al, C, Bi, Be, Sn, Ga and Pb, all of which have been identified as metalloids in at least one source, per the Lists of metalloids article".
@Double sharp: Done. I've added such a (condensed) section. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thanks, I like it. I feel it nicely illustrates the continuum between metals and nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary pairs (YBG)

Please see the new section about this, hereunder.

More tendency speak (Double sharp)

"@Double sharp: I suspect there is agreement between the sources in the sense that they all draw on (prioritise?) a few or several properties from the same big set of all properties associated with nonmetals. There are of course differences in just which few or several properties each author chooses. Does the question then become which few properties can do a reasonable job of more or less encompassing the big set? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
@Sandbh: I don't think we should be the ones making that decision. I think we should rather give the list, which is mostly agreed on (modulo what exactly people make of metalloids), and then mention tendencies that people have used as criteria. Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
@Double sharp: OK; if you feel there's a need for more tendency-speak in the article, that should be doable. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

An extraction periodic table (YBG)

"This would be a fun place to insert another PT extract, with five colors (for the five sources) and two shadings (solid for exclusively, striped for mainly)"
@YBG: Done: Thanks; I've now added such an extract. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double up (Graeme Beards)

"It some instances it's getting worse. See this in the Lead for example: "There is no universally agreed definition of the term... there is no universally accepted definition of a nonmetal". How many times do the readers need to be told?"
Done. This has been fixed. Sandbh (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp, @Graham Beards: I believe everything in this section has been resolved, but I hesitate to collapse it as it contains issues you folks raised, not me. I do expect we would benefit from another read through to reduce or eliminate tendency speak, but that, imho is a project for another day and another section. YBG (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp/Sandbh/Graham Beards There’s been nothing new said in over a month; I’ll wait another week and mark this section resolved. YBG (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary pairs (follow-on from previous section)[edit]

resolved
YBG (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continued in Pairs again. YBG (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern [about the Nonmetal article] is related to the pairing of nonmetal classes with a “complementing” set of metals.

  • The pairing of nonmetal classes and metal classes is a beautiful and symmetric, but I suspect it is a bit fringe to be so prominently displayed in this article. There are RS listed in the pictures that presumably show that a given author compared a specific nonmetal category with a specific metal category. But the sources are different for each one.
Let me draw a comparison. In Classical Planet § Alchemy we see a list of planets and corresponding metals. The entire set of pairings is well attested in RS.
But what if I only found one RS that compared the Sun to gold, a different RS that compared the moon to silver, and a third that compared Mercury to mercury, and a fourth that compared Venus to copper, a fifth, Mars to iron, a sixth, Jupiter to tin, and a sixth, Saturn to lead? In this case, I believe it would be violate WP:SYNTH to prominently display the whole set of pairings as though it were some sort of organizing principal.

The pairings of nonmetal categories with metal categories appears to be this same sort of synthesis, and so I say, no matter how beautiful and symmetrical this is, it does not belong in a WP article. I would be very interested to know what other reviewers think of this concern. YBG (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ping Graham Beards|Michael D. Turnbull|Jo-Jo Eumerus|Double sharp|Sandbh: Please consider commenting on this. I will consider this concern resolved if either (1) the nominator removes the info about complementary sets of metals, or (2) no other reviewer voices a concern about this, or (3) one other reviewer gives what they (not me) consider is a good reason that this is not a concern. YBG (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern. Not only is each comparison cited to a different source, but the last one (unclassified to transition) is straightforwardly SYNTH (see ref. 158; neither source quoted actually spells out the connexion). Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ping Jo-Jo Eumerus|Double sharp|YBG: I've added a citation that mentions the four complementary sets. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT says
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. (emphasis added)
Citing your own article suggests that someone as well read as you could find no other RS that organizes things this way, which seems to prove my point: this is a novel idea not yet ready for WP. I suggest that it is best to leave it out for now. In a few years, if this organizing scheme is as useful as it is beautiful, other authors will pick it up and it can be included with no objection. YBG (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you YBG.
There is nothing "novel" in this.
The background to the complementing sets is that the pairing of metals and nonmetals, and alkali metals and halogens, forms a foundational technique in chemistry education:
... we focus mainly on the gross structure – the metals are here, the non-metals are there, and so on. Once they have grasped this, you can start to show that there's some order to it. We talk about the Group 1 alkali metals and start to see that they're all similar in some way. Then at the other extreme there are the ...halogens. The idea that the table shows us how to group similar elements starts to come together in this way.
Niki Kaiser (2019)
Notre Dame High School, Norwich, UK
There is a long history in the literature of complementing sets, for example:

What, in general, is the difference between active metals, less active metals, less active non-metals, active non-metals, and inert gases…?

--- Friedenberg EZ 1946, A Technique for Developing Courses in Physical Science Adapted to the Needs of Students at the Junior College Level, University of Chicago, Chicago, p. 230
For more recent references there are:

Describe how groups of elements can be classified including highly reactive metals, less reactive metals, highly reactive nonmetals, less reactive nonmetals, and some almost completely nonreactive gases.

--- Padilla MJ, Cyr M & Miaoulis I 2005, Science explorer (Indiana Grade 6), teachers's edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 27

Those [elements] classified as metallic range from the highly reactive sodium and barium to the noble metals, such as gold and platinum. The nonmetals…encompass the…the aggressive, highly-oxidizing fluorine and the unreactive gases such as helium.

--- Weller et al. 2018, Inorganic Chemistry, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, preface
A similar pattern occurs along the periods:

Across each period is a more or less steady transition from an active metal through less active metals and weakly active non- metals to highly active nonmetals and finally to an inert gas.

--- Beiser A 1968, Perspectives of modern physics, McGraw-Hill, New York
The pairing of the noble metals and gases is mentioned in no less a reputable source then Wiberg.
The pairing of the post-transition metals and the metalloids occurs even in a popular science book by Adrian Dingle (2017) who has written extensively on PT matters:

[With] no-doubt metals on the far left of the table, and no-doubt non-metals on the far right ... the gap between the two extremes is bridged first by the poor [post-transition] metals, and then by the metalloids—which, perhaps by the same token, might collectively be renamed the "poor non-metals".

That just leaves the transition metals and the unclassified nonmetals, both of which are bridging in nature, as observed by Atkins, and Welcher.
I won't fuss about this; if need be it'll be easy enough to revert the complementing sets.
That said, could you please consider the following:
  • The long history of the idea of parallels among the elements between e.g. active metals, less active metals, less active nonmetals and active nonmetals.
  • The cited article was published in a reliable, peer reviewed journal.
  • It's been cited seven times by other authors.
  • Each complementing set has been cited in other reliable sources.
  • An encyclopedia, as I understand the nature of WP, collects and presents what is understood to be factual information, as is the case here.
--- Sandbh (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. I did not claim that the idea of pairing was novel, nor that the individual pairings were novel, but that the system as a whole is too novel to be prominently displayed. That others cite the article is interesting, but what I was looking for is some independent source that actually adopts this system. That was what I was hoping you could cite.
If I were writing this (which I am not), I would remove all of the discussion about pairings. This is, after all, primarily an article about nonmetals and not an article comparing them to metals, nor is it primarily an article about the subcategories, and it is certainly not an article about comparing the nonmetal subcategories to metal subcategories.
If I were determined to include something about this system of complementary subcategories (which I am not), I would add a single 2 sentence footnote somewhere in the introductory section about types. That is as far as I could go, but even that much seems undue to me.
YBG (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YBG. I'll start by removing the image pairs. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG:

Could you kindly clarify what you meant by "the system as a whole ...[being] too novel to be prominently displayed"? At no time has the article displayed the system as a whole. Instead the parallels have been mentioned on a type by type basis.

While this is an article about nonmetals, many nonmetallic elements are said to have some metallic aspects; and many metallic elements have some nonmetallic aspects. Hence the comparison with metals is relevant and fruitful.

I've removed all the paired images except for the alkali metal-halogen image since this is Chemistry 101.

Please note that the text for each of the four types of nonmetals includes a reference to geographic analogies, which I've listed hereunder for convenience:

1. "An analogy can be drawn between the noble gases and noble metals such as platinum and gold, as they share a similar reluctance to combine with other elements.[132] As a further analogy, xenon, in the +8 oxidation state, forms a pale yellow explosive oxide, XeO4, while osmium, another noble metal, forms a yellow, strongly oxidizing oxide,[133] OsO4. Additionally, there are parallels in the formulas of the oxyfluorides: XeO2F4 and OsO2F4, and XeO3F2 and OsO3F2.[134]"
2. "The highly nonmetallic halogens in group 17 find their counterparts in the highly reactive alkali metals, such as sodium and potassium, in group 1.[149] Further, and much like the halogen nonmetals, most of the alkali metals are known to form –1 anions, a characteristic seldom observed among metals.[150]"
3. "In the periodic table, to the left of the weakly nonmetallic metalloids are an indeterminate set of weakly metallic metals including tin, lead and bismuth,[153] sometimes referred to as post-transition metals.[154] Dingle explains the situation this way:
... with "no-doubt" metals on the far left of the table, and no-doubt non-metals on the far right ... the gap between the two extremes is bridged first by the poor (post-transition) metals, and then by the metalloids—which, perhaps by the same token, might collectively be renamed the "poor non-metals".[155]"
4. "There is a geographic analogy between the unclassified nonmetals and transition metals. The unclassified nonmetals are positioned between the strongly nonmetallic halogens on the right and the weakly nonmetallic metalloids on the left. Similarly, the transition metals occupy a region between the "virulent and violent" metals on the left side of the periodic table, and the "calm and contented" metals on the right. They effectively serve as a "transitional bridge" connecting these two regions.[184]"

Could you please advise me if you have any concerns about any of these paragraphs? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get back to this later in the week. In the meantime perhaps @Double sharp would like to chime in. YBG (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pairs again[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Earlier, you wrote:

"There are RS listed in the pictures that presumably show that a given author compared a specific nonmetal category with a specific metal category. But the sources are different for each one."

@Double sharp: Earlier you wrote:

"I agree with your [YBG's] concern. Not only is each comparison cited to a different source, but the last one (unclassified to transition) is straightforwardly SYNTH (see ref. 158; neither source quoted actually spells out the connexion)."

My understanding is that it does not matter that the sources "are different for each one." The whole article is an encyclopedic compilation drawing on multiple sources. No single source captures all of the information set out in the article.

That said, the status of the image pairs is now that there are only two such pairs left: noble gas/noble metal; and halogen/alkali metal.

For the noble gases/noble metals image and paragraph I've added three further cites, and copy-edited the topic sentence for the paragraph.

For halogen/alkali metal, I earlier noted in this thread that I retained "the alkali metal-halogen image since this is Chemistry 101."

For the unclassified/transition metals paragraph I've further copy edited this and it now relies on a single source, rather than two separate sources.

Could your please review my responses to your concerns?

All going well, I'm aiming to relist nonmetal on Monday Nov 6, my time. thanks, --- Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Thanks for the response and edits; I'm happy with this now. Double sharp (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still find the comparisons overemphasized. Yes, people have made such comparisons. But they are too much in the weeds for an article summarizing the nonmetals.
Furthermore, placing the paired picture at the top of the NG (or halogen) section makes it seem as though that comparison is one of the most important things about the NGs (or halogens), which it most certainly is not. YBG (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts[edit]

The sub-sub sections below mostly relate to the paired comparisons. I’ve added some stuff to the first paragraphs of the group 17 and 18 sections. Feel free to copy edit and add refs. (Thanks for the wiki link, @ Sandbh!)

Resolved YBG (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another detail … looking at the section headings above, I see several that include “FAC”. If someone has the time, it would ge good to append a number (FAC7 or FAC6 or whatever) before the sections get archived.

YBG (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Thanks for listing items of concern in an organised manner; @Double sharp: thanks for chiming in. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NG/NM comparisons[edit]
resolved YBG (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my recent addition to the 1st paragraph on the section includes all that is needed about noble gases.
  • Do the sources for the 1st sentence in the comparison all say this comparison is “commonly drawn”? Or is “commonly” justified by the fact that three sources are listed?
  • The other two sentences of the comparison paragraph essentially compare a specific NG (Xe) and a specific NM (Os) - hardly significant enough to include in a general article about nonmetals. What’s left is just a statement that both categories are unreactive and that is adequately covered in the first paragraph. So I think this paragraph should be removed.
  • The comparison - with or without its paragraph - hardly deserves to be elevated in importance by using a paired illustration. Better to show just an example of a NG.

YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the Xe-Os comparison could be removed. It is not really about the pairing, but is merely a case of a secondary relationship. Both elements have eight valence electrons over an inert core. In that sense it is like Cl-Mn (replace eight with seven), which does not fit the set of pairings too well. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp would you favor removing the first sentence also and not just the Xe-Os comparison? If so, do you think that the mention of gold and platinum should be added to the first paragraph if the section? YBG (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Well, I just had the chance to look at Holleman & Wiberg. They compare noble gases to noble metals in the sense that one is group VIIIA, and the other is group VIIIB. It's part of a general comparison of main-group vs transition elements. So okay, there is a similarity, but for them it is not part of the full category-by-category set. Given that, I think I'd rather restrict it to what you suggested, indeed. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, incidentally, the mention of Xe intermetallics is misplaced here. It is not really about the noble gases, but rather it is about how metallicity, or lack thereof, inherently depends on pressure. So it should rather be part of a general discussion of what happens at high pressure, like we have that deep down. Yes, all elements eventually become metals, but there is sometimes weirdness along the way (Na first de-metallises before re-metallising). Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@YBG and Double sharp: Thanks.
Recent 1st para. additions. With respect YBG, the recent additions to the first paragraphs of noble gases and halogen nonmetals have thrown out the structure of the sub-section. Comparative comments about each of the four types of nonmetal are made in the penultimate paragraph of each sub-section. For now, I've therefore reverted these edits.
"Commonly drawn" comparison? It's been drawn from as early as 1924, and continues to be drawn. While I haven't kept track of all the sources that I saw saying so, here are some of them:
Noble metals/noble gases
  • The inclusion of the "noble gases" and the "noble metals" in the same periodic group 8, is therefore necessitated in the classification of the elements according to chemical properties and according to atomic structure. Mendeleef’s division of the “long periods” into even and odd series of over fifty years ago is today abundantly justified, and, though he later failed to appreciate the close relation between the “noble metals” and the “noble gases”…
— Main Smith JD 1924, Chemistry & Atomic Structure, Ernnest Benn Ltd., London, p. 78
  • The eighth vertical series is, however, remarkable in one aspect, in that its two natural families are the inert gases and the nine metals of the iron-platinum family. At first sight no two families of elements could appear more dissimilar, and yet popular phraseology has seized on one point of resemblance. For the former family is often spoken of as the "noble gases" ("Edelgasen"), whereas the platinum sub-family is generally referred to as the "noble metals," with the inclusion of gold from the currency group. In the opinion of hardworking chemists, the badge of nobility seems to be idleness and detachment from ordinary mundane matters. To this ideal the inert gases - the key elements thoroughly conform in all readily realisable circumstances. They are the "rois fainéants" of the chemical elements.
Under ordinary atmospheric conditions the noble metals display considerable chemical activity, although it is significant that this power of combination is manifested mainly in their co-ordination compounds, whence it may be deduced that a considerable part of the chemical affinity is supplied by electrons derived entirely from the associating addenda, which thus conduce to the stability of the resulting compounds.
At temperatures round about the melting point of lead most of the chemical energy of the platinum metals has already disappeared, and nearly all their compounds would have undergone thermal decomposition. If we could habitually live under such conditions we should experience very little reluctance in linking together in one group of inert elements the noble gases and the noble metals.
Moreover, some four members of the eighth metallic series give rise to volatile carbonyls in which the metallic atom appears not actively to contribute electrons, but to receive them passively from the various proportions of carbon monoxide, which go to form these remarkable metallic carbonyls (see pages 351).
Again it will be noted in the chapter on intermetallic compounds (page 336) that the Hume-Rothery rule giving simple ratios between the total number of valency electrons and total number of atoms in the molecule is valid for the alloys of iron, cobalt, nickel and palladium only if these metals contribute no electrons, or, in other words, have zero valency. Accordingly these passive attributes of the eighth family of metals afford some justification for their inclusion in the same periodic series as the inert gases.
— Morgan GT & Burtsall FH 1936, Inorganic Chemistry: A Survey of Modern Developments, W Heffer & Sons, Cambridge, p.256–257
  • With the exception of the 'noble gases', helium and its relatives, and the 'noble metals', gold and platinum, etc., we rarely find atoms existing as collections of single atoms.
Swanson MA 1959, Scientific Epistemologic Backgrounds of General Semantics: Lectures on Electro-colloidal Structures, Institute of General Semantics, Lakeville, CT, p. 29
  • ... Most chemists began to refer to the family as the noble gases' just as the rather unreactive and chemically aloof elements such as gold and platinum are referred to as the noble metals. 
— Wood JH, Keenan CW & Bull WE 1968, Fundamentals of College Chemisty, 2nd ed., Harper International, New York
  • The gases are called the "noble" gases, in recognition of their low reactivity, which parallels that of the "noble" metals.
— Eastman RH 1970, General Chemistry: Experiment and Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, p. 455

  • Use of the terms transition or transitional elements … were originally applied solely to the group VIII triads (i.e., Fe-Co-Ni in period 4, Ru-Rh-Pd in group 5, and Os-lr-Pt in period 6) … These elements were very similar in their ... chemical properties ... and frequently resisted attack by common reagents (hence the name noble metal for the heavier members). When the rare or noble gases were later discovered, it was suggested that they too were transition elements, as they also bridged the gap between successive cycles of increasing maximum oxidation states. Indeed, they were considered to be more perfect examples of transitional species as the contrast between the elements at the end and beginning of successive periods (e.g., CI(VII) and K(I)) was much sharper than that between elements at the beginning and end of successive series (e.g., Mn(VII) and Cu(I)), and the transition occurred in these cases in one step rather than three. Finally, the noble gases appeared to be chemically inert, and thus represented truly "noble" elements, in contrast to the known reactivity of the so-called noble metals. This view of the group VIII triads as imperfect "noble gases" was also used by later writers on the periodic table and the observation that they should really be extended to transitional tetrads by incorporating Cu, Ag, and Au was first pointed out by Jorgensen.
— Jensen WB 1986, "Classification, symmetry, and the periodic table," Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 12B (1−2), pp. 487−510 (496), doi:10.1016/0898-1221(86)90167-7
  • In place of the noble gases, the transition metal grouping has the noble metals.
— Wiberg N 2001, Inorganic Chemistry, Academic Press, San Diego, ISBN 978-0-12-352651-9
  • The start of noble gas chemistry in 1962 [occurred] with the help of a noble metal, platinum ... Interestingly, two nobles [noble metal and noble gas] make so strong [a] bond…that some of them reach the covalent limit. Gold is really a golden candidate to form a chemical bond with a noble gas atom due to relativistic contraction in radius and subsequent enhancement in electronegativity. Gold has the highest capability to form strong bond with noble gas atoms followed by copper and silver. 
— Pan et al. 2019, "Noble-noble strong union: Gold at its best to make a bond with a noble gas atom", ChemistryOpen, February, pp. 173–187, doi:10.1002/open.201800257
Some other considerations are:
  • The start of noble gas chemistry in 1962 occurred with the help of a noble metal, platinum, albeit no Pt-Xe bond was involved.
  • The field of noble gas-noble metal chemistry, which began in 1977, experienced a renaissance in 2000. While the focus of the linked article is to Cu, Ag and Au, there are mentions of other NM-NG compounds in the literature.
Xe-Os comparison. I included this example to add "color" and interest to the paragraph. Scerri mentions it in the 2007 and 2020 editions of his book, The Periodic Table: Its Story and Significance. He notes (2020, p. 411), "As Geoffrey Rayner Canham, a leading advocate of teaching inorganic chemistry in a qualitative manner, has written, the similarities shown far exceed any expectations on qualitative grounds."
As an aside it's interesting that a philospher such as Scerri, who's normally only concerned with high-level generalities, felt it worthwhile to mention this comparison.
Paired illustrations. I've replaced all these with single images.
Xe intermetallics. The relevance is that the topic sentence of the paragraph says:
About 1015 tonnes of noble gases are present in the Earth's atmosphere.[135]
The paragraph goes on to mention that, nevertheless > 90% of the expected amount of atomspheric Xe is depleted, and that the missing amount may be in the form of around 1013 tons of xenon, in the form of stable XeFe3 and XeNi3 intermetallic compounds. This mention further adds "color" and interest to the paragraph.
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Re my recent 1st paragraph additions: I am well aware that your penultimate paragraph included information about the category-pair comparisons. My recent additions included the only information from those paragraphs that IMO is needed. The remainder of the comparison paragraphs seems to violate FAC criteria 4 It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. YBG (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: The article is focused on the properties of the elements at ambient conditions, as mentioned at the top of the first section "Definition and applicable elements". Indeed, the classification of nonmetals into various categories, not to mention the question of which elements should be called nonmetals in the first place, depends on that. At pressures encountered in the Earth's mantle, xenon is a metallic conductor. So are oxygen, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, germanium, arsenic, selenium, bromine, antimony, tellurium, and iodine. In my opinion, if that many have already gone missing, it is a clear sign that we are no longer in a situation where the old classification makes any sense. In my opinion, this fact really belongs under "Physical properties", as part of a general discussion of what happens at high pressure: elements that are metals in everyday life may stop being metals (Na), elements that are nonmetals may stop being nonmetals (Xe is a good example, since you have the text already), and eventually everything becomes a metal. After all, this situation is by no means limited to xenon. Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thanks. Yes, that's right, the note at the top of the "Definition and applicable elements" section refers to ambient conditions. It adds a caveat however, and this says "unless otherwise mentioned." I've added a footnote and cite clarifying that Xe is expected to metallize at pressures in the Earth's core. I'm not aware of any other nonmetals "missing" to the extent of > 90% of their expected prevalence. All the type sub-sections mention where the elements occur, in their last paragraphs. I seem to recall trimming what happens to nonmetals under high pressure, and leaving that to the See also link, "Metallization pressure". Hopefully this will address your concerns.
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Group 17/1 comparisons[edit]
resolved YBG (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my recent addition to the 1st paragraph includes all that is needed about alkali metals.
  • In keeping with the name halogen and the content of the first paragraph, I think a good illustration would have a picture with sodium metal on the left, chlorine gas on the right and a pile of table salt (or a salt shaker) in the center, with Na, NaCl, and Cl in the caption or even better in the pic itself.
  • The most salient parts of the comparison paragraph have been incorporated into the first paragraph. The only significant fact not in that paragraph is the common ability of group 1 and 17 to form -1 ions. I don’t think that is very significant in the context of a general article about nonmetals, and so I think that whole paragraph should be deleted.

YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this, since −1 anions are not too characteristic of alkali metals even though they are mostly possible (for Li it is not even known yet, IIRC). Probably Au with actual aurides is a better comparison to the halogens, though off the top of my head I can't remember if it's been done in RS. Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG and Double sharp: Thanks.

I've previously addressed the 1st para. issue, and mentioned the removal of all the image pairs.

Regarding −1 alkalide anions, the context is:

  1. Nonmetals cannot be understood without appreciating metals i.e. the name "nonmetal" includes the term "metal". Please further see the two tables of comparative properties at the end of the article, both of which include a metals column.
  2. As noted, many nonmetallic elements have some metallic aspects; and many metallic elements (including e.g. Au) have some nonmetallic aspects. Hence the comparison with metals is relevant and fruitful.
  3. The synthesis of a crystalline salt of the sodium anion Na was reported in 1974. It represented the second major overturning of conventional wisdom (Dye at al. 2006, p. 206), the first being the preparation of a noble gas compound in 1962. Since then further compounds (“alkalides”) containing anions of the other alkali metals (bar Li and Fr) as well as that of Ba(!), have been prepared.
  4. The relationship between the halogen nonmetals and alkali metals goes the other way: isolable salts containing diatomic or polyatomic cations of Cl, Br and I have been prepared (Wiberg 2001, pp. 419–421; Greenwood & Ernshaw 2002, p. 99).
  5. In the context of illustating 1 and 2 above, I feel the existence of −1 alkalide anions is noteworthy and interesting (noting this mention does not occur until the penultimate para. of the sub-section).
Dye et al. 2006, "Role of cation complexants in the synthesis of alkalides and electrides", Advances in Inorganic Chemistry, 205–231. doi:10.1016/s0898-8838(06)59006-3

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Re my recent 1st paragraph additions: I am well aware that your penultimate paragraph included information about the category-pair comparisons. My recent additions included the only information from those paragraphs that IMO is needed. The remainder of the comparison paragraphs seems to violate FAC criteria 4 It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. YBG (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that this is so relevant. Homopolycations aren't by any means restricted to the halogens. They are quite normal for the chalcogens too. It's been known since 1804 (Buchholz) that sulfur dissolves in oleum to give Sn2+ cations, and selenium and tellurium behave similarly (it's in the Greenwood and Earnshaw chapters on these elements). Salts of these chalcogen and halogen homopolycations are certainly less exotic than alkalides in another way; the counter-ion does not need special protection, as is normally needed for alkalides. That's why I'd think that Au is a better comparison to halogens, considering RbAu and CsAu. I'm obviously impressed by the immense skill that goes into preparing alkalides, but there we are talking about an odd sideline of a set of elements that seems to be as far from nonmetallic as possible. Is it really the most relevant possible comparison? I don't think so. I guess maybe one could compare these polycations with Zintl polyanions like Pb94−, but since I'm saying that off the top of my head, I'd like to see evidence from RS that any comparison you decide to put in is actually normal. Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Yes, I agree. I mentioned the halogen homopolycations in passing, in item #4 above. The context was that most metals have some nonmetal properties and vice versa e.g. most alkali metals can form –1 anions and most halogen nonmetals can form homopolycations. I suppose the halogen nonmetals could be expected to be among the unlikeliest of all to form cations (except for the NG). That was all.
Comment: Gold has some halogen-like properties.
Too, it is known as the +1 cation as are the alkali metals. The stoichiometry of Au(I) compounds often resembles that of alkali metal compounds, where the gold cation takes on a similar role to the alkali metal cation (e.g., Na+ or K+). Gold is able to form a –1 cation (more notably when combined with the heavier alkali metals), as are most of the alkali metals in alkalides. And Cs, which is in the same period as Au, has a pale golden tint.
--- Sandbh (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: If the point is "most metals have some nonmetal properties and vice versa", then sure, I agree. That is something worth saying in this article, and ties into what I said about the outliers. But if that is really all there is to it, then I am not convinced that it really supports the idea of a special relationship between halogens and alkali metals in terms of similarity (other than in terms of sheer contrast). Many metals are known in negative oxidation states, and basically all nonmetals but F and light noble gases (He, Ne, Ar) are known in positive oxidation states. If we forget about oxidation states and start talking about the actual charges (which are often very different), than even F can take a partial positive charge in AuF5·F2 (ref). Does that mean F is metal-like? Not in any very important way, I think. Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thanks. I'm not sure the article sufficiently articulates the fact that "most metals have some nonmetal properties and vice versa". So that's something to look at later on.
There's a long history in the literature of a generalised pattern across the periodic table of highly active to less active (even noble) metals and a corresponding trend of less active (even noble) to highly active nonmetals.
It's in this context that the comparison between alkali metals and halogens forms part of Chemistry 101.
The similarities that come to mind are (i) relatively high reactivity; (ii) capacity for ionic bonding and salt formation; (iii) one set wants to give away an electron while the other wants to gain an electron, both in pursuit of a noble gas configuration; (iv) the two sets have a great attraction to one another. To which can be added the capacity of most of the alkali metals to form –1 anions, a finding that represented the second great upending of chemistry wisdom, the 1st being the discovery that xenon formed a compound.
Wiberg apparently thinks the prospect of a trifluro-cation F3+ is sufficiently interesting to make mention of it while noting it is thus far unknown (p. 421). There was a flurry of excitement in 2013 as to the apparently unprecedented preparation of an F atom with a positive charge on it. It was subsequently claimed by Christie et al. (2017) doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2017.09.011, by my reading, that the fluorine atoms of interest only had a reduced negative charge.
Since F has such a high electronegativity then, yes, I feel that F with a positive rather than negative charge on it would represent noteworthy metal-like behaviour.
--- Sandbh (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: In response to your 05:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC) concerning recent 1st paragraph additions:[reply]
Thanks. I explained the relevance of −1 alkalide anions in my 5 numbered points above, especially points 1 and 2, and 5. What is it specifically about this one sentence (out of the 13 in the sub-section) that represents "unnecessary" detail, noting I left out mention of halogen cations? In considering your response, I feel that there are two other FAC criteria worth noting: 1a. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; and 1b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Re 1a., I've aimed to provide a well-written and engaging article rather than a cookie-cutter recycling of vanilla information. Engaging prose includes valuable context, and details that add depth, substance, and value to the content as I've sought to do in this case.
Re 1b., the (important) fact and context is that most metals have some nonmetal properties, and vice-versa, and that this is illustrated by the further parallel between halogen nonmetals and most alkali metals both being able to form -1 anions. The inclusion of this detail provides depth, and completeness to the article's coverage of nonmetals.
As well as these two extra FAC criteria, it is the lede where the general overview is provided. The main body of the article is then where the details are fleshed out, and the topic made more complete.
--- Sandbh (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The -1 anion of alkali nonmetals is most certainly not a major fact or detail about halogen nonmetals, much less about nonmetals. It is an interesting factoid about alkali metals, and per 1b it is included in that article. IMO mentioning it here does nothing to make this article more engaging. YBG (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. I feel that the –1 anion of alkali nonmetals is a major detail in the context of comparing halogen nonmetals with their alkali metal counterparts. It is a major detail in the context of nonmetal properties occurring in metals. Providing context around the subject matter can help reader engagement via being able to better understand and connect with the topic. While the –1 anion of alkali nonmetals would be no surprise to a chemist it may surprise the general reader relying on memories of high school chemistry. Engaging prose goes beyond presenting basic facts and information. Including such an intriguing or unexpected fact (for a general reader) can improve engagement by piquing their curiosity and encouraging them to continue reading. Taken out context it can be regarded as a factoid; it is more than that in terms of context and enagement.
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, I’m not convinced. @Double sharp, what do you think? YBG (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've attempted to give multiple literature- and FAC criteria-based reasons why some of the relatively short content connected with pairing mentions should not be of concern. An elaboration of specific reasons for not being convinced would be helpful. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assumption that it is a major detail. As @Double sharp pointed out above, it is not terribly significant in establishing a relationship between group 1 and group 17. Even if it were a property shared only by these two groups (which apparently it is not), the fact that it is very common for group 17 and very rare for group 1 would make it quite a minor point of correspondence. It seems to me that if you were not so determined to include all these correspondences, you would easily recognize its insignificance. YBG (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with YBG. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: Thank you.
I've changed the halogen nonmetals similarity paragraph to read as follows:
The halogens in group 17 find their counterparts in the alkali metals, such as sodium and potassium, in group 1. Correspondences between the two sets extend to high reactivity; the pursuit of a noble gas configuration; a common valence of one; the alkali metals being very similar to one another as are the halogens; and that hydrogen tends to be placed at the top of either the alkali metals (usually) or the halogens (less often).[147][n20]
Mention of –1 anions of alkali metals is now in a footnote.
Please bear in mind that my argument, now concerning a footnote, is not limited to criteria 1b on including major facts and details. I also presented arguments pursuant to criteria 1a.
On criteria 1b, the major idea is the alkali metal–halogen comparison. Alkalides are one of several supporting details such as high reactivity. The existence of –1 anions is a property shared by Na-K-Rb-Cs and F-Cl-Br-I. Across the periodic table there is no other comparison of this magnitude (AFAIK). Yes, in one sense, it is rare. That said it was the 2nd major overturning of chemistry wisdom. This makes it a big deal namely the idea that alkali metals could be present as –1 anions in compounds. Massey (2000, Main Group Chemistry, p. 113) wrote that this was an "extraordinary" development. Greenwood & Earnshaw wrote, "The chemistry of even the simplest elements has been considerably enriched during the past few years, sometimes by quite dramatic advances ... The chemistry of the alkali metals has a complexity that was undreamt of one or two decades ago ... Compounds of alkali metal anions and even electrides are known." (p. xix). That G&E felt –1 alkali metal anions were important enough to mention in the preface to their second edition is notable. As McCleverty & Meyer (2003) wrote, "The field of alkalides ... expanded tremendously in the 1980s and 1990s."
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh The -1 story is a big deal about alkali metals, but in the context of the subject of this article - nonmetals - it is only very tangentially related and not worth any mention at all. I begrudgingly accept it in a footnote. YBG (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quote boxes[edit]
resolved YBG (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The halogen nonmetal quote box would be a great quote IF the subject of this section were the comparison of groups 1&17 - or IF the subject were L-R PT trends. But it is neither. The subject of this section is halogen nonmetals as a type of nonmetal. Better to find another article for this quote.
  • Furthermore, having 5 elipses and one bracketed addition in a relatively short quote seems problematic. Just how much was left out?
  • Finally, when a section has a pic, a high bar must be reached to also have a quote box. That bar is far from met. Best to drop the quote box.

YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is now resolved. YBG (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Metalloid outliers[edit]
resolved YBG (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These outliers properly form a small part of the discussion of metalloids, which are but one of several types of nonmetals, and the types are just one aspect of the discussion of nonmetals. So outlier metalloids are just a small part of a small part of a small part of the subject of nonmetals. So while I think the outliers should be mentioned, five longish paragraphs and a picture seems WAY too much. Please collapse this section into a single sentence or at the very most a paragraph.

YBG (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the one who asked for some mention of the outliers, I'll add here that I'd be OK with YBG's proposal. Double sharp (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've replaced the Outliers sub-sub section with a footnote, wikilinked to the Lists of metalloids article. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thic concern is now resolved. YBG (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Sandbh: I've boldly turned this into a short parenthesis (still less than a paragraph), because I think we ought to explain why the mention is relevant in a bit more detail. (It's basically because even elements on the metallic side of this line tend to have significant nonmetal-like properties.) Feel free to revert this (or edit it further) if you disagree. Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: Works for me; I've trimmed it a bit. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unclassified nonmetals[edit]
no further action YBG (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering … would it be good to change Unclassified nonmetals to ”Unclassified” nonmetals or even ”Other” nonmetals? In the introduction to Types, it seems it would read very well to say  • a set of unclassified “other” nonmetals, encompassing … instead of  • a set of unclassified nonmetals, encompassing … The addition of quotes (pardon their curliness here) might signify that this is descriptive not actual category name.

Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: There's a footnote at the end of the unclassified nonmetals bullet point to which I've added a separate sentence that goes, "The descriptive phrase unclassified nonmetals is used here for convenience."
I hope that works. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that footnote is needed or not. My comment here about using quote marks was not a request for any specific action. Rather, I was offering a specific idea - the quote marks - as a possible solution to a problem we’ve wrestled with for years. My thought was, if this idea seems to help, please use it. But if this idea does not, feel free to disregard my post completely, no action is needed. So if you don’t think the footnote is needed or helpful, feel free to remove it. YBG (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NFA required. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More re complementary pairs[edit]

Metalloid / PTM comparison[edit]

Resolved YBG (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The penultimate paragraph with block quote amounts to saying “The metalloids and PTM are in the middle of the periodic table, one is weakly metallic, the other weakly nonmetallic”. This is not really a fact about the M-oids and PTM, but rather a fact about the general strongly-metallic-to-strongly-nonmetallic PT trend. The text admits that the comparison is only occasionally made. Unlike the group 17 and 18 comparisons, I don't think this paragraph has anything substantial enough here to be included in the 1st paragraph of the section as I added in the now reverted edits. Best to simply delete this paragraph. YBG (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, @Double sharp. I’ve seen no word of agreement or disagreement with my suggestion that this paragraph is not needed and should be removed. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I agree with you. Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ve removed this paragraph. YBG (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclassified NM / TM comparison[edit]

Resolved YBG (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The penultimate “In terms of PT geography...” paragraph essentially says both classes are between more reactive elements and less reactive elements. This is not really a fact about the UNM and TM, but rather a fact about the general strongly-metallic-to-strongly-nonmetallic PT trend. Unlike the group 17 and 18 comparisons, I don't think this paragraph has anything substantial enough here to be included in the 1st paragraph of the section as I added in the now reverted edits. Best to simply delete this paragraph. YBG (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, @Double sharp. I’ve seen no word of agreement or disagreement with my suggestion that this paragraph is not needed and should be removed. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I agree with you. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ve removed this paragraph. YBG (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons in general[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to delete all four comparison paragraphs, I would entertain the addition at the end of the introduction to Types, a general statement describing NM L-R trend, mentioning that it mostly mirrors the L-R trend in metals. If this seems a good idea, let me know and once all four comparison paragraphs are removed, I'll add it from my offline draft. YBG (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I've deleted all four paragraphs, and added one paragraph to the end of the intro to Types section, explaining that a broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble). @Double sharp: FYI. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, @Double sharp: I added a new comparison paragraph then removed the old one, and finally reverted those changes leaving no differences. Please comment after looking at the new version to see how it flows; or you could see both with the fuzziness paragraphs between. I will consider any comments before restoring my new version in a day or two. I can already see a couple of places where I could make my proposed text read smoother. YBG (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. I hope to be able to carefully scrutinize this tomorrow morning my time. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh’s analysis of YBG’s alternative[edit]

@YBG and Double sharp: Here are the topic sentences of the Types section including YBG's paragraph:
  1. The classification of nonmetals can vary, with approaches ranging from as few as two types to as many as six or seven.
  2. Traversing the periodic table from right to left, three or four types of nonmetals can be discerned:
  3. In the periodic table, metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals – come beside post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals.
  4. The boundaries between these sets of nonmetals are not sharp.
  5. The greatest discrepancy between authors occurs in the metalloid "frontier territory"
  6. A broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble).
Topic sentence 3 breaks the logical flow of ideas. It is not a topic sentence as it does not set out the broad premise of the paragraph. Inserting a paragraph mentioning metals here, rather than at the end of the section, is awkward.
YBG, your paragraph in full reads:
In the periodic table, metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals – come beside post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals. This follows a general left-to-right metallic-to-nonmetallic trend. Surrounding these are more reactive elements (transition metals and unclassified nonmetals); and further outside, the most reactive elements (alkali and alkaline earth metals and halogen nonmetals). The least reactive elements include noble gases on the far right and noble metals buried within transition metals.
The statement, "metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals" is dubious. Only about 50% of authors actually mention lists of metalloids. It has been know for over a century that metalloids behave chemically mainly like nonmetals.
Re, "post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals" that is not so. There are overlaps between the metal types, as is the case with the nonmetal types. Towards the middle of the periodic table are transition metals, such as scandium, iron and nickel, of high to low reactivity. To the right of the transition metals, (from group 13 onwards) are metals such as tin and lead, none of which are particularly reactive.
For comparison, here's the last paragraph of the section:
A broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble). On the left side of the periodic table, and below its main body, are highly to fairly reactive metals, such as sodium, calcium and uranium. Towards the middle of the periodic table are transition metals, such as scandium, iron and nickel, of high to low reactivity. To the right of the transition metals, (from group 13 onwards) are metals such as tin and lead, none of which are particularly reactive.[n 24] A subset of the transition metals (including platinum and gold) are referred to as noble metals on account of their reluctance to engage in chemical activity.[133]
Note 24 says:
For aluminium, Whitten and Davis[134] write, "[It] is quite reactive, but a thin, transparent film of Al2O3 forms when Al comes into contact with air. This protects it from further oxidation For this reason it is even passive toward nitric acid (HNO3), a strong oxidizing agent. When the oxide coating is sanded off, Al reacts vigorously with HNO3."
--- Sandbh (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've further copy edited the last para of this section, and added an image. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of YBG’s alternative[edit]

@Sandbh: Your longish post seems to me to have three main objections, which I would like to discuss individually. I would appreciate your effort to keep your responses brief. YBG (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You object to metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals. Would it be acceptable to say "sometimes" instead of "often"? YBG (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I suspect it would not be possible to find a supporting citation that refers to metalloids being "so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals." This is especially so given it has been know for ~120 years that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question: would it be acceptable to say so metallic they are sometimes not considered nonmetals? Or perhaps this would be better: so metallic they are sometimes not categorized as nonmetals? YBG (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think YBG is right on this one. Anything that would call the chemistry of Te "predominately nonmetallic" would have a hard time not saying the same of some 4d and 5d transition metals (Te forms cationic species at low pH, W doesn't even do that; all W(VI) species involve oxide ligands, but tellurium forms Te(OH)6). As shown at Nonmetal#Comparison of selected properties, there's actually quite few properties that distinguish metals from metalloids, other than a slightly weaker tendency to form alloys (and even then, intermetallic semiconductors like Mg2Sn, FeGa3, and Be5Pt exist): the metalloids usually fall within the bounds of metals. (Again, this is mostly thanks to the 4d and 5d metals being complete disasters chemically.) Most people using a "metalloid" category treat them as a third class, neither metal nor nonmetal, as YBG's wording would have it. Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(2) You object to post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals, but then you seem to argue as though I had said "least reactive" instead of "least metallic". There are less reactive metals amongst the TM, but are there any that would be considered less metallic (or more nonmetallic) than the PTM? YBG (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Ditto; I suspect it would not be possible to find a supporting citation that refers to the PTM as being "the least metallic". OTOH the way the paragraph is constructed now is covered by just one citation. I tried to not use the expression PTM here in order to avoid any controversy as to whether Al is or is not a PTM. If it is regarded as such, then a case could be made that Zn is less metallic than Al. This treads on another controversy as to whether Zn is a transition metal. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: A couple of questions. (a) Is it true that the PTM is the least metallic class of metals? (b) Is it true that in each period, every PTM is less metallic than any AEM/AM/TM in the same period? I'm definitely not suggesting that we'd use either of these convoluted expressions - I'm just trying to verify my understanding of the situation. YBG (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sandbh, but: (a) not really, the 4d and 5d transition metals are weaker; (b) not really, as in particular thallium is a better metal than tungsten is, and both are in period 6. (Tungsten doesn't even form any ionic halides; in high oxidation states it forms molecular compounds like WF6, and in low oxidation states it forms cluster compounds like W6Cl18. It also doesn't have any aqueous cationic chemistry to speak of, and the most stable oxide WO3 is more acidic than Sb2O3. On the other hand, Tl+ does an okay job of pretending to be an alkali metal cation, and TlF can quite reasonably be described as ionic, although high conductivity of Tl2O3 shows that it's still a weak metal.) Double sharp (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: When you say the 4d and 5d transition metals are weaker, is “weaker” a synonym for “less metallic” (ie, “more nonmetallic”)? YBG (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: (a) Yes. In general terms, the metals to the right of the TM, as a set, are the weakest metals. None of them have any real mechanical strength; most of them are pretty weak chemically. OTOH, some of the early TM are chemically quite strong; there are quite few mechanically strong TM; and several of the TM (noble metals) are chemically weak. To the left of the TM are the successively mechanically weaker and chemically stronger Ln/An and group 1–2 metals. You can get a good appreciation of what’s going on by studying the melting point v. electronegativity chart (for all metals), in the post-transition metal article. (b) Yes, bearing in mind metallic character is a combination of physical and chemical attributes, rather than one or the other. On W and Tl, I suggest the chemistry-based shortcomings present in W compared to Tl, are out-muscled by the mechanical strength of W (e.g. tensile strength ~980 MPa cf ~Tl 10; Mohs hardness 7.5 v. 1.2) and its refractoriness (mp 3,695 K cf. Tl 577).--- Sandbh (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which metals are "weakest" depends on precisely what you're talking about. Chemically, 4d and 5d metals are the weakest. Physically, they are the strongest. Chemically, alkali metals are the strongest. Physically, they are the weakest. For this reason, when talking about metallic strength, it should be clarified what precisely is being compared. Since you were writing about chemical behaviour above, I responded by comparing chemically; if you want to consider both, then any such statement would depend on how you weight the two kinds of properties, and that starts to get into OR. BTW, tellurium (which isn't even a metal) beats thallium on all three physical properties you mentioned (tensile strength 11 MPa vs. 10 MPa, Mohs hardness 2.25 vs 1.2, mp 723 K vs 577), so it's not even that clear that they're good gauges of what good metallicity is. Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest any concerns about the Mohs hardness of thallium and its lower melting point are out-weighed by the fact that is is a malleable and sectile close-packed metal, with an ionization energy less than 750 kJ/mol, and an EN < 1.9. In contrast, tellurium is a brittle and crumbly open-packed semiconductor with an ionisation energy > 750 kJ/mol, and an EN >= 1.9. That thallium has a metallic chemistry and tellurium has a nonmetallic chemistry is a further consideration. Sandbh (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you kind of proving my point about it not being clear that those properties are good gauges of what good metallicity is? :)
Point being, there are a bunch of things that have be considered representative of "metallicity"; since they don't always agree, it's helpful to specify what exactly is meant. Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) You object to how my paragraph fits into the section flow. I need to think about this more. Let’s wait until after we discuss the other two issues. YBG (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the topic sentence of a paragraph needn’t be the first sentence; in my paragraph, the topic sentence was the second one. Nevertheless I’m happy to follow this style since it has been used throughout the rest of this article.
I have recast my paragraph taking into consideration the comments received above.
These categories follow the general left-to-right metallic-to-nonmetallic trend in the periodic table. The metalloids – so metallic they are sometimes not considered nonmetals – are just right of the post-transition metals – the least metallic class of metals. Surrounding these are more reactive elements (transition metals and unclassified nonmetals); and further outside, the most reactive elements (alkali and alkaline earth metals and halogen nonmetals). The least reactive elements include noble gases on the far right and noble metals buried within transition metals.
@Sandbh, @Double sharp, (and any others), any feedback on this revised paragraph? YBG (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The problem with this wording is that the noble metals are a subset of the transition metals, and in fact are almost right next to the PTM (Hg is already quite noble, and Au certainly is).
In general, "metallic character increases going left to right" is one of those lies to children that works because it's correct for the elements encountered in the first year of chemistry. It's not really accurate once you consider the d-block elements (actinoids also have some problems with this generalisation, but the d-block has the most exceptions). Nonmetals don't have this problem, but metals do. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: There is in fact a general trend of increasing electronegativity from Cs to F. Please see Electronegativity: A three-part wave. As DS noted, however, the noble metals are geographically positioned before the post-transition metals. Another issue is that the proposed paragraph mixes the concepts of metallicity with reactivity, which can be confusing. Finally, I’m not sure that supporting citations will be able to be found. The existing form of wording in the article does not suffer from any of these issues. Given this, and speaking frankly, I no longer know why your form of wording YBG, is still being discussed. Sandbh (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the 3- or 4-fold division of nonmetals is well attested, it is my understanding that there is precious little literature support for a comparable division of metals; it isn’t even mentioned at metal § Categories. The multiple pages listed in the ref may all support this 4-fold division or perhaps the division is synthesized from multiple tangential comparisons. Without seeing the original, I hope the former but suspect the latter.
I think the noble metals being a subset of the transition metals is the reason why this beautiful and symmetrical scheme has not attracted greater interest.
@Sandbh and I both mention reactivity to justify the pairings. I mention metallicity to place these two 4-fold divisions in the broader PT context. Without the metallicity and PT context, there seems to be little justification for including either paragraph, mine or @Sandbh‘s.
Although i prefer my approach (seeing the categories as a reflection on metallicity trends) to Sandbh’s, I frankly think the article would be better without either of these paragraphs. @Double sharp, what do you think? Would the article be better without a paragraph comparing the NM categories to M categories? If you want such a paragraph, do you prefer an approach using the M-to-NM trend or one without? YBG (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: It’s not clear to me why there is so much ado over a single paragraph that takes up ca. 1% of the article’s size. I’m currently time-challenged and hope to be able to add some further comments later on. Sandbh (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: A key consideration is that the article opens with a reference to metallic properties and concludes with a comparison of metals and nonmetals. In this context the mid-way broad comparison seems appropriate.

The citation is to Parish's book, The Metallic Elements. He surveys the s-block metals; the f-block metals (a chapter each on Ln and An); the d-block metals (a chapter each on the 3d metals, and the 4d-5d metals (including the noble metals); and the p-block metals.

The relevant paragraph in the nonmetal article is accompanied by a table showing EN ranges for the elements. The pattern of electronegativity is plain to see. For the types of nonmetals, there is a progression from less electronegative to more electronegative. A similar progression occurs among the metals.

Metallicity is broadly related to EN and to reactivity. So, the s- and f-block metals are the most EN/metallic, the ordinary TM are next, then follow the p-block metals, and the noble metals.

Among the metals a similar pattern is seen in the melting point v EN chart in the post-transition metals article. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So now metallicity is about EN, but when it comes to comparing W and Tl, it's about physical properties? Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EN is one aspect of metallicity. While there are a fair number of overlaps among the EN values of the elements, and even overlaps between sets of elements, there is no doubting the overall patterns when comparing sets of elements. The scatter chart of EN x MP values confirms this. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Differences between authors on how to categorise elements into sets, differences between EN scales (Allen gives much lower values for noble metals than Pauling does), and differences in EN depending on oxidation state (PbII 1.87 versus PbIV 2.33) rather suggests that there is quite a doubt. Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well gently add, once again, it is well known that both metals and nonmetals range from highly to less reactive (even noble). The paragraph under discussion says just that. Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restating YBG’s questions[edit]

Mostly resolved; being refined below in § Types YBG (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restating and expanding my questions above in hopes of getting direct answers to each, especially from @Double sharp. YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added responses to each of my four questions by copying extracts from @Double sharp‘s response. Others - especially @Sandbh - are invited to add their own answers to these questions, or even to add additional questions. YBG (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added section breaks as this discussion has grown longer than I had anticipated. YBG (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YBG Q 1[edit]

(1) Is it helpful to mention the broad PT trend (L/metal-to-R/nonmetal) when discussing the 4-fold divisions of metals and of nonmetals (and their comparisons) ? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp commented below I would say yes to (4), which perhaps makes (1) moot. YBG (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I don't understand your question. Which "broad PT trend (L/metal-to-R/nonmetal)" are you referring to aside from metals on the L and nonmetals on the R? Please bear in mind that the context for the term "nonmetals" is "metals". It is helpful to mention metals in an article on nonmetals for contextual and educational purposes noting most readers are likely to be more familiar with metals. Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YBG Q 2[edit]

(2) How does § Parish (1977, p. 37, 112, 115, 145, 163, 182) present these metal-category-to-nonmetal-category comparisons? Do they reference one another (eg, ‘we see that these p-block metals correspond to metalloids in the same way that noble metals correspond to noble gasses’)? Or are they isolated comparisons without reference to one another? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp commented below I don't have Parish, so can't answer (2). YBG (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Parish ("The Metallic Elements") does not have metal-category-to-nonmetal-category comparisons.
Rather, he surveys the metals as s-block; 4f-elements; 5f-elements; 3d-metals; 4d- and 5d-metals (inc. a specific early mention of the nobles); and p-block metals:
  • s-block metals---"All the metals are highly reactive, the reactivity increasing with inreasing atomic number."
  • 4f-metals are "fairly reactive...In appearance and reactivity the metals resemble calcium and strontium."
  • 5f-metals are "highly reactive".
  • 3d-metals: "These are the familar metals and several of them are found in everday use...Many...are used for their corrosion resistance, which is chemically rater surprising, since all the metals are expected to very reactive...This apparent anomaly is due to the formation of a closely adherent layer of oxide which protects the underlying metal."
  • 4d- and 5d-metals are "least reactive of all"; noble metals are noted for "chemical inertness".
  • p-metals: "none particulary reactive".
Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this listing. So it seems that this source does not in fact present metal-to-nonmetal-category comparisons.
(I'd argue that thallium is quite reactive. But that's not the point.) Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Yes, that's right. And it is accurate to observe that a broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble). As mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a long history in the literature of noting complementing sets of metals and nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you cannot seem to provide evidence outside your own work for it. The point is, the source you have provided does not appear to support the point of the paragraph without some WP:SYNTH. Double sharp (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh and YBG: Double sharp (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: So, the point of the paragraph is that a broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble).
I think I would rely on the following citations:
1. "There are groups of elements that have similar properties, including highly reactive metals, less reactive metals, highly reactive nonmetals (such as chlorine, fluorine, and oxygen), and some almost completely nonreactive gases (such as helium and neon)."
--- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 78
2. "The elements change from active metals, to less active metals, to metalloids, to moderately active nonmetals, to very active nonmetals, and to a noble gas."
--- Welcher SH 2001, High marks: Regents Chemistry Made Easy, 2nd ed., High Marks Made Easy, New York, p. 3-32
3. "Those [elements] classified as metallic range from the highly reactive sodium and barium to the noble metals, such as gold and platinum. The nonmetals…encompass…the aggressive, highly-oxidizing fluorine and the unreactive gases such as helium."
--- Overton et al. 2018, Inorganic Chemistry, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, preface
Each citation encapsulates the spectrum of reactivity/activity and the transition from metallic to nonmetallic elements across the periodic table. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m coming up for air here. The question raises in this subsection is How does § Parish present these metal-category-to-nonmetal-category comparisons? @Double sharp summarized your answer by saying Parish does not in fact present metal-to-nonmetal-category comparisons, to which @Sandbh replied, Yes, that's right. So the question posed in this subsection has been answered. My apologies for not realizing this earlier. YBG (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YBG Q 3[edit]

(3) Other than @Sandbh’s own work, how much RS support exists for this 4-fold division of metals? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp commented below My view for (3) is "not much": for example, when Holleman & Wiberg talk about noble gases vs. noble metals, it's not so much about contrasting nonmetals with metals, but about contrasting main groups with transition groups (i.e. it's really about secondary relationship and Xe and Os having eight valence electrons). YBG (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The "broadly comparable range of types among the metals" referred to in the paragraph is based on the s-, f-, d- and p-block metals, a "division" which is well-established and widely supported in the literature.
The s- and f-block metals are comparable in reactivity; the noble metals are a well-recognised subset of the d-block metals.
The reactivity of metals is a frequent and important topic in the literature due to the central role that metals play in various chemical processes and in industrial applications:
  • their reactivity is crucial in various industrial processes, such as metallurgy, catalysis, and the production of alloys, batteries, and electronic components;
  • they are central to electrochemistry, including battery technology and electroplating; understanding and developing these technologies relies on reactivity;
  • the reactivity of metals is important in environmental chemistry, particularly in the context of pollution and remediation; e.g. the mobility and toxicity of heavy metals in the environment are closely related to their chemical reactivity;
  • understanding the reactivity of metals helps in illustrating and applying periodic trends, such as ionization energy and electronegativity;^ it's also important in theoretical and computational chemistry for predicting reactivity and designing new materials.
^ The accompanying table showing the distribution of EN values nicely brings out the progression from less electronegative to more electronegative among the nonmetals. A similar progression occurs for the types of metals.
Holleman & Wiberg write, "In place of the noble gases, the transition metal grouping has the noble metals." Indeed. Sandbh (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh The 4-fold division of metals I’m asking about is the one in you mention in the article’s paragraph and in the EN table: (1) s+f block metals, (2) non-noble d-block metals, (3) p-block metals, and (4) noble d-block metals. My question is, how much RS literature is there for this division? A brief answer would be very appreciated either (a) by giving a few RS refs (besides your own) that divide the metals into these four top-level divisions, or else (b) by stating that you can find none. Thank you. YBG (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Scott & Kanda (1962, p. 385), The Nature of Atoms and Molecules: A General Chemistry, divide the metals into 1. very active (Groups 1 and 2, Al-Sc-Y-Ln-An); 2. ferrous, including Fe and metals frequently used with it (Ti-Ni; Nb, Mo, Ta, W) 3. noble; and 4. soft (very active excluded).
King (1995, p. 289), Inorganic Chemistry of the Main Group Elements, discusses in one chapter, the alkali and alkaline earthmetals, and in another the Ln and An on the grounds that Ln chemistry is predominately the chemistry of highly electropostive metals in the +3 state, just as the chemistry of the alkali metals and alkaline metals is the chemistry of highly electropositive metals in the +1 and +2 states.
Atkins (1995, pp. 24–25), The Periodic Kingdom: A Journey Into The Land Of The Chemical Elements, writes, "Between the “virulent and violent” metals on the left of the periodic table, and the “calm and contented” metals to the right are the transition metals, which form “a transitional bridge between the two” extremes.
NB: The paragraph in question is not about "top-level divisions". It instead refers to a broadly comparable range of types of metals, including the noble metals as a subset of the transition metals. Sandbh (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these citations use the categorization of the paragraph in question, so it would seem better not to reference these four divisions. It seems this paragraph is not so much about these four (RS unsupported) divisions (top level or otherwise), but rather about the “broad range”. This point, I believe, would be better made without the clutter of listing these four categories and the numerous examples. Why not simply note that the wide range of reactivity of nonmetals is comparable to the wide range of metals, and then list examples from the extremes? YBG (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. First, I'd like to add Holtzclaw et al. (1988), General Chemistry, 8th ed. who refer to "active metals", "TM metals", and "post-TM". In their TM chapter they write, "The heavier elements... Ru, Os, Rh, Ir, Pd, and Pt are sometimes called the platinum metals. These elements and Au are particularly nonreactive." For the Ln/REE and An they write (pp. 802–803) that the former are active metals and that the latter have properties similar to the rare earths (apart from showing a much wider range of oxidation numbers). I'll respond more specifically to your suggestion in my next post. Sandbh (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The paragraph uses s-, f-, d- and p- nomenclature due to, as you've seen, (i) the different ways the literature refers to different kinds of metals in the same vicinities of the PT e.g. the 18 different names for the metals to the right of the TM; (ii) confusion about which elements are TM, as opposed to d-block; and (iii) related confusion about where the PTM start, as opposed to p-block metals. The "broad" qualifier is intended to accomodate the fact that there will be, from source to source, variations at the boundaries. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 2nd part of your question. You may mean e.g. "Na to Ni, and Au", as "highly reactive to less reactive (even noble)". I feel this would devalue the paragraph, in terms of contextual understanding, educational value, enhancing interest, and a balanced perspective, making it less comprehensive and less informative. In a roughly 8,350 word article on nonmetals a brief mention (~200 words) of the comparable situation on the other side of the fence, would seem to be not unreasonble especially since "non"-metals only have meaning in the context of their opposites. The FAC criteria likewise mention comprehensiveness and neglecting no major facts or details and placing the subject in context. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question posed in this subsection was how much RS support exists for this 4-fold division of metals? To this, it seems, the closest example @Sandbh has given is Holtzclaw, which seems to be a (3+1)-fold subdivision. To be fair, Sandbh sometimes expresses his typology of metals in a 3+1 manner. So the answer to this subsection is “a little bit of support, but certainly not widespread”. YBG (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I recall Cox (2004), Inorganic Chemistry, BIOS Scientific, who refers to: (i) Pre-transition metals (p. 186); (ii) Transition metals (p. 207); (iii) Post-transition metals (p. 186); (iv) Ln and An (Chapter I, pp. 245–252). Separately, he mentions the platinum metals as exacerbating a trend in reduced reactivity (p. 209). The Ln are described as electropositive and reactive elements (p. 246). The early An are described as being similar to TM (p. 249), noting the "more reactive" nature of the early TM (p. 268); the later An are are described as being more similar to the Ln (p. 250). --- Sandbh (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an example of your 4-fold or (3+1)-fold typology. It would be a different entry on a List of alternative metal classes. YBG (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Eh? Cox refers to the pre-transition metals (≈ s-block metals); the transition metals (≈ d-block metals); the post-transition metals (≈ p-block metals); the Ln/An (≈ f-block metals); and the platinum metals (≈ noble metals). The paragraph in question refers to the s- and f-block metals; the transition metals; the p-metals, and the noble metals as a subset of the transition metals. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your typology gathers d-block and f-block metals together, which it appears Cox does not. YBG (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to say “s-block and f-block metals”; but Sandbh correctly understood me. YBG (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. 1. Pls recall the long history in chemistry of a comparable range of types of metals and nonmetals, such as active metals, less active metals, less active non-metals, active non-metals, and inert gases. 2. Similarly, the article mentions a broadly comparable range of types as highly to fairly reactive s- and f-block metals; transition metals, of high to low reactivity; p-block metals, none particularly reactive; and a subset of the TM (inc. Pt and sometimes Au) called "noble metals" (or platinum metals) due to their inactive nature. 3. Similarities between the s- and f-block metals are well-established in the literature. A. Wiberg (2001, Inorganic Chemistry, pp. 1703, 1720) writes, "The Ln resemble their neighbours to the left in the periodic system, the alkali and alkaline earths... The An are fairly reactive elements, similar in some respects to their still more electropositive neighbors, the AM and AEM." B. Scott & Kanda (1962, p. 385) referred to the "very active metals" as Groups 1 and 2, Al-Sc-Y-Ln-An. C. Hamm (1969, Fundamental Concepts of Chemistry, p. 490) refers to the "most active metals" as "those in groups IA and IIA (and the lanthanides and actinides ...)." D. Siekierski & Burgess (2002, Concise Chemistry of the Elements, pp. 70, 77, 169) note the high electropositivity of the Group 1 and 2 metals (except Be) and the high electropositivity of the Ln and An. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarities are great, but do not make a typology. I do not object to saying that metals, like nonmetals, exhibit a range from very reactive to very unreactive. I object to the way it is presented as a 4-fold (or 3+1-fold) typology if metals. I believe this violates WP:SYNTH; I’m confident @Double sharp agrees), but you believe it is a reasonable use of RS. There is no evidence that any other WP editor agrees with you. I know you don’t believe that your opinion trumps everyone else on WP. If you want to demonstrate a spirit of collaboration, please try revising these paragraphs to remove these SYNTH concerns. Or agree to let someone else have a go. YBG (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. WP:SYNTH exists to prevent original research (OR), not synthesis per se. There's no OR in saying there's a comparable range of types among the metals, given the long history in the literature of a recognized pattern of reactivities across both metals and nonmetals e.g. active metals, less active metals, less active non-metals, active non-metals, and inert gases. Such quotes suggest a recognized framework within the field for comparing and contrasting different types of elements based on reactivity. Some relevent citaions are attached. Ergo, there's no OR. On the spirit of collaboration, I feel I've gone to considerable lengths to accommodate your concerns. In the same spirit, I hope you can also extend similar understanding, flexibility and accommodation to my perspectives."
1. "There are groups of elements that have similar properties, including highly reactive metals, less reactive metals, highly reactive nonmetals (such as chlorine, fluorine, and oxygen), and some almost completely nonreactive gases (such as helium and neon)."
--- American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 78
2. "The elements change from active metals, to less active metals, to metalloids, to moderately active nonmetals, to very active nonmetals, and to a noble gas."
--- Welcher SH 2001, High marks: Regents Chemistry Made Easy, 2nd ed., High Marks Made Easy, New York, p. 3-32
3. "Those [elements] classified as metallic range from the highly reactive sodium and barium to the noble metals, such as gold and platinum. The nonmetals…encompass…the aggressive, highly-oxidizing fluorine and the unreactive gases such as helium."
--- Overton et al. 2018, Inorganic Chemistry, 7th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, preface
Each citation encapsulates the spectrum of reactivity/activity and the comparable transition among metallic to nonmetallic elements across the periodic table. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Sandbh (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Having recently re-read WP:SYNTH, I am not convinced. IMO, each of these sources use terms like “active” descriptively, not as a typology. I’ve said before, I am willing to consider using these terms descriptively in this article, but I am not willing to concede that these refs support your 4-fold typology. Nevertheless, if you can convince @Double sharp or any other editor that accentuating this 4-fold typology of metals does not violate WP:UNDUE much less WP:SYNTH, I will reconsider my position. Furthermore, I believe your recent introduction of the phrase “long history” also violates WP:SYNTH, unless one of your sources actually makes such a comment. YBG (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. 1. I've edited the para. to remove mention of types. It's now a descriptive para. Ditto image notes. Failing this, could you pls read WP:NOTSYNTH, esp. sections 4, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 20.
2. The 4-fold typology is not "my" typology; it's a simple observation of the range of reactivity "types" (with types used in an informal, descriptive sense) mentioned in the literature. 3. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I've already explained that a more specific mention of metals on a taxonomic basis is less common. Accordingly, the one paragraph is limited to 2.5% of the article. 4. The phrase "long history" is a reflection of the fact that the four cited sources span the period 1947 to 2018; I could change this to "recurring" if that would do. --- Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion re refining edits[edit]

@Sandbh thanks for your edit, which went a long way to focusing on description rather that typology. I built on this as I further streamlined the paragraph, with an edit summary explains the removal of three quotations. I note in passing that WP:SYNTH is a section in WP:NOR, an enwiki policy, whereas WP:NOTSYNTH is an essay not fully vetted by the community. But let’s not go down the wikilawyering path. After all, I do kinda like your 4-fold typology for all its quirks. I’m just not sure it merits mention here. As to the inclusion of this paragraph and the EN chart accompanying it, my idea is to improve it as best you and I can, then if by its merits it convinces @Double sharp or some other editor that it merits inclusion, well and good. But if not, we should bid the paragraph and chart a fond farewell. YBG (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: At first glance, your edits look quite good :) Am going to look closer now and maybe do some more ce. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Copy edit done. I added mention of the periodc table context. The two quotations you left are VG and nicely illustrative. I know you attempted to address Al by joining the d- and p-blocks together but there is no support in the literature for this. I had to adjust the reactivities and blocks because it is not s/f- high; d- moderate; p- low; and noble least. There is instead some overlap between the blocks. I removed the EN table because, in light of your good work, there seems to be no longer a need for it. How do you feel now about the paragraph? Thanks --- Sandbh (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh I’ve made some further tweaks.
  1. Added level 3 section head, primarily to make editing easier. If it’s not useful to the reader, please don’t delete until early January or so.
  2. Rephrased “In a PT context” - (Where else does one find elements?) to mention the general trend.
  3. Rephrased “Highly to fairly reactive”, “High to low”. These are arbitrary levels of reactivity. There’s no need for such artificial precision. “Very reactive” and “less reactive” are accurate descriptions. Both d and p are less reactive than s and f. But maybe it would be better to start by saying s/f are “most reactive”?
  4. Dropped unhelpful example of relatively unknown scandium.
  5. I’m still uncertain why we need a note about aluminium, especially if all we say is that p/d are less reactive than s/f. But I’ve left it in for now.
YBG (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks.
  1. The level 3 section head is fine, for now.
  2. OK
  3. The phrasings such as “Highly to fairly reactive” etc are from Parish (1977); they aren't arbitrary. Parish is careful with his expressions. d is not necessarily less than s/f. The d-metals include metals having high to low reactivities.
  4. I gave Sc as an example of a highly reactive d-metal; Fe is moderately so; Ni is fairly laid back. Hence these three metals cover the high to low reactivity span. That said, I've replaced Sc with Ti.
  5. The note for Al reflects that fact that descriptions of Al vary. So, e.g. Rayner-Canham treats it as a "chemically weak metal"; whereas Whitten and Davis (1996, p. 853) write, “[It] is quite reactive, but a thin, transparent film of Al2O3 forms etc."
I've ce'd the para. accordingly. I replaced U with Ce, as a better example of "fairly reactive". --- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Sandbh.
  • 3. My objection to the X-to-Y descriptions is not lack of support, but imposing wordiness on readers.
  • 4. Giving examples of various levels of reactivity is beautiful, but only helps readers familiar with Ti/Fe/Ni reactivity. Examples should anchor our prose in what is familiar to the reader.
  • 5. The Al footnote, then, is necessitated by the p-block generalization. A better solution is to avoid that generalization.
  • 6. Replacing well-known U with less-known Ce is unhelpful to our readers.
I think the source of our disconnect is that we are crafting our sentences to answer different questions. You ask:
  • How reactive are s/f? Highly to fairly
  • How reactive is d? High to low
  • How reactive is p? Not particularly (footnote Al)
  • Oh, and by the way, noble metals.
I avoid the X-to-Y wordiness and the Al footnote by asking these questions:
  • Where are the most reactive metals found? s/f
  • Where are less reactive metals? d/p
  • Where are the least reactive metals? d-block island
Both approaches seek to describe the L-to-R trend. Do you think I’ve accurately described our different approaches? YBG (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I have reworded the paragraph accordingly; comments are welcome. I’m particularly interested in whether my previous post accurately describes the difference in our approaches. YBG (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks YBG.
3. Agree wordiness is to be avoided; clarity of expression is the goal.
4. Agree anchoring prose in what's familar, where practical. As a technical article, familiarity for all readers won't always be possible.
5. Footnotes provide helpful additional information. That said, the Al footnote is no longer needed given the new wording.
6. Replaced U with Ce, since U is highly reactive (per Parish) whereas Ce is only fairly reactive. Older readers would likely be familar with Ce due to its presence in lighter flints. I've replaced Ce with Nd given the latter's wide use in magnets.
Your description of our approaches is fairly good, noting my concerns about mushing d/p.
Broadly picking up your structure, I've edited the paragraph, further reducing the word count, and restoring text-source integrity. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, is there no way to avoid the clumsiness of “highly to fairly reactive metals” and “metals of high to low reactivity”? Yes, I get it, these expressions are used in the sources, but we are not quoting directly, we are paraphrasing, so there is no need to mimic clumsy wording. YBG (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. The issues are that the s-block and 5f metals are highly reactive, with the exception of Be, which is not quite so reactive; and the 4f metals are "fairly" reactive, So we have to accomodate Be/4f, hence "highly to fairly". The other issue is (a) some overlap between the s-metals and the early d-metals i.e. some of the earlier d-metals are highly reactive; and (b) some of the non-noble d-metals have low reactivity (and some are in-between). I've edited the paragraph so that it now refers to s/f as "highly to fairly"; d as "varying reactivity", encompassing high to low; and p as less reactive. I feel this better accomodates the distinctions, including the overlapping nature of the d-metals. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I note that you have reverted to describing blocks in terms of reactivity, which brings the boundary fuzziness to the forefront, making description less succinct. I plan to make another stab at describing reactivity in terms of location. Now that I understand the situation better, I think I’ll do a better job of it. YBG (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes, you did a much better job, including accomodating boundary fuzziness. I've made some minor adjustments. The mention of Mg is particularly nice and I learnt something new about its adherant and protective oxide coating. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources gathered from elsewhere on this TP[edit]

Additional source #1 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cue one more reference: Steele (1966), The Chemistry of the Metallic Elements, most recently cited in 2020. He divides the metals into: alkali (strongly basic, p. 32), alkaline earth (fairly strongly basic, p. 49); inner transition, with the Ln closely resembling the alkaline earths, and the An similar in many ways to the Ln (p. 122); transition; and later b-Subgroup metals of weak electropositive character (p. 67). The noble metals are mentioned for their unreactivity (p. 19). --- Sandbh (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source #2 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Barrett & Malati (1998, Fundamentals of Inorganic Chemistry: An Introductory Text for Degree Course Studies, Horwood Publishing) refer to s-block metals (most reactive, p. 159); f-block metals (highly electropositive, p. 275); d-block metals (p. 257); p-block metals (p. 199) and noble metals (p. 273). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talkcontribs) 10:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source #3 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS re RS. Gifford et al. (2011, p. 153) in The Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia, 3rd ed., divide the PT into the s-block and f-block elements, noting that (but for H) the s-block and first row f-block are all very reactive metals (the 2nd row f-elements are radioactive many being synthetic); the d-block elements, which are metals much less reactive than the s-block metals; and the p-block elements, of which Sn and Pb are "typical p-block metals", being softer than d-block metals and less reactive. They refer to gold as a "noble metal" (p. 146) and platinum as examples of the least reactive metals (p. 183). Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YBG Q 4[edit]

(4) Would this article about nonmetals be better without a reference to this 4-fold division of metals? YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp commented below My view for (3) is "not much"…. Thus I would say yes to (4)…. YBG (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No, quite the contrary, it would be worse, in my view.
Since the article discusses the types of nonmetals a brief mention of the range of metal types is beneficial, for the following reasons:
Contextual understanding: Mentioning the types of metals, from highly reactive to noble, provides context and a fuller picture of the periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of this article is providing context and a fuller picture of nonmetals, not of the PT as a whole. A comment about the broad range of metals can provide that context without referencing a rather uncommon typology of metals. YBG (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: As noted, appreciating "non"-metals or "not" metals requires at least some understanding of metals and the periodic table e.g. metals on the left but for H; nonmetals on the right. That's far short of providing a picture of the PT as a whole, for which whole books have been written. As noted, the paragraph takes up ~2.4% of the article, and the concept of s-block metals, f-block metals, d-block metals; and the p-block, where metals meet the nonmetals is well established. We may consider Spice (1964) Chemical Binding and Structure, Pergamon Press, who was cited as recently as 2019. He divides the metals into highly electopositive; inner transition ("electropositive"); transition ("fairly electropositive"); and B-subgroup ("not very electropositive"). He mentions gold and the platinum metals in the context of their structures. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Educational value: For readers who are more familiar with the properties of metals, comparing them to nonmetals can provide a more intuitive understanding of the latter. Drawing parallels between the types of metals and nonmetals helps in reinforcing the concept that, while metals and nonmetals differ in their properties, they can be appreciated though the same organisational paradigm. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps metals and nonmetals could be appreciated through the same organisational paradigm, but using an organizational paradigm for metals with thin RS support gives an inaccurate impression and so is educationally detrimental. YBG (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Tx. First an explanation. In general chemistry (GC), the group-by-group (GBG) treatment for the main groups is common. The f-block metals tend to get short shrift, with most of the focus on similarities among the Ln. The TM tend to be addressed by looking mainly at the 3d metals. The other metals :) are located in G13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. The chemistry of the G13 metals is usually done well. The chemistry of the metals in G14, 15, 16 and 17 tends to get mushed into the GC of the Groups in question. But this is not a GC article, and a GBG treatment is not the major focus.
An article focused on nonmetals and their taxonomy, including contextual information about their namesake counterparts, is not about GC. Ergo, the fact that such a more specific mention of metals on a taxonomic basis is less common does not mean it conveys an inaccurate impression nor is it educationally detrimental.
The educational value is further enhanced by a consistent approach and the careful positioning of the paragraph in question i.e. after the four types of nonmetals are mentioned but before their type-by-type exposition.
Cue one more reference: ... Sandbh 07:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Additional source #1 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enhancing interest: For some readers, understanding that there is a broad and comparable range in both metals and nonmetals might pique their interest and encourage them to explore more about these elements and their properties. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understanding … a broad and comparable range in both metals and nonmetals might pique their interest, but this does not require introducing a typology of metals, much less one thin RS support. YBG (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes, I suspect many things can an be argued away on the basis that they are not necessarily required. OTOH, a one paragraph mention adds depth, context, and a structured framework for comparison, enhancing educational value and reader engagement. Which is a lot about what an FAC article would presumably be aiming to achieve. Sandbh (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: ... Sandbh 10:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Additional source #2 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced perspective: Including information about metals ensures a more balanced perspective, preventing the article from being too focused on just one part of the periodic table. It highlights the interconnectedness of different elements in chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure at what point an article about nonmetals becomes too focused on … umm … nonmetals. But as we seek a balanced perspective, we should not introduce details about metals with thin RS support that are not even mentioned in the metal article. YBG (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Tx. The article becomes too focused on nonmetals when it forgets that appreciating "non"-metals (or "not" metals) requires at least some understanding of metals, and the periodic table (e.g. metals on the left; nonmetals on the right). While nonmetals are in some senses the opposite of metals, they share some aspects, e.g. the classic example of uber reactive alkali metals and uber reactive halogens. Inclusion of such content fosters a balanced perspective. Re thin RS support, and as noted, the paragraph takes up ~2.4% of the article. For the metal article, I'm the lead editor. It's not comparable as it hasn't yet had an FAC-standard upgrade.
PS re RS. ... Sandbh 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Additional source #3 moved from here in § YBG Q 4 to here in § YBG Q 3 by YBG (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a brief mention of the types of metals in contrast to nonmetals enriches the article, making it more comprehensive and informative. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, I don’t think this particular typology of metals belongs in the nonmetal article. Perhaps it could find a home in a List of alternative metal classes - patterned after List of alternative nonmetal classes (not List of alternative metal artists, LOL). YBG (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Tx. I've acknowledged and addressed your concerns including in terms of relevance/FA criteria. I've noted this article is not primarily about general chemistry but is instead focused on nonmetals and a taxonomy of same. I've set out how the article is enriched via several benefits. These include: context; well-established notions of s-, f-, d-, p- and noble metals or their effective equivalents; increased understanding and enagagement; a consistent organisational framework; careful positioning of the paragraph; depth; educational value; comprehensiveness, and a balanced perspective. Along the way I added four more references. I'll close the summary with another reference.
Wei et al. (2023) doi:10.1039/D3QM00364G examine the uses of metals in the electrocatalysis of CO2, with a view to addressing present-day energy and environmental crises. They parse the metals as follows: s-block metals; p-block metals; d-block metals (including a discussion of noble metals); and f-block metals. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, I would like to respond to each of your points in turn. Would it be ok if I duplicated tour signature after each point and then answered each in a separate thread? YBG (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: That'd be absolutely OK. Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thanks. I've done so. YBG (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh Would it be ok if I moved your additional references to the end of the Q3 section so they’re all together? I’ll add “moved to” and “moved from” notes. YBG (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes, of course; please proceed. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More re YBG Qs[edit]

(5) (Editors are invited to replace this placeholder text with additional questions.)

Thank you! YBG (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I don't have Parish, so can't answer (2). My view for (3) is "not much": for example, when Holleman & Wiberg talk about noble gases vs. noble metals, it's not so much about contrasting nonmetals with metals, but about contrasting main groups with transition groups (i.e. it's really about secondary relationship and Xe and Os having eight valence electrons). Thus I would say yes to (4), which perhaps makes (1) moot. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: I presume that means you favor removing the entire last paragraph, the one just before § Noble gases (correct me if I’m wrong). What about the EN vs. Type chart that comes just before it? (It’s not clear whether it is just illustrating the paragraph re the 4-fold division of metals, or if it is also illustrating the comments in the previous paragraph about electronegativity.) Should the chart be removed completely? Modified to just include nonmetals (and metalloids)? Retained as is with both metals and nonmetals? And if any is to be kept, should it be converted to a wiki table? YBG (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Personally, I would favour removing it all, because of my answer to (3). It seems to be referenced to a repository of chemical data, so the interpretation inherent in the tabulation is likely OR.
At most, a reasonable place for the metal-nonmetal trend to be briefly mentioned would be in the section for metalloids, because the continuity of this trend is why authors differ on which elements to call metalloids. Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ll remove the graphic and the paragraph. YBG (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removal edit reverted. Since this was not agreed by me, nor was I asked to express my opinion, it remains open to discussion --- Sandbh (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thank you for responding. I welcome your input; I had expected to hear from you when i pinged you by reference. I look forward to your responses to my four questions (1), (2), (3) and (4). I think it would help keep the discussion on target if you answered each directly following the question itself. If you think there are other important questions, you are welcome to add (5) etc. Thank you. YBG (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this long but fruitful discussion has now reached its natural end; I can’t think of any significant changes needed to this section now. YBG (talk)< — Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC) YBG (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section & paragraph length[edit]

Resolved YBG (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems like the lead section now has a more organic definition of "nonmetal" (although I'll listen to Graham Beards' opinion on the matter). The only thing that comes to mind is that on my screen we have a lot of 2-3 lines long paragraphs; some merging may be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tx JJE. The rule of thumb that I use is that no sentence should be longer than 30 words. If it is, then either shorten it or break into two. I was only able to find one sentence in the lede longer than 30 words, in the last para. I've now shortened it to 29 words. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, @Sandbh: I trust neither of you mind my moving this exchange into a separate section.
It appears to me that JJE is discussing paragraph length, but the reply is about sentence length.
I rather like the current lede paragraph lengths with line counts on my screen of (9,11,7,8,10) in portrait mode and (5,6,4,4,5) in landscape mode.
As to paragraphs in the rest of the article, the only really short ones are introducing an immediately following list or chart, which I think is appropriate. The longish ones of 10-12 or more lines don’t seem too long.
I’m not inclined to merge short paragraphs unless their topics are very similar. YBG (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is your concern about paragraph lengths resolved? YBG (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, seems like. I'll probably perform a proper review on a FAC or a PR, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whither now (post FAC7)[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Thank you for taking the initiative to resolve the outstanding issues in FAC-7. I wonder if it might be wise to see how many of the reviewers would be willing to become co-nominators? I would be willing to do this under certain circumstances, and I think others might also. Convincing previous reviewers to become co-nominators will improve (but delay) the FAC-8 nomination. For me to be willing to do this, I would need to engage with the FA criteria in a way I have not yet done. For each criterion, I would wish to state the extent to which I reviewed it and list any outstanding issues that need to be addressed before I'm willing to become a co-nominator.

Potential problems with this:

  • Trying to recruit co-nominators this way might not be viewed well.
  • Reviewers might have conflicting criteria that cannot be satisfied simultaneously. If so, far better for this to surface - and hopefully resolve - before FAC-8 than during it!
  • For example, there is an inherent tension between precision and readability. How can we avoid both over-simplification and over-precision? For example, if not done carefully, adding the "tendency-speak" to make statements precise can cause sentences to be clumsy and wordy. If not done carefully, simplifying sentences can over-simplify things or lead to false statements. It will take perseverence and carefulness to resolve this issue.

Is there any interest in pursuing such a process? Is anyone else willing to consider becoming a co-nominator? YBG (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend against renominating so soon unless you have recruited a co-nominator. Otherwise the next FAC might easily degenerate into another wall of text trying the patience of the coordinators. YBG (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: The plan is to not renominate until all the discusssion on this page has been concluded. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh That eliminates my concern about a sudden renomination. Thank you.
Do I understand you correctly that you would prefer not having a co-nominator? YBG (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: As I understand it a co-nominator cannot also support or oppose a nomination. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. By definition, a co-nominator supports the nomination. IMO, a co-nomination seems stronger that a mere support, but if you think it is unhelpful or just plain unneeded, I won't press the issue. YBG (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments (because at the FAC7 I stopped at Physical properties)[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical properties
  • I still don't buy the precise wording at the beginning. If you were going to say nonmetals form acidic oxides, then sure. But not acidic compounds in general. There surely are a lot of organic bases. Even in the inorganic realm, probably ammonia is the most famous base with only nonmetallic elements in its formula. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Double sharp: Thanks. I intend to change this to say:
    "Nonmetals possess relatively high values of electronegativity[p. 263] and their oxides are typically acidic.[p. 263] The exceptions concern some amphoteric nonmetallic oxides, such as the dioxides of selenium and tellurium (which nevertheless have a bias to acidity),[p. 446][NB] and water, which is a neutral oxide of hydrogen.[p. 659]
    The page # cites are to Kneen, Rogers and Simpson 1972, Chemistry: Facts, Patterns & Principles.
    The NB footnote will say, "Germanium (II) (hydr)oxide has been reported to be more basic than acidic.[G&Z]" The cite is doi:10.1016/0022-1902(64)80157-3, which is a primary source, hence the "may".
    I haven't been able to get a clear read on Ge(II) hence the NB footnote.
    Your thoughts?
    --- Sandbh (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: Seems good to me.
    I think that one should connect the high electronegativity of nonmetals to the acidity of their oxides, as is done here (I think that's based on Wulfsberg's books), since you've just mentioned the former. Also relevant is the oxidation state, which is why I2O is amphoteric whereas I2O5 is acidic. As for explicit examples, I'd avoid getting into the weeds, considering that authors vary about what counts as amphoteric. (Somehow I doubt many people consider N2O5 amphoteric even though it has both acidic and basic properties. :D) I'd just suggest that Sb2O3 be used as the exemplar instead; SeO2 and TeO2 are both stronger acids than As2O3, which is sometimes called just plain acidic already. Also, there's a few nonmetals oxides that display neither acidic nor basic properties.
    So, perhaps something like this would be good: "Nonmetals possess relatively high values of electronegativity, and therefore their oxides are usually acidic. Exceptions occur when the oxidation state is low, the nonmetal is not very electronegative, or both: thus for example H2O and Sb2O3 are amphoteric. A few nonmetal oxides are neutral, such as CO, NO, and N2O." (I wouldn't count F2O, as it's not really an oxide.) Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Double sharp: Thanks.
    I2O apparently reacts with water to give hypoiodous acid.
    CO and N2O are formally the anhydrides of formic and hyponitrous acid, respectively viz. CO + H2O → H2CO2 (HCOOH, formic acid); N2O + H2O → H2N2O2 (hyponitrous acid). The reference is House JE 2008, Inorganic Chemistry, Elsevier, Amsterdam, p. 441.
    In water, NO reacts with oxygen to form nitrous acid HNO2.
    Per your words, I'll change the sentence to:
    "Nonmetals possess relatively high values of electronegativity, and their oxides are therefore usually acidic. Exceptions occur when the oxidation state is low, the nonmetal is not very electronegative, or both: thus, for example, water H2O and antimony trioxide Sb2O3 are amphoteric.
    Wulsberg does not mention EN in the context of oxides but does mention low oxidation states.
    Gervasini (2013) mentions both aspects so I'll cite them. They don't give specific examples of amphoteric oxides so this'll require another cite.
    Gervasini A 2013, "Characterization of acid–base sites in oxides", in Auroux A (ed.), Calorimetry and Thermal Methods in Catalysis, Springer Science, Heidelberg, pp. 319–352, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11954-5
    --- Sandbh (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: Yup, this is fine now.
    Hypoiodous acid has a high pKa (~11), comparable to clearly amphoteric Sb(OH)3 (11.0 per G&E p. 51) and Al(OH)3 (11.2). Thus it can quite easily end up protonated in aqueous solution.
    Regarding the neutral oxides, CO and N2O are only formally anhydrides: in practice the reactions with water hardly occur. Greenwood and Earnshaw outright say that N2O cannot be considered the anhydride of hyponitrous acid (p. 444, 2nd ed.): [N2O] is not to be regarded as the anhydride of hyponitrous acid since H2N2O2 is not formed when N2O is dissolved in H2O (a similar relation exists between CO and formic acid). As for NO, the reaction does not occur in the absence of oxygen, though I'll grant that in normal conditions it is there. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Curiously, House 2013, Inorganic Chemistry, 2nd ed., p. 427 says that:
Because CO is a slightly acidic oxide, it reacts with bases to produce formates.
CO + OH → HCOO
It seems then that the only peculiar oxides are water, being amphoteric, and N2O being neutral. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (hopefully) --- Sandbh (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp Does this resolve the concerns raised in this bullet? YBG (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangentially, why are we looking only at solid nonmetals? Firstly, you're citing each one to its own source, which makes me wonder if it is a SYNTH to look only at them. Secondly, if it were really a characteristic property of nonmetals, then you'd expect that the strongest reactive nonmetals would be even more clear-cut examples. But fluorine reacts with concentrated nitric acid to produce FNO3! I think it would be better just to talk about oxoacids and the acidic hydrides. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Double sharp: Thanks. I was looking at the solid metals given the elemental gases are nonmetals and of the two liquid elements, Br is an insulator (i.e. a nonmetal).
    Citing each one to its own source strikes me as compiling a list rather than synthesising new knowledge, per se. How do you see that?
    FNO3 apparently decomposes in water to form O2, OF2, HCl, and HNO3. I guess that makes it an acidic compound.
    --- Sandbh (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal is fine with me. The way I see it, if you have a specific source saying the general statement, it's OK to cite illustrative examples to different sources; but if you don't have a specific source saying the general statement, it starts being SYNTH.
    I think that people usually mean Brønsted acids when "acid" is used without qualification, but this is moot now. Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @Double sharp about SYNTH. YBG (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (hopefully) --- Sandbh (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp Does this resolve the concerns raised in this bullet? YBG (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18-electron vs duet/octet is not about metals vs nonmetals, but about transition vs main-group. Obviously, the alkali metals are trying to get a nice, stable full shell; it's just that it's much easier for them to do it by shedding the outermost one. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp Does this resolve the concerns raised in this bullet? YBG (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should probably be noted that these generalisations are at their best for the strongest nonmetals. Near the borderline, especially for the metalloids, it is quite different. I think this article gets at it quite well (section 5), though I wouldn't suggest using its idiosyncratic terminology. The point is that the very strongest nonmetals are really "the opposites of metals" in all ways (i.e. extremely high EN, forming ionic bonds with the metals, being quite happy in negative oxidation states, forming strong acids, and going for simple or hydrated anions in preference to oxyanions), whereas the other ones tend to compromise more. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (hopefully). The third paragraph of the Chemical properties subsection now reads:
Furthermore, nonmetals typically exhibit higher ionization energies, electron affinities, and standard reduction potentials than metals. Generally, the higher these values are (including electronegativity) the more nonmetallic the element tends to be.[71] For example, the chemically very active nonmetals fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have an average electronegativity of 3.19—a figure[n 10] higher than that of any individual metal. On the other hand, the 2.05 average[n 11] of the chemically weak metalloid nonmetals falls within the 0.70 to 2.54 range of metals.[72]
--- Sandbh (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp Does this resolve the concerns raised in this bullet? YBG (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are high oxidation states in groups 15 and 16 really unusual? I kind of doubt it considering that this is the majority behaviour. Nitric and sulfuric acids are familiar even in the school chemistry lab. I'd rather name the last section "higher oxidation states" than "unusual oxidation states" for this reason.

Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandbh: I still think the "higher oxidation states" section has problems: nitrogen already has oxidation state +5 in nitric acid, which is a familiar compound. Moreover, the actual oxidation states in H2S and HF for the non-hydrogen elements are −2 and −1, not 2 and 1; and the oxidation state of Xe in XeF2 is +2 (for an actual example of +8, you'd need XeO4). Even coordination number isn't an accurate phrasing because of species like NH4+, H3O+, and H2F+. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thanks. I've rewritten this paragraph to address your well-raised oncerns.
PS: I've added a paragraph to this section re multiple bond formation. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp Does this resolve the concerns raised in this bullet? YBG (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve taken the liberty of adding multiple signatures to facilitate replying to each point independently using the neat new reply feature. @Double sharp, if you object, feel free to revert. YBG (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No problem. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen pic[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would something like this work for the picture at Nonmetal § Halogen nonmetals?

Silver chunks covered be a clear liquid in a sealed bottle
A translucent pale yellow gas in a sealed bottle
A small pile of white crystals in front of a tipped-over cylindrical with a few grains spilling out of the holes in its screw-top lid
sodium (Na), chlorine (Cl), and table salt (NaCl)
Corrosive chlorine, a halogen nonmetal, combines with highly reactive sodium to form stable, unreactive table salt.
YBG (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It looks pretty, and better than I'd expected, and adds interest to the article. Please proceed. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources pic[edit]

Implemented YBG (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m experimenting here with a table to replace the one at § Abundance, extraction, and uses

Nonmetallic element sources[1]
Group (1, 13-18) Period
13 14 15 16 1 / 17 18 (1-6)
H He 1
B C N O F Ne 2
Si P S Cl Ar 3
Ge As Se Br Kr 4
Sb Te I Xe 5
Rn 6
  
Mineral
ores
  
Mining
byproducts
  
Liquid
air
  
Natural
gas
  
Seawater
brine

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Emsley was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Differences from the status quo:

  1. Corrected Te color
  2. Add missing period 1, 5
  3. Group label 1/17 in place of footnote
  4. 2-line legend labels
  5. 1-line table header
  6. Horizontal “Period” label
  7. Parenthetical group/period numbers
  8. Legend in L-R order instead of top-bottom, which also places similar sources together
  9. Wikitable instead of graphic
  10. Somewhat mnemonic/symbolic color selection (I don’t feel strongly about this)
  11. Iodine’s two colors are diagonal, not horizontal

YBG (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandb, @Double sharp What do doy think about using this graphic instead of the current one? YBG (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I like your proposed version, especially because of #9. Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance, sources, uses[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, @Double sharp: What do you think of putting each graphic in its proper section? Check out special:permalink/1183897347 § Abundance, sources, and uses in both desktop and mobile views. YBG (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I think that will be OK. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented YBG (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]
I subsequently made some additional changes. Here's a link to the latest: Nonmetal § Abundance, sources, and uses
  1. Added {{clear}} at the end of each section
  2. Removed the table headings expanded section headers
  3. Moved the sources legend blocks into the text
Some additional changes might be helpful. @User:Sandbh, would you consider looking at these?
  1. The uses table refs are identical for each section; it would be nice to have them be more specific
  2. The sources table legend is in the text as a table. I'm sure there's a better way to do this, but I don't know what it is.
Thanks YBG (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Uses table cites have been reorganized to be more specific. For now, I'm happy with the sources table legend. @Double sharp: FYI. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, I figured out how to get a hanging indent work with the text, which also serves as the table legend. I want to test it out with a bunch of different screen widths, but once I do I think this whole section is resolved. YBG (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've fixed the hanging indent. Everything is resolved in this section. YBG (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First row anomaly pic[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Existing graphic (with truncated caption)
Periodic table highlighting the first row of each block.
Potential alternative (without caption)
s-block
H He p-block
Li Be B C N O F Ne
Na Mg d-block Al Si P S Cl Ar
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
Cs Br La-Yb Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl PB Bi Po At Rn
Fr Ra Ac-No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Nh Fl Mc Lv Ts Og
  f-block
La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb
Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No

The pic at § First row anomaly has a lot of detail not related to the first row anomaly. This makes the picture cluttered and confusing. I've included here an outline of what could be an alternative. YBG (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Please proceed, with the exception that the first rows of the d and f blocks do not need to be shaded. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh I know the d and f blocks don’t have any nonmetals, but they do have 1st row anomalies, don’t they? YBG (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: They do. The degree to which the anomalies standout is s >> p > d >f. It doesn't really matter if the d- and f- anomalies are included. Perhaps something like attached image. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I like it, especially the inclusion of the atomic numbers. Should I include the group numbers? If so, do they need to be labeled? I'm inclined to consistently include the s/p/d/f block labels but drop the normal shell-filling order s1-2 / p1-6 / d1-10 / f1-14. What do you think? YBG (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: OK, I've replace the graphic with a table. Feel free to improve it or revert and discuss how it could be improved. YBG (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property comparisons[edit]

resolved Sandbh (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is § Comparison of selected properties in the § History, background, and taxonomy section? These tables that compare the chemical and physical properties of metals and the 3+1 types of nonmetals would seem to be more appropriate either in the Chemical and Physical subsections of § General properties or else at the end of § Types. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: It's at the end of the artice as feedback from a previous FAC or review was that the table represent too much "clutter" midway through the article, or words to that effect. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. My concern is that including them there makes that section seem like a coat rack of marginally related topics. But I don’t have a good alternative right now. YBG (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In another sense, the article tends to flow from basic definitions and properties to more specific information about types, abundance, and historical background, in just five sections. This approach may help the reader see how current understanding and typology are rooted in historical developments and empirical comparisons. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems weird to have the properties split in two places in the article. Nevertheless, I can see how these two big tables could be intimidating if placed earlier in the article. Some time back I changed the section titles so there are no longer repeated section titles "Chemical properties" and "Physical properties". Instead the first sections are "Chemical/Physical properties of nonmetals" and "Chemical/Physical properties of nonmetals by type". I also added hyperlinking hatnotes so the reader can navigate between tables.
i think we can close this section YBG (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More re types[edit]

resolved. YBG (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I’ve trimmed the descriptions in the list that also serves as a legend. In particular I’ve tried to eliminate the clumsy X-to-Y descriptions. I restored “chemically strong”, it is much crisper than “highly to moderately reactive” and seems supported in the literature. I eliminated “high to low reactivity” which seems to the casual reader (eg FAC evaluators) to be tantamount to meaningless. YBG (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I removed the nos. of each type as: after the intro referring to 4 types, there were too many numbers; it isn't necessary to keep track; and the accompanying image does that job. I’ve reinstated mention of the H to M reactive nature of the halogens for 2 main reasons: source-text integrity (regardless how clumsy, not all the halogens are vanilla); and the fact that, as it happens, “chemically strong” is not well-defined in the literature. I reinstated mention of metalloids as "not particularly reactive" as this provides more wriggle room than "relatively unreactive" (As can be a little like Al). This paragraph touches on the heart of the article so I’m particularly invested in it. Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: a couple of questions.
  1. If having the same absolute level of reactivity isn’t what characterizes the halogens, what does? Can we say they are corrosive? Highly (or relatively) electronegative? Relatively reactive? Very reactive? There must be something they have in common.
  2. Can we say that the metalloids are “generally unreactive”?
YBG (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lifting some descriptions from the subsections, I come up with this:
  • relatively inert noble gases
  • notably reactive halogen nonmetals —OR— corrosive halogen nonmetals
  • less reactive unclassified nonmetals
  • generally unreactive metalloids
Thiughts? YBG (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ve implemented these nicely parallel 2-word reactivity descriptions. I’m uncertain whether G17 should be “notably reactive” or “corrosive”; I can live with either. The leftovers are “less reactive” compared to G17, on a period-by-period basis; perhaps that needs a clarifying note but I don’t think so. “Generally unreactive” I think captures the subtleties of the metalloids. YBG (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thanks. *Collectively*, the halogen NM represent the epitome of reactivity. The difficulty is I. It's reactive, sure, but only e.g. a weak oxidising agent, outclassed by O. Among the unclassified NM, O is highly reactive. In c. 2007 the US was losing more than $10 billion each year to corrosion, much due to rusting of iron and steel. The oxidizing agent causing all this is usually O. It further produces molecules of peroxide (O22–) and superoxide (O2), after it reacts during respiration to produce water. These highly reactive forms of O would damage the delicate biological structures within a cell. Consequently, most organisms that breathe air have evolved enzymes to deal with these dangers. "Generally unreactive" works OK for the metalloids. "Notably reactive" works OK for the halogen NM. However, for the UN one would have to say, "notably to less reactive" i.e. that overlap thing is evident again. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about “variably reactive”? YBG (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh?? YBG (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thank you. “Variably" reactive sounds like each of the UN are individually variably reactive, which is not so. How about "mixed reactivity”? Then we would have:
  • relatively inert noble gases
  • notably reactive halogen nonmetals
  • mixed reactivity unclassified nonmetals
  • generally unreactive metalloids
I like it so much I’ll go ahead and do the edit.
Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I think we’ve resolved all the major issues in this section. YBG (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single distinguishing properties table[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the table cells are advertised as being ordered by date, why not put the year at the beginning of each line, with a different hanging indent so that the year can function as a bullet without needing a bullet icon. YBG (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ve tried this and am fairly satisfied with the result except for the fact that the years are proportionally spaced so not uniform in width. But I’m not wedded to it if anyone objects it can be reverted. YBG (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with {{mono}}!! YBG (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Very nice! --- Sandbh (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review or FAC[edit]

@YBG: I feel this article is now good to go to PR or FAC. Do you concur? --- Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Perhaps. Let me take a global look first to see if anything jumps out. YBG (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See related topic at § Oustanding issues check below. @Sandbh, should we close this section or come back to it later? YBG (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh? YBG (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I’m happy to close and proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage namely final read through; change notes to efn; and check for redundant references, provided you and @Double sharp: have no further outstanding issues with the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion might be to run the article by some of the editors who opposed the past FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only suggestion that we don’t need both this section and § Oustanding issues check open. I've been dribbling my issues out a few at a time as I don’t have the bandwidth for multiple open discussions. YBG (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG, Double sharp, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I intend to proceed to the pre-FAC checking stage as set out above, and then ask some of the editors who opposed past-FACs. — Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will continue my slow pace of working through the article. YBG (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Foornotes have now been switched to efn --- Sandbh (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Redundant ref check completed. Final read through to follow; hopefully tomorrow. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Types[edit]

resolved. YBG (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: after a very long discussion between @Sandbh and me, I think we’ve come about as far as we can. Would you please read the last paragraph of § Types, the one just before § Noble gases dealing with metal reactivity. Is it acceptable in its current form? If not, what changes do you think are necessary? Is the article better with this paragraph or without it? Thanks! YBG (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I still do not see the point of having this paragraph in the main text. Nonetheless, it is fairly short, and I would be fine with it as a note. Since it is this short, I would also accept leaving it as it stands, although this is not something I would consider ideal. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp and YBG: Thanks. I'll look more closely about moving the paragraph into a footnote. Sandbh (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp and YBG: I've moved the paragraph into a footnote, at the end of the four bullet points setting out the four types of nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, thank you for accommodating this. I think it works as a footnote, but I wonder about the placement and its relevance as it’s current position makes it look as though it is just related to the metalloids.
Currently the lead-in to the four bullets says:
  • ... four types of nonmetallic elements can be discerned:
I’m wondering if it would be better like this:
  • ... four types of nonmetallic elements of varying degrees of reactivity[n 24] can be discerned:
@Double sharp, before Sandbh itor I make any changes, I’d appreciate knowing, Do you agree with my concern about placement of the note?
Also, @Sandbh and @Double sharp, what is your preference order for these seven options (and why?):
  1. The separate paragraph as it was before Sandbh converted it to a footnote. -- see special:permalink/1194284385#Types
  2. The footnote as Sandbh placed it at the end of the metalloid bullet. -- see special:permalink/1194284904#Types
  3. The same footnote placed in the lead-in to the bullets, with the added text 'of varying degrees of reactivity' as I showef above.
  4. The same footnote in the lead-in but without the added text.
  5. Not including the information, neither as a paragraph nor as a note.
  6. Remove the reactivity descriptions from the bullet list of nonmetal types and add this sentence separate from the bullets: The halogen nonmetals are notably reactive, the unclassified nonmetals vary widely in reactivity, the metalloids are generally unreactive,note and the noble gases are generally inert.note This could be added to the fuzziness paragraph, either as its first or last sentence, or as a one-sentence paragraph between the bullets and the fuzziness.
  7. In a separate paragraph just before § Noble gasses, as special:permalink/1195032848#Types.
  8. Some other idea (what?).
I can see advantages and disadvantages to the idea I’ve shown above, so I certainly don’t want to propose it until I’ve heard what others think. Thanks in advance for your input. YBG (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh and @Double sharp, I’ve added another option to my list. I’m still interested to know your preference order of these options, and whether you share my concern about the placement of the note. YBG (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I feel the way the paragraph reads now works well (#2). I like the reactivity descriptors. They give the reader mental markers. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh How do you prioritize the other options? YBG (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've changed the footnote back to main body text, and added it the end of the section. I feel that the new intro to the resulting para. i.e., "For context", works very nicely. Of the other options my priority list would be 1 (as modified); and then 2 (as modified). None of the other options work for me: 3. because there's more to the types than reactivity; 4. because talking about metals in the lead-in is out of place; 5. because it's inconsistent (the article mentions other comparisons with metals) and non-encyclopedia; 6. because it removes the mental hooks for the reader. So, I guess what I've now done matches 7. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh - I was hoping you'd wait for @Double sharp to weigh in before making changes. DS, I'd really appreciate knowing how you'd prioritize the options, including the newly added #7? YBG (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Personally, I favour a hybrid of what Sandbh has done and #2. I think the wording is fine and good, but my first preference is still for that paragraph to be a footnote, as it is an addition for context that is not directly related to the article's subject. My second preference is to leave things as they currently stand. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: If it is a footnote, what are your preferences for where to place it? YBG (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: In the same place it would have been as a paragraph, i.e. as a note attached to the previous paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp. OK, you like the present wording, and you prefer footnote > body text. How do you rank omitting it entirely? (a) footnote > body > omit, (b) footnote > omit > body, or (c) omit > footnote > body? YBG (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: I like Double sharp's solution. YBG: I'm not sure what the basis for the "omit" option is. The article compares nonmetals and nonmetals at four points in the Physical properties section; the same in the Chemical properties section; and comparisons are again made in the Suggested distinguishing criteria section, and the Comparison of selected properties. An article whose name derives from the "metal" word, would presumably include coverage of the contrasts, overlaps, and similarities. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, at one time @Double sharp expressed the opinion that the article would be better without what was then a paragraph. I am inquiring to determine to what extent he still might hold that opinion and how that stacks up against the other two options. As to word derivation, I asked your opinion about this fascinating philosophical issue on my talk page. YBG (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-in to types bullets[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I've changed the mention of number of types to read "three or four types of nonmetallic elements can be most commonly discerned". This is more consistent with the opening paragraph of the section. It also clarifies why "three to four" in that these are the most common approaches. I've used "discerned" rather "seen", as "seen" often refers to the act of visual perception, whereas "discerned" implies a deeper process of understanding, interpreting, or making out something that might not be immediately obvious. I feel this is especially appropriate given the subject matter, including the "are they?/aren't they" nature of the metalloids. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh What do you think of how it is now? YBG (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this: "In the periodic table, above and to the right of the metals, four types of elements are commonly recognized, from right to left:" was clumsy with its reference to nonmetals being "above" the metals, and the two mentions of "to the right" and "right to left". I've ce'd it to read, "In the periodic table, to the right of the metals, four types of nonmetallic elements can be recognized (proceeding from most to least nonmetallic):" I hope that works. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think you're right about the clumsiness of my wording. Yours is definitely better.
I am surprised you restored "nonmetallic"; I thought it was the reason for saying "3 or 4" instead of "4". YBG (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thought on the history[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that there must be a missing link between Dupasquier and Dumas on the one hand, and the modern idea on the other, because they consider B and Si to be nonmetals but are not agreed on the more metalloidal elements. Dumas includes As but not Se, and Dupasquier includes Se but not As; neither include Ge, Sb, or Te. The 1911 Britannica article on chemistry thinks that B, Si, Se, and Te are nonmetals, but not Ge, As, and Sb. I assume this changed when people started using "metalloid" for an intermediate set instead, but in that case the inclusion of such elements as primarily nonmetals gets somewhat iffy, since mostly people talk about them as intermediate between metals and nonmetals. Back when there were only two categories and no intermediate ones, it does not seem as though Ge, As, and Sb were considered nonmetals that often. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks. I've added a paragraph about the metalloids.
Early on the article says, "Nonmetallic chemical elements generally have low density and high electronegativity" and "The six most commonly recognized metalloids have relatively low densities and predominantly nonmetallic chemistry and are typically seen as intermediate between metals and nonmetals;[10] they are included in this article for comparison: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te." The comparison of properties section adds, "The dashed lines around the columns for metalloids signify that the treatment of these elements as a distinct type can vary depending on the author, or classification scheme in use." --- Sandbh (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Regarding the paragraph: what elements do Newth and Friend consider to be metalloids?
P.S. The discoverers of tellurium certainly thought it was a metal. So did Berzelius, per what Weeks quotes of him in doi:10.1021/ed009p474. So they presumably cannot have thought that it had a "predominantly nonmetallic chemistry": that view must have come later. Speaking a lot earlier, Agricola considered Sb to be as metallic as Pb in De natura fossilium (quoted in Metal#The Renaissance), which makes sense when one considers that Pliny confused the two. J. R. Glauber likewise thought Sb was a metal on a par with Co, Zn, and Bi: Weeks' Discovery of the Elements (p. 144) quotes him as writing And if we nevertheless maintain that each planet gives birth to its own metal, to which star should one assign bismuth, cobalt, antimony, and zinc? On the other hand, on p. 261 of the same book we find a quote of Scheele calling Mo a "half-metal". Double sharp (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Newth says the following elements encompass metalloid and nonmetals: As, B, Br, C, Cl, F, H, I, N, O, P, Se, Si, S, Te.
Friend says:
"The difficulty of drawing a dividing line between metals and non-metals is clearly shown by the existence of an alternative method of classifying the elements, which divides them into three groups, namely, non-metals, metalloids, and metals. A metalloid is an element which, although it resembles a metal in most characteristics, yet lacks some one or more of the features which typical metals generally present. Usually, the metalloids possess the form or appearance of metals, but are more closely allied to the non-metals in their chemical behaviour. The following elements are included in the metalloids: H, Te, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, As, Sb, Bi, V, Cb, Ta, Mo, W, and U."
Berzelius, in 1818, also thought Se was a metal due to its lustre. He subdivided the metals into two classes, those that are capable of forming acids, and those that act as bases: "I place selenium among the acidifiable metals near arsenic." (Trofast J 2011, Berzelius' discovery of selenium, Chemistry International, 33(5), p.16) I guess Dumas (1828) was still going by Berzelius's classification, and that by 1844, Dupasquier (among others) had worked it out.
Agricola (1546) may have considered Sb to a metal on the grounds that "when smelted, a certain portion be added to tin, a bookseller's alloy is produced from which the type is made that is used by those who print books on paper."
I don't know on what basis Pliny confused Sb and Pb. I believe he knew the first was brittle and the second malleable.
In 1658, when Glauber wrote that passage in Opera Chymica (1658), Co, Zn, Sb, and Bi were all considered to be semi-metals, due to being brittle. The ides of associating each of these imperfect "metals" to a planet was, alchemically speaking ... err ... daft.
"Half-metals or semi-metals were substances which resembled the "old" metals in color and density but which had differences in formability. After Georg Brandt's dissertation on the half-metals in 1735 and his discovery of cobalt, six semi-metals were known: mercury, bismuth, zinc, antimony, cobalt and arsenic. When new metals like molybdenum were discovered and prepared, they were often not malleable owing to the presence of impurities and because of that were called semi-metals." Enghag P 2008, Encyclopedia of the Elements, John Wiley & Sons, p. 596.
Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Thanks for the lists: I see Friend is on the Internet Archive. I see Newth does not include Ge and Sb, and it's interesting that Friend considers many of the group IVB through VIB metals as "metalloids" on the grounds of their chemical behaviour. As you know, I would agree with Friend on that (especially for highly electronegative W, which doesn't even manage to form ionic halides). On the other hand, this rather seems to mean that the general idea of "metalloid" among pre-WW2 authors is not the same as the one we have now, and that it was by no means agreed that Ge, As, Sb, and Te were nonmetals then, although people thought B and Si were. Which raises my questions: did most people think Ge, As, Sb, Te were nonmetals around 1900, when it was more common to have only two categories (metals vs nonmetals)? And since the post-WW2 era is when three categories becomes common, is it really justified to consider most of these as nonmetals by default, when most authors nowadays would say that metalloids are something different from both metals and nonmetals? Moreover, doesn't the idea about "relatively low densities and predominantly nonmetallic chemistry" raise questions about Ti, V, and Zr that are all less dense than Sb? (All three are mentioned by Friend as being "more closely allied to the nonmetals" chemically; considering that TiCl4 and VCl4 are covalent molecular liquids at room temperature like SiCl4, and that the Zr4+ aqua cation is so easily hydrolysed, he has a point!) On these grounds I think I'd be much happier if metalloids were given as a "sometimes" inclusion for comparison rather than as a default fourth category of nonmetals, more like the way elements like C, Al, and Se are treated in metalloid.
Regarding Pliny and Dioscorides, see the passages here. On the one hand Pliny distinguishes "male" and "female" antimony (probably stibnite and metallic antimony respectively); on the other hand, when describing the processing of stibnite, he calls the metallic reduction product lead (faex plumbosissima). Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thanks. I don’t know where the idea of "relatively low densities and predominantly nonmetallic chemistry" came from. The article refers to including metalloids for comparative purposes and due to their "relatively low densities, high electronegativity, and (nonmetallic) chemical behavior." Ti, V, and Zr have low EN. I’ve changed the text in the Types section so that it now refers to "three to four types", rather than "four". Is that OK? The article otherwise elsewhere mentions the sometimes nature of metalloids as nonmetals, at several points.
I don't know enough about the situation c. 1900.
Germanium has a record of being regarded as a poorly conducting metal, with its conductivity arising from impurities. AFAIK its status as a nonmetallic element was not sorted out until the 1930s(?) when the physics of semiconductors emerged. OTOH there is this:
"Germanium, Ge, a new nonmetallic[sic] element…" (Winkler 1886)
--- Winkler C (1886), Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft, vol. 19, pp. 210–211
Arsenic and antimony have a long history of causing difficulties for classification science. The oldest quote I have for As is:
"Arsenic is in the main, however, an acid-forming element and plays the part of a non-metal in its compounds."
--- Schrader FC, Stone RW & Sanford S 1917, Useful minerals of the United States, Bulletin 624, United States Geological Survey, Washington
The oldest quote I have for Sb is:
"Antimony…is of more metallic appearance than arsenic, but, although it has some of the properties of the metals (lustre, electrical and thermal conductivity), in its chemical behaviour it is closely connected with arsenic and phosphorus…Bismuth…has no[sic] non-metallic characters and may be considered as a metal, as it forms no gaseous hydrogen derivative and its oxide has basic characteristics." (Molinari 1920, pp. 426, 792)
--- Molinari E 1920, Treatise on general and industrial inorganic chemistry, 2nd ed., J & A Churchill, London.
Mendeleev, however, regarded both As and Sb to be metals.
I suspect Te may have ended up with an "-ium" suffix due to it appearing to Müller (1783) to form a metallic alloy with gold, as AuTe2, bearing in mind the limited understanding of time as to the distinction between metals and nonmetals.
Te was described by Mendeleev as forming a transition between metals and nonmetals.
The Pliny link seems reasonably clear as to the distinction between Sb and Pb: "The lees are recognized by being full of lead and they settle to the bottom of the mortars and are thrown away...But above all, it is essential to limit the amount of heat applied to it, so that it may not be turned into lead."
Stibnite can occur with galena (PbS) and that's what appears to be going on.
--- Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase my concern so that it's perhaps clearer. :) In metalloid, we have a clear break between elements that are considered metalloids nearly all the time, versus elements that are so considered only sometimes: the most often included among the "sometimes" elements is polonium at 49%. Well, you didn't consider it alongside the others, okay. But my question is: could you get even 49% of chemists to agree that metalloids are nonmetals? Note that I'm not asking "could you get them to agree that metalloids generally have nonmetallic chemical properties and all that". I'm asking "could you get them to agree that metalloids are a subcategory of nonmetals, and not a third category on the border zone that are neither metal nor nonmetal"? My impression of the literature is that you could not. Considering the precedent of metalloid, that suggests that metalloids should not be considered by the article as a normal inclusion into the nonmetals category, but as a sidelined "sometimes", something like how polonium or selenium is treated in Metalloid. So, I would much prefer the number of nonmetal categories to be three, with a caveat that metalloids are sometimes considered nonmetals as a whole, and that since people disagree about where exactly the metalloids end, even authors who think metalloids are an in-between class might annex some (but not all) of usual six into the nonmetals, e.g. Hawkes with metalloids = Ge-As-Se-Te and nonmetals including B and Si. And sure, it would probably be good to know when people stopped calling new metals "semi-metals". :) (At least, Lavoisier in 1789 was happy to list As and Sb among metals, but B as radical boracique is with the nonmetals, and Si is there as an earth alongside what would be Mg, Al, Ca, and Ba.)
I agree that our current understanding of metallicity is better than the past one, but if we are going to give some history, we should at least state how it evolved with greater completeness. No doubt, the understanding of semiconducting behaviour played a large role in figuring out what was going on with Ge and maybe Te.
Pliny seems to think that heating stibnite produces only Pb (and Dioscorides thought the same, according to the link I gave); Sb is not mentioned in this context. Note that in the process he describes, one is not actually trying to get the metal. Indeed, that's exactly what is not wanted: But above all, it is essential to limit the amount of heat applied to it, so that it may not be turned into lead. I think it's reasonable that he'd make a mistake identifying something he considered an unwanted waste product and hence did not really care about. Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thank you.

I don't know if 49% of chemists would agree metalloids are nonmetals. OTOH, I presume > 49% know that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry. Per your suggestion, the article clarifies the "sometimes" nature of metalloids, in the following places:

Places in the nonmetal article re the odd nature of metalloids
Lede
A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks metallic properties. Seventeen [emphasis added] elements are generally considered nonmetals, though some authors recognize more or fewer depending on the properties considered most representative of metallic or nonmetallic character. Elements on the borderline further complicate the situation.
usually/always counted as a nonmetal
sometimes counted as a nonmetal [i.e. metallloids]
1 Definition and applicable elements
There is no precise definition of a nonmetal;[6] any list of such is open to debate and revision.[7] Which elements are included depends on the properties regarded as most representative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[n 3]
These fourteen elements are effectively always recognized as nonmetals:[7][8]
Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur
Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, Iodine
Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, Radon
Three more are commonly called nonmetals, but some sources list them as metalloids:[9]
Carbon, Phosphorus, Selenium
The six most commonly recognized metalloids have relatively low densities and predominantly nonmetallic chemistry and are typically seen as intermediate between metals and nonmetals;[10] they are included in this article for comparison:
Boron, Silicon, Germanium, Arsenic, Antimony, Tellurium
In the periodic table, to the right of the metals, three to four types of nonmetallic elements can be recognized (proceeding from most to least nonmetallic):
the relatively inert noble gases;[110]
the notably reactive halogen nonmetals;[111]
the mixed reactivity "unclassified nonmetals", a set with no widely used collective name;[n 18] and
the generally unreactive[n 20] metalloids,[128] sometimes instead considered a third category distinct from metals and nonmetals.
The boundaries between these types are not sharp.[n 21] Carbon, phosphorus, selenium, and iodine border the metalloids and show some metallic character, as does hydrogen.
3 Types
The classification of nonmetals can vary, with approaches ranging from as few as two types to as many as seven…
In the periodic table, to the right of the metals, three to four types of nonmetallic elements can be recognized (proceeding from most to least nonmetallic)…
The greatest discrepancy between authors occurs in the metalloid "frontier territory".[130] Some consider metalloids distinct from both metals and nonmetals, while others classify them as nonmetals.[131] Some categorize certain metalloids as metals (e.g., arsenic and antimony due to their similarities to heavy metals).[132][n 22] Like the elements universally considered "nonmetals", metalloids have relatively low densities, high electronegativity, and similar chemical behavior;[128] they are included in this article for comparative purposes.[n 23]
5 History, background, and taxonomy
Metalloids came to be popularly regarded as intermediate elements despite it being known that they have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry. [This sentence recently rearranged by me]
Comparison of selected properties
The dashed lines around the columns for metalloids signify that the treatment of these elements as a distinct type can vary depending on the author, or classification scheme in use.

I count ten places in which the peculiar treatment of the metalloids is mentioned. The overall emphasis is on the seventeen elements generally recognised as nonmetals, with the six metalloids being mentioned as appropriate.

The metalloid article and nonmetal article work side-by-side. The first has a much narrower focus; the second has a broader focus due to the overlap of the predominately nonmetallic chemistry of the metalloids.

In response to your concerns I've add a paragraph to the Development of types section, explaining the status of B and Si, and what happened to Ge, As, Sn and Te.

How is the article now looking? --- Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp, @Sandbh: Have the issues raised in this section been resolved? YBG (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: I believe so. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp, have the issues raised in this section been resolved? YBG (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Sandbh: Sorry for forgetting to answer this. Yes, I think the section is OK now. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmetal(s) vs. Nonmetallic (chemical) element(s)[edit]

@Sandbh, do you use these terms synonymously?

  • nonmetal(s)
  • nonmetallic element(s)
  • nonmetallic chemical element(s)

When I read this article, I cannot tell whether these are used synonymously or if they are intended to convey some slight distinction. YBG (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I use "nonmetallic" in preference to "nonmetal", as the first has more wriggle room i.e. it better accomodates the metalloids. What Oderberg said about nonmetals relates i.e. if something is not a metal than it must be a nonmetal. But I don't want to go to too far down that rabbit hole. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: since you prefer nonmetallic, I wonder, where just plain nonmetal is used, does it mean the same thing? Or something slightly different? YBG (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to use "nonmetallic" when referring to anything including a metalloid, and "nonmetal" otherwise. I haven't however checked for my consistency of usage. --- Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good rule. Now that I know it, I will try to enforce it when it is needed. After we do a thorough review, it might be good to explicitly state this someplace in the article. YBG (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: As you read through the article, have a look at the use of "nonmetallic element" vs. "nonmetal". YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "Types, metalloids"[edit]

Resolved --- Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, semiconducting Sb is only stable as a very thin film (doi:10.1039/D3NR03536K). If we're going to include this sort of thing, then we'd presumably have to also note that B can metallise under such conditions (see borophene). Graphene also counts, though C is placed under unclassified nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks; I've added "Single-layer materials" to the Allotropes hatnote. The metallisation of some of these materials is accommodated in the way the topic sentence in the nonmetal article is composed i.e., "each with distinct physical properties that may vary between metallic and nonmetallic." --- Sandbh (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this addition, but I do think that the difference should be put in context in "Types, metalloids". The single-layer situation is quite different from the bulk situation: B and C can metallise, whereas Sn, Sb, and Bi either demetallise (fully or partially, considering topological insulators as partial demetallisation) or are theoretically expected to do so. To my mind, this is a rather similar situation to changes under pressure, in which for example Na can demetallise (and then remetallise at extremely high pressures) and Xe can metallise. I think that if you're going to put semiconducting Sb in the main text, then some kind of context is needed to make it clear that unlike semiconducting As, this is not a form that exists in quite usual conditions. At least, if something was only true of graphene and not graphite, I'd feel the need to spell it out specifically, as probably the 2D structure is then related to why it only works in that case.
The way I'd deal with this myself would be to add to the "Allotropes" section a sentence reading "Additional allotropes may occur in more exotic conditions, such as in single-layer materials or under high pressure. The allotropes formed may have unexpected properties: for example, sodium transforms from a metal to a glass-like insulator at ~200 GPa (ref), and oxygen becomes a metallic conductor at 96 GPa (ref). Bulk boron is a semiconductor, but boron nanotubes have metallic properties (ref); contrariwise, single-layer bismuth is a topological insulator, with electrons only free to move along the surface and not the interior (ref). As these properties are quite distinct from bulk behaviour at standard conditions, the remainder of the article will not consider them." And then simply fix the sentence under "Types, metalloids" so that it only lists As and not Sb as having a stable semiconducting form (which is correct under this reasonable assumption). Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. regarding high-pressure electrides: more are expected to do it, but only for Li and Na has it actually been seen so far. Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thank you. The context in "Types, metalloids" is given by the following two sentences: "They [metalloids] are brittle and poor-to-good conductors of heat and electricity. Specifically, boron, silicon, germanium, and tellurium are semiconductors." In this context, it follows that, "Arsenic and antimony have the electronic structures of semimetals, although both have less stable semiconducting forms.[9]" The semiconducting properties of the metalloids are mentioned due to the strong association of the two concepts. The single layer situation is not relevant here although it is in the Allotropes section. I've nevertheless added a footnote about Sb forming a semiconducting allotrope only in thin film form.
I've adjusted the allotropes section to refer to "less stable" allotropic forms. There is no need for further detail given the hatnote says, "For a more comprehensive list, see Allotropy § Non-metals, and Single-layer materials." --- Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: By the logic that the "single layer situation is not relevant here", it seems to me that single-layer allotropes ought not to be included in the "Metalloids" section at all. It is exactly the same kind of thing as including metallic Xe at high pressure under the "noble gas" section: cool, but not really having anything to do with the usual classification. Similarly, it seems to me that allotropes of halogens are also misleading inclusions in the "Allotropes" section without a mention that they are exotic high-pressure phenomena, not something like O3. To my mind, some kind of context is needed to make it clear what happens at normal conditions and what does not – especially when it gets at the heart at what a nonmetal is. Will anyone call Na a nonmetal? No, but it starts insulating at high pressure. So it seems that a statement about standard conditions is absolutely needed.
P.S. Sn also has an amorphous semiconducting form at low temperature.
P.P.S. The facts that (1) "metalloid" and "semiconductor" are strongly associated concepts and (2) Sb has no bulk semiconducting allotrope suggests something about Sb, especially when that puts it in the same boat as Bi. ;) I wonder if confusion about its allotropes had something to do with antimony's inclusion, perhaps regarding the stability of the black allotrope in bulk, or the existence of the yellow "allotrope" (thought to be Sb4, but probably is not a real allotrope). Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: The logic that the "single layer situation is not relevant here" is that the whole article is about the applicable nonmetals in their most stable states, in ambient conditions, unless mentioned otherwise. Pls see the hatnote to the Definition and applicable elements section. The only halogen allotrope mentioned is that of (amorphous) iodine.
I mention the less stable semiconducting alltropic forms of As and Sb in the Metalloids section since B, Si, Ge and Te are semiconductors. The footnote clarifies that the semiconducting allotrope of antimony is known only in thin-film form. Undoubtedly, the existence of black antimony and the purported existence of other allotropes of Sb contributed to perceptions of its status.
PS: Here's a 1905 take on Sb:
"The elements are ordinarily classified as metals and non-metals, but this classification is by no means perfect, for there is no sharp line of demarcation between the two groups, the properties gradually varying from the extremely electropositive to the extremely electronegative. Another reason for confusion lies in the fact that there is no strict definition for a metal. The classification depends on both chemical and physical properties, and consequently a chemist would ordinarily classify an element like antimony, nearly all of whose chemical properties are non-metallic, as a non-metal; while a physicist would probably classify it as a metal, for its physical properties are nearly all metallic. Physically, metals ordinarily have a peculiar luster known as metallic luster, which may be seen in the case of polished silver or steel, or freshly cut lead; and are comparatively good conductors of heat and electricity. The non-metals do not possess these properties, or if they possess them at all, it is in a less degree."
  • ICS Reference Library 1905, Inorganic Chemistry, International Textbook Company, Scranton, sect. 8, p. 45
Sandbh (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that makes Sb quite like U, which Friend also thinks is not very metallic in chemistry. :)
The point is: if you're going to mention nonmetallic Sb in a thin-film, then by the same logic other weird thin-film cases also become relevant, such as B and C that can both metallise, and Bi which demetallises. I'd feel happier with this if it was stated up front in the main text that semiconducting Sb is only a thin-film phenomenon, rather than relegating this caveat to a footnote. Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the footnote about amorphous Sb into main body text. See para. 2, Metalloids. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That looks OK to me. Double sharp (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many types[edit]

resolved. YBG (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, we had previously agreed on the wording, but you just now changed “four” to “three to four”. The list following the colon is a list of four items, no more and no less, and so imo the number in the paragraph should be four. One of my previous suggestions had been “four types of elements”, to which you inserted the word “nonmetallic”, but you can remove it if that makes the number four more acceptable. Just please don’t change it back to “3 to 4” without a discussion and agreement to change our previously agreed wording. Thank you! YBG (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Thank you. It hadn't occured to me that the adjective "nonmetallic" could in fact accomodate "four types" at the same time as addressing Double sharp's request to refer to three types of nonmetals. I remember the discussion about why I use "nonmetallic". I don't recall having a discussion specificlaly about agreering on either "four" or "three to four" although I know the article has used either expression at varying times.
@Double sharp: Since you expressed a preference for three types of nonmetals, does "four types of nonmetallic elements" works for you?
BTW YBG are there any other remaining concerns you have about the article? Sandbh (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Does either of these work: four types of nonmetallic elements or else four types of elements? YBG (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I do not agree with "four types of nonmetallic elements". That outright implies that metalloids are nonmetallic. They are so in some salient chemical properties, but (noting Friend) so are some early transition metals like Mo and W (whose oxides are glass formers, like those of metalloids), and no one would call molybdenum a "nonmetallic element" without a lot of context. And in various other properties, metalloids cluster better with metals. Their thermal conductivity tends to be within the range of metals, and their electronegativity and ionisation energy ranges completely overlap those of metals. And as you already agreed, you could not find a majority of chemists who consider metalloids to be outright nonmetals, so it stands to reason that they should not be emphasised to a greater extent than polonium in metalloid (where you equally well cannot find a majority considering it a metalloid). I would be a lot more comfortable with putting the metalloids as something apart, included for comparison as some of their properties are nonmetallic, but others are not. (Chemically weak metals with a tendency towards amphoterism or worse, like Pb or Mo, may equally well be mentioned briefly.) Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp. Is a bare four types of elements acceptable? The bullet list itself says metalloids are sometimes instead considered a third category distinct from metals and nonmetals. If that is not strong enough, perhaps we should change “sometimes” to “often”?
Note: the question being addressed in this section is primarily the text of the lead-in to the bullet list. I am trying to avoid the clumsiness of saying “three or four” to introduce a list of four items. YBG (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp and YBG: I've boldly changed the topic sentence to refer to three types of nonmetals; and added a sentence between the unclassified nonmetals and metalloid nonmetals that says, "A fourth set of elements are sometimes recognised as nonmetals:". Double sharp, this achieves the "metalloids as something apart" that you said you would be a lot more comfortable with. Does this now work? Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant solution! This allowed me to boldly simplify the lead-in sentence. Unless there is an unexpected objection, I think we can regard this topic as resolved. YBG (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh and YBG: I agree: this is an excellent solution that resolves the matter. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: Far out! Thanks for your high praise. I'm suitably chuffed! Good going all! --- Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

resolved Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List article ledes often include a clear statement of the scope of the list, that is, the inclusion criteria. This is not a list article, but it seems it might benefit from a clear scope statement early in the article. This should at minimum include the exclusion of astatine because its bulk properties are not well attested and inclusion of the metalloids for comparative purposes. Another possible addition would be explaining the use of “nonmetal” vs “nonmetallic element” if we decide to use these terms consistently. I’ve thought a bit about where to put this, and it seems there are three good choices: (1) as the last sentence of the first paragraph (2) as a new paragraph inserted between the first and second (3) as a new paragraph at the end of the top section. There are certainly other choices too. I don’t feel strongly about the location except that the earlier the better and that it should be in the top section. As it currently stands, the scope dt at statement comes much later. Thoughts anyone? YBG (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could largely be accommodated by showing the start of the article as follows (bold = new):
This article is about a class of up to two dozen or so nonmetallic chemical elements. For the use of the term nonmetal in astronomy, see nonmetal (astrophysics). For nonmetallic substances, see materials science.
A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks metallic properties. Seventeen elements are generally considered nonmetals, though some authors recognize more or fewer depending on the properties considered most representative of metallic or nonmetallic character. Elements on the borderline, which are sometimes instead referred to as metalloids, further complicate the situation. They are included for comparative purposes, given their predominately nonmetallic[footnote] chemistry.
Footnote: The term "nonmetallic" generally encompasses nonmetals and metalloids; "nonmetal" generally excludes metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: --- Sandbh (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions
  • Hat note: Can we avoid saying both up to and or so? Maybe just up to NNN or else about MMM to NNN?
  • Last sentence para 1: Complicating the situation, the borderline metalloids are sometimes considered a category separate from metals and nonmetals.
  • New para 1.5: This article includes metalloids for comparative purposes, given their predominately nonmetallic chemistry. The term "nonmetallic" is used to include both nonmetals and metalloids; "nonmetal" excludes metalloids. Astatine is only mentioned briefly due to uncertainty over its bulk properties.
Thoughts? YBG (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea: using "nonmetal" to exclude the metalloids, and using "non-metallic" with a hyphen to include them. YBG (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Hat note. We have to say "up to" since we are talking about a range of around 17 to 23 elements. The "two dozen or so" is way of saying 23 is about two dozen. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind the current hat note “two dozen or so”; I’m also ok with “up to two dozen”or even “17 to 23” (if those are the right numbers). All I was objecting to was saying both “up to” and also “or so” as your proposal just above suggests. YBG (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence para 1: I've changed this to read: "Complicating the situation are elements for which it becomes harder to decide whether metallic or nonmetallic properties are more pronounced." --- Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New para 1.5: I've incorporated this into the "Definition and applicable elements section". I've included "generally" provisos. The suggestion. "The term 'nonmetallic is used to include both nonmetals and metalloids; 'nonmetal' excludes metalloids" is too precise for chemistry, which has all sorts of fuzzy definitions. Astatine has already been mentioned in the caption to the lede image. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is too precise for chemistry, I am only suggesting that we make a conscious editorial decision for this article to decide whether each statement is meant to include the metalloids or not and consistently use terms within this article. YBG (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've trimmed the footnote about the terms metallic and nonmetallic. Since the hatnote at the top of the article refers to around two dozen nonmetals, metalloids are included in the scope of the article, either for comparitive purposes or when they are sometimes counted as nonmetals rather than metalloids or when the metalloids are counted as a kind of nonmetal. Usage of the terms metal, nonmetal, metallic or nonmetallic is then a question of which sounds or reads better in the passage in question. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a wp:hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for, not to define the scope of the article itself. YBG (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have simplified the 1st paragraph so it now ends with a simple statement of scope. YBG (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I've further streamlined the 1st paragraph. Self-evidently, there cannot be an "exact" number of nonmetals. I submit that it is not a good idea to refer to metalloids at this point given the article is about nonmetals, and metalloids have not even been defined yet.

Here's how it reads now plus the two preceding versions:

Current: A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks distinctive metallic properties. There are up to about two dozen nonmetals, with the count varying due to some borderline cases.
Preceding: A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks metallic properties. The exact number depends on the defining properties used and on whether metalloids are included. This article covers 23 elements: the 17 generally considered nonmetals and the 6 most commonly recognized as metalloids.
Antepreceding: A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks metallic properties. Seventeen elements are generally considered nonmetals, though some authors recognize more or fewer depending on the properties considered most representative of metallic or nonmetallic character. Complicating the situation are elements for which it becomes harder to decide whether metallic or nonmetallic properties are more pronounced.

--- Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you objected the scope statement due to its length, I shortened it in hopes it meets with your approval:

A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks distinctive metallic properties. Although definitions vary, this article covers 23 elements, including the most commonly recognized metalloids.

I think an explicit scope statement early on is very important, but it should be coupled with an acknowledgment that it is not universally accepted. YBG (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I wasn't so fussed about paragraph length. The shortened version defines the subject matter in the 1st sentence, which is as it should be. There are some difficulties with the 2nd sentence:
  1. In mentioning that "definitions vary", it contradicts the 1st sentence.
  2. Bearing in mind the general reader, it's not a good idea to introduce a new term into the opening paragraph, i.e. "metalloids".
  3. The elements most commonly recognized as metalloids are not always recognised as such. B and Si may instead be counted as nonmetals; any of Ge, As, and Sb as either metals or nonmetals; and Te as a nonmetal. It becomes too hard to capture such nuances in the scope statement.
  4. "23" implies a level of precision not found in the literature.
For these reasons I've changed the scope statement back to the version that says:
A nonmetal is a chemical element that mostly lacks distinctive metallic properties. There are up to about two dozen nonmetals, with the count varying due to some borderline cases.
I feel that mentioning "borderline" cases nicely gels with the notions of "up to about", and the varying count. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh Replying to your points:
  1. In “definitions vary” I summarize previous versions of this paragraph AND § Definition and applicable elements. Perhaps if modified by “precise” it would be acceptable?
  2. Yes, the general reader may not understand ‘metalloid’, but the specialist should be told up front whether they are included. Maybe “borderline metalloids”?
  3. I will keep this in mind.
  4. “23” is intended to imply precision, not of the literature, but of this article. This article covers exactly 23 elements, no more and no less
YBG (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t think of any way to improve on the two scoping sentences that now appear in the first paragraph:

Seventeen elements are widely recognized as nonmetals. This article also covers six borderline elements ("metalloids"), some or all of which are sometimes considered nonmetals.

———YBG (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, I think issues in this section are resolved now. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Density and electronegativity chart[edit]

Resolved --- Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. With 7-color PT
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V
Al, Ga
Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po
2. With 7-color PT
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
    Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V
Al, Ga
Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po
3. With 4-color PT
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
    Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V
Al, Ga
    Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po
4. With 4-color PT
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
    Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V
Al, Ga
    Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po
5. With 4-color PT
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
    Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V, Al, Ga
    Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po
6. With 4-color PT
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V, Al, Ga
Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po
7. With 4-color PT
Electronegativity < 1.9 and Density < 7 gm/cm3 Electronegativity ≥ 1.9 and Density < 7 gm/cm3
Electronegativity < 1.9 and Density > 7 gm/cm3 Electronegativity ≥ 1.9 and Density > 7 gm/cm3

(I've removed my previous confusing comment and replaced it with this, as a picture is worth 1,000 words)

I've added a periodic table to illustrate the four quadrants of the electronegativity/density distribution. I did this mostly because the long lists of metals are pretty unintelligible to me, even though I can translate the symbols into element names fairly easily. Seeing them in the PT allows me to see things in context.

There are basically two ways to present the PT:

  • 4-colors, one color for each quadrant
  • 7-colors, with blue/yellow/white/red for the NG/HN/ON/Md like elsewhere in this article.

For each, there are several options for how the 4 quadrants could be formatted, shown in the accompanying table. The two forms of the PT can be viewed here:

I recognize that whatever form is chosen, the color scheme must be re-thought. And I am not tied to having a PT; if you think it is too much clutter, reverting the whole thing is fine with me. YBG (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd rather At and Fr be uncoloured like all other elements not seen in bulk (Fm onwards). Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Good point. I’ll fix it here and in the article.
Do you have any thoughts about whether to include the periodic table, and if so, how many colors it should use and which form of the four quadrants is best? YBG (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Something like this may be easier on the eyes:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪Sandbh‬ (talkcontribs) 05:10, 26 January 2024
 (UTC)

8. Metals and nonmetals by density and electronegativity
Density Electronegativity (revised Pauling scale)
< 1.9 ≥ 1.9
< 7
gm/cm3
Groups 1 and 2
Sc, Y, La
Ce, Pr, Eu, Yb
Ti, Zr, V
Al, Ga
Noble gases: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
Halogen nonmetals: F, Cl, Br, I
Unclassified nonmetals: H, C, N, P, O, S, Se
Metalloids: B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te
> 7
gm/cm3
Nd, Pm, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy
Ho, Er, Tm, Lu; Ac–Es
Hf, Nb, Ta; Cr, Mn, Fe, Co,
Zn, Cd, In, Tl, Pb
Ni, Mo, W, Tc, Re
Platinum group metals
Coinage metals
Hg, Sn, Bi, Po, At
H He
Li Be B C N O F Ne
Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
Cs Ba 1 asterisk Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
Fr Ra 1 asterisk
                                                                                                                                               
1 asterisk La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb
1 asterisk Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es
I’m all for being easier on the eyes, but I don't think greyscale is sufficient to distinguish the four different classes; it certainly cannot express the two-dimensionality of the quadrants. If we ditch blue-yellow-white-pink, then I’d use blue/red for electropositive / electronegative, and lighter/darker for lighter/denser. YBG (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking this through, I think I’ve decided in favor of a blue/pink 4 color scheme, which leaves me with options 5, 6, and 7. YBG (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out this colorbrewer scheme. What would you think about the two lightest reds and the two lightest blues?</nowiki> YBG (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Blue is ordinarily associated with metals; red with nonmetallic elements. So red and blue won't do.
Is the updated image, with the nonmetallic elements "exploded off", better? --- Sandbh (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your two points:
  1. I was going for blue:red :: positive:negative. I get that blue can be associated with metals, but I’ve never ever heard about red being associated with nonmetals.
  2. ”Exploding” the PT clearly distinguishes the NM, but provides no way for a legend to indicate which part of the PT goes with which quadrant.
I am not tied to red and blue; although it us significantly better than the hideous colors I have now, there are lots of other choices.
Whatever color scheme is used, I maintain that it should be a two dimensional one, with lighter shades for the less dense upper quadrants and darker shades for the denser lower two quadrants, and similar hues for the two less electronegative left quadrants, and similar hues for the two more electronegative right quadrants. YBG (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Building on your code, I've boldly replaced the table with table 8 as I feel it has the right balance of grey's and colours. Fell free to revert or adjust. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a two dimensional color scheme would work best. It keeps the focus on these two properties, electronegativity and density. YBG (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the variegated nonmetal colors aren’t necessary and to some extent distract from the main point of this table: showing that metals fill up 3 of the 4 quadrants of this 2-dimensional property space, and the nonmetals as a whole fill the last, upper right quadrant.
If you don’t like the red-blue color scheme from color brewer, please pick one of the other diverging color schemes that suits your fancy. Let me know. YBG (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've reconsidered the RB colour scheme. Upon reflection it will be OK to colour the higher EN metals red, as this denotes more nonmetallic character. I've implemented the scheme in the main article. How does it look to you? Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very nice. Another question: with the PT, is it necessary to have the lists of elements in the quadrants? What we have is like my option (6) (except for having decent colors); should we change it to option (7)? In other words, are the lists of element symbols in the quadrant helpful or useful? YBG (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh? YBG (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No. Top idea. Have gone ahead and implemented. Feel free to adjust. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: More issues have cropped up with the legend.

  1. The legend no longer has any indication that one quadrant has only nonmetallic elements and the other three have only metallic elements. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Done. Added a note underneath the legend. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is an unsightly line between the upper right and lower right quadrants. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The density and electronegativity labels have unnecessary line breaks. This makes the legend narrower, but leaves the whole chart taller but just as wide. The chart is wide enough to accommodate the density and EN labels without newlines. YBG (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN: <1.9 ≥1.9 (revised Pauling electronegativity):
Density (gm/cm3):  <7    All nonmetallic elements: EN≥1.9 and density<7
       All metals: EN<1.9 or density≥7 or both
≥7

@Sandbh:: There are still problems. I propose this legend with these advantages

  1. Less vertical space (Reduced from 5 to 3 lines.)
  2. Wider legend (Still fits within the table.)
  3. Density properly aligned vertically (Added invisible subscript.)
  4. Clear metal/nonmetal separation (Added detail to note. Varied width of cell borders.)
  5. Note focused on content (Added values and removed unnecessary term 'quadrant'.)
  6. Col headers clearly separate from adjacent text (Removed space after </≥ which was almost the same as space around headers.)
  7. Quadrant rows/cols clearly defined (Removed dividing line clutter by changing from {{legend inline}} to full-cell coloring.)
  8. Consistent formatting (Bolded property names; italicized units of measure.)

Throughts? YBG (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson’s NM characteristics[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we eliminate the table in favor of expanding the numbered list with sub points?

  1. Under (1) comes three lists (a) gases (b) other insulators (c) semiconductors
  2. Under (2) comes (a) hard and brittle and (b) soft and crumbly conductors

But then I got stuck not knowing what to put under (3)

If the table remains, it needs to be better coordinated with the numbered list.

But I prefer removing the table On wide screens, it pushes the EN/density chart down too far  :YBG (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I'm looking closely at the numbered list and its coordination with the numbered list. This will take me a little while. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've deleted Johnson's table and adjusted the main body text. Having more closey read Johnson I didn't appreciate quite how much insight he showed. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks nice. One question: the way it is worded, it isn’t clear what determines metal-ness: is it primarily the physical character (gaseousness, pliability)? Or is it conductivity and acidity if oxides? Or, put another way:
  • Are B, Si and Ge nonmetals because they are hard and brittle? Or because they are semiconductors?
  • Are C, P, S, As, Sb, Te and I nonmetals because they are soft and crumbly? Or because their oxides are acidic?
At issue here is, what is Johnson saying? Perhaps he is saying one property is determinative and the other is confirmative. One also wonders whether Johnson says a similar thing about the gases and their non-conductivity.
YBG (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Johnson's book is an intro to the descriptive chemistry of the nonmetals so he didn't provide a definition of a metal. What he did was provide a PT showing the location of metals, semimetals, and nonmetals. He then said the most obvious properties to classify an element were its physical state; appearance; and malleability and ductility. He added that for elements in the vicinity of the semimetals other properties must be considered: conductivity; crystalline structure; IE, EA and EN; and the acidity of oxides and hydroxides. What I added to the article is concerned only with what he wrote about nonmetallic elements.
  • B, Si and Ge are not metals as they are hard and brittle, and semiconductors.
  • C, P, S, As, Sb, Te and I are nonmetallic as they are soft and crumbly, and since their oxides are acidic this is "indicative" (the term used by Johnson) of nonmetallic character.
--- Sandbh (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interestingly circular way of looking at it, with IE, EN, and acidity only mattering once the semimetals are nearby. Except that the supposedly defining criteria (physical state, appearance, and malleability/ductility) could never define semimetals by themselves, noting just how many brittle metals there are, and how metalloids tend to resemble metals in appearance. We are left with another definition that at face value agrees with Friend's point: W is brittle, has an acidic oxide, and has a very high EN, and by this kind of logic has a more nonmetallic chemistry than Te (lower in EN and in oxide acidity).
In any case, I rather think this, Friend, and the EN table suggests that some mention ought to be made of the chemically weak very electronegative metals in the d and p blocks, that are well-known to have very nonmetal-like behaviour, e.g. Sn, W, Hg, Bi. They seem about equally relevant as metalloids, which are also not generally considered nonmetals proper, though they are recognised to have nonmetal-like properties. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Yes, I thought what Johnson wrote was interesting enough to be worthy of a summary paragraph.
I've added some words about e.g. W and Au as examples of metals with nonmetal-like behaviour, to the end of the Property overlaps subsection. They provide a nice complement to nonmetals showing metal-like behaviour. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently tungsten oxides are soluable in concentrated hydrofluoric acid. The dissolution reaction presumably involves protonation of the oxide with formation of soluble tungsten fluoride complexes. I'll remove reference to the oxides and maybe say something about W's anionic aqueous chemistry. --- Sandbh (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems much more likely to me that WO3 simply gets partially fluorinated by reaction with HF, like how UO3 reacts with HF to form UO2F2.
It's fairly obvious that W oxides are predominantly acidic in their properties. Here's a source even explicitly calling it one of the most acidic transition metal oxides. Even if the reaction with HF is really an acid-base reaction (which seems unlikely), don't call N2O5 amphoteric just because nitronium salts exist. Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This site suggests WO3 + 4HF → H2[WO2F4] + H2O. That seems plausible given the existence of Na2[WO2F4]. It seems to be both a fluorination reaction and an acid-base reaction given the formation of H2O, which I understand is a typical feature of acid-base reactions. Sandbh (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxides[edit]

resolved Sandbh (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is clear from the note that while metal oxides are mostly basic, some are acidic or amphoteric.

But what about nonmetal (or metalloid) oxides? Are any basic? Are any amphoteric? Or are they ALL acidic? YBG (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted at least in the lede: "While oxides of metals tend to be basic, those of nonmetals tend to be acidic"; and in the chemical properties section: "Nonmetals have relatively high values of electronegativity, and their oxides are therefore usually acidic." The Comparison of selected properties table notes that metalloid oxides are amphoteric or weakly acidic. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
H2O is clearly amphoteric. GeO, Sb2O3, and I2O are probably best considered amphoteric as well, even under a more restricted definition that would call As2O3 acidic, since for example hypoiodous acid is so weak and can reasonably end up protonated in aqueous solution.
In fact, there is a pattern to metal oxide acidity: they tend to become more acidic as the metal gets more electronegative and its oxidation state rises. So, for example CrO is basic, Cr2O3 is amphoteric, and CrO3 is acidic. In oxidation state +2, amphotericity is pretty unusual and only seen for quite weak metals (BeO, ZnO, SnO, PbO); in oxidation state +4, you have to go to the largest and most electropositive +4 cations of all (early actinoids) to get basic oxides, e.g. ThO2 and UO2. +3 is more of a mixed bag, and states +5 and above essentially cannot be basic (unless you want to give a sympathetic pass to Pa2O5, perhaps). Some heavy transition metals don't have any clearly basic oxides at all for this reason, e.g. Ir with only IrO2. This is the same as the pattern noted in the article for nonmetals, only stated the other way: H is the prime example of a nonmetal with only an amphoteric oxide because the only available charge (+1) is just too small and the nonmetal just isn't that electronegative (whereas Cl2O is clearly acidic). So perhaps the extended version of the pattern merits a footnote. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed the end of the 1st paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements to read When combined with oxygen, nonmetals never form basic oxides, but metals usually do. I trust that is acceptable to everyone. YBG (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG and Double sharp: Ce'd to now read:
"When combined with oxygen, nonmetals do not form basic oxides (while metals usually do).[4]"
PS. Hydrogen peroxide is weakly acidic.
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wording is fine with me.
Peroxides and superoxides are different cases; then you're changing the anion. Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The oxide article opens with, "An oxide (/ˈɒksaɪd/) is a chemical compound containing at least one oxygen atom and one other element[1]. On that basis, a peroxide is an oxide.
Tangentially, I recall Mendeleev initially locating H over Cu-Ag-Au supposedly on the basis that all four form peroxides. In the event, H does; Cu does; Ag forms silver(II) oxide (AgO), or silver peroxide, which is actually a mixed oxidation state silver(I,III) oxide; Pourbaix said of gold peroxide AuO2:
3.4.2. Gold peroxide Au02
Gold peroxide appears on gold which is anodically polarized in acid and alkaline solutions. From Fig. 1 it seems to be a particularly unstable substance with a great tendency to decompose into Au203 and 02; it is a powerful oxidizing agent, oxidizing chlorides to chlorine, for example. It dissolves in very acid and very alkaline solutions, being reduced to the trivalent state and evolving oxygen.
Mendeleev clearly considered peroxides a different case from normal oxides in his Faraday lecture. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thanks; good to know. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve tweaked the wording at § Chemical properties of nonmetals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talkcontribs) 04:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any unresolved issues left in this section? YBG (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp? @Sandbh?
——— YBG (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I'm a bit busy at the moment. Please give me a couple of days to respond to the pings. :) Double sharp (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just had time to look at it. I agree with Sandbh; no further issues. Double sharp (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening PT excerpt[edit]

Resolved YBG (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We hashed this out before, but I’m wondering about At again. Could it be like Cn/Fl/Og with a “status unclear” legend, relegating any other info to a note? It would make the opening graphic a lot cleaner. YBG (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The same situation applies to all four: no one has ever made enough to see them in bulk, so nobody knows if they are physically metals or not, and there are reasons and sources who guess both ways. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Do you think a note is needed beyond status unclear? YBG (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Why not make the legend "status unclear, too radioactive to be seen in bulk?" That's short enough for a legend and explains the situation completely. (It wouldn't include Fr: that's indeed too radioactive to be seen in bulk, but its status is clear.) Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG and Double sharp: I've boldly updated the image to show At with a blank background, and simplified the accompanying extract. Nice idea YBG. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YBG (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H/C/N/O/Si percentages in earth’s domains[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph reads:

Five nonmetallic elements—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon—make up the overwhelming majority of the Earth's crust, atmosphere, oceans and biosphere.[n 2]

The note, based on the table in § Abundance of nonmetallic elements, says:

By weight, O/Si/H comprise 83.9% of the crust; N/O, 99% of the atmosphere; O/H, 99.4% of the hydrosphere; and O/C/H/N, 96% of the biomass.

Wouldn’t it be nicer to say:

By weight, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon comprise xx.x% of the crust, xx.x% of the atmosphere, xx.x% of the hydrosphere, and xx.x% of the biomass.

To do this, someone ( Sandbh?) needs to look up this data in the refs:

  • C/N are what % of the crust?
  • H/C/Si are what % of the atmosphere?
  • C/N/Si are what % of the oceans?
  • Si is what % of earth’s biomass?

Is it worth doing the research? Or is it just fine the way it is? YBG (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quantities of C/N in the crust (0.02% to 0.03%; 0.003% or less); H/C/Si in the atmosphere; C/N/Se in the oceans; and Si in the biomass, are negligible. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Sandbh. I nave simply use “over xx%” so the note now reads
By weight, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon make up over 83.9% of the crust, over 96% of the biomass, and over 99% of the oceans and atmosphere.
YBG (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I moved the info from a note in the lead section to the body of the article.
The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of § top now reads:
Five nonmetallic elements—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon—make up the overwhelming majority of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, biosphere, and crust.
The 2nd paragraph of § Abundance of nonmetallic elements now reads:
Five nonmetals—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and silicon—form the vast majority of the directly observable structure of the earth: about 84% of the crust, 96% of the biomass, and over 99% of the atmosphere and hydrosphere, as shown in the accompanying table.[ref]
Thoughts? YBG (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oustanding issues check[edit]

resolved —- Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG and Double sharp: Are there any remaining matters of concern? A week has otherwise passed and there have been no new additions to this page.

I have yet to do a final quality check on article prose and flow, and still need to check there are no redunant references in the list of same. I also intend to look into the feasibiity of changing the footnote tags from { {#tag:ref|...|group=n}} to { {efn|...}}.
Thanks, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I continue working through my list of issues. I think {{efn}} would be a big improvement. YBG (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
resolved YBG (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph § Classification of metalloids[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the metalloids after all? Are they the Andorra of the periodic table? Or the Alsace–Lorraine? Or the Czechoslovakia?

I have renamed this section and copy edited its 1st paragraph, pulling the first note into body text so the reader sees how impurities have complicated classification in several cases. I thought about mentioning this in the new topic sentence, but in the end decided not to.

I haven’t tackled the other paragraph, which seems to subtly emphasize two related ideas: (1) (non)metal classification should properly be based primarily on chemistry and (2) the metalloids should properly be considered nonmetals, not an in-between category.

Reading between the lines, it seems that when chemical properties are emphasized, the metalloids naturally align themselves with the nonmetal bloc, but when physical properties are emphasized, they assert their independence.

Could RS be found to support this idea? If so, could we restructure this paragraph to treat the alternates (3rd super category vs. nonmetal subcategory) more NPOV-ly?

——— YBG (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I've copyedited the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Since the presence of impurities was only an intrinsic issue for Ge, I've restored the footnote. While impurities were present in amorphous forms of B and Si, these were nevertheless allotropic forms which natually lack lustre. I trust the 2nd paragraph reads OK now. PS. For the same reason I've removed the image of the two allotropes of B. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've now added an image of Ge. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Can the boron pics be restored to § Allotropes? And while we’re at it, since it is the most common form, I’d like to restore the pic of graphite, either instead of or in addition to BFene. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues raised here have been subsumed in § Allotropes below. YBG (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pics for § Classification of metalloids[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reused the two boron pics in § Allotropes. For this section, I’d like pics contrasting the metallic appearance of pure silicon (or boron) with its nonmetallic appearance when it has impurities. I will look in commons to see if I can find anything; failing that, we can leave the boron pics here and drop them above, leaving only the graphite and diamond pics under allotropes. YBG (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is resolved with the germanium pic. YBG (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids[edit]

resolved Sandbh (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh and Double sharp: I have rephrased the 2nd paragraph (diff, result) to eliminate the subtle emphasis I perceived. Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG and Double sharp: I've copy edited the Classification of metalloids section. The old sentence, "With their metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry recognized very early[294] metalloids came to be regarded as intermediate elements" was problematic given the historical existence of graphite, selenium, and iodine, each with a metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry, and which generally did not come to be regarded as metalloids. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your change did not accurately reflect our RS, which says that metalloids have metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry. Consequently I have restored restored the mention of physical appearance to body text, trying to change the minimum amount required to accurately reflect the RS. Concerning this mixed nature (metallic appearance and nonmetallic chemistry), my previous text did not say that all elements with this mixed nature are metalloids, it merely said that metalloids (usually) have this mixed nature. Hence, graphite, selenium, and iodine do not contradict this statement. YBG (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It looks OK now that I removed the reference to a metallic appearance, but left this in the footnote. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we state “While it was known as early as the late 19th century that metalloids usually have a metallic appearance …”?? No, of course not, because by stating only half of what the RS says, we would be misrepresenting it. Likewise, it is misrepresentation to state “While it was known as early as the late 19th century that metalloids usually have a nonmetallic chemistry …”. To accurately reflect this RS, we must accurately state both sides of what it says.
To leave one side out makes it seem like cherry-picking. Please restore the physical side. YBG (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh ——— YBG (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Most of the citations in the article would then represent cherry-picking, since each citation is selectively chosen to support whatever statement is being made, regardess of what the rest of the book or journal article etc says. With regard to the metalloids, the fact of their metallic appearance is stated earlier in the article. There is no need to repeat this observation, in the context of subsequent develpments. That is to say, they came to be regarded (by some authors e.g. Pauling) as intermediate elements never mind their nonmetallic chemistry. This is the salient point and avoides redundancy. I am not dismissive of their physical properties since these are again mentioned in the footnote at the end of the first sentence. I feel this approach strikes an appropriate balance in text-source integrity. Sandbh (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RS, IMO, strikes a balance by mentioning both. By only mentioning one side in the 189x source, it sounds like you are disparaging Pauling and others, when in fact, thus source demonstrates that they are in a long line going back to the 1890s of scientists who recognized the mixed, in-between nature of metalloids. That you disagree personally with this POV makes it all the more incumbent to mention both. You find the nonmetallic chemistry aspect "intriguing"; I find the early mention of the mixed nature "intriguing". And I think my approach is truer to what this RS is saying. I cannot fathom your unwillingness to let WP accurately portray what this RS says. YBG (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: WP guidelines on NPOV instruct us inter alia to represent content "proportionately." The historical fact in question is that from as early as the late 19th century, metalloids were recognized for their nonmetallic chemical behavior, yet they became popularly regarded as intermediate elements. This transition in perception is the central theme of the paragraph and is well-supported by the subsequent content.
The mention of a metallic appearance, while pertinent, is not omitted but rather is placed in context. It was not the defining criterion for classification as a metalloid, evidenced by the fact that elements such as graphitic carbon, grey selenium, and iodine—despite their metallic appearance—were not classified as metalloids. This underscores that the historical classification of metalloids hinged more prominently on chemical properties rather than physical appearance.
The extracts from Newth and Friend were included to enrich the narrative with then contemporary scientific thought, not to overlook the role of physical appearance. Regarding the concern that the article may not fully portray what the reliable source (RS) says, it is worth noting that selective citation is a common practice on WP to support specific points without overloading the reader with information. The full content of the RS, including the reference to metallic appearance, is visible and accessible via the citation link, which readers can explore for more in-depth information.
Thus, the paragraph in question does accurately and proportionately represent what the RS says, in line with Wikipedia's content policy. The reader has already been informed about the metallic appearance of metalloids earlier in the article, making it unnecessary to reiterate this detail in the current context. Our aim is to inform the reader without redundancy, ensuring each point made is relevant to the specific aspect of the topic being discussed. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding metalloids representing an intermediate between metals and nonmetals, our sources show that Pauling popularized in the 1940s an idea already present in the 1890s. These sources show continuity, not contrast. YBG (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The aim of the section is to capture the historical development of the concept of metalloids, reflecting a nuanced evolution rather than a stark contrast. The recognition  of their nonmetallic chemistry (1894; 1914) isn't necessarily at odds with their later sometimes classification as intermediate elements; instead, it marks the start of a slow and gradual transition in the use and meaning of the term metalloid which, before then, had been what nonmetals were called.
By 1926, Webster's New International Dictionary noted that use of the term metalloid to refer to nonmetals was [still] the norm. Its application to elements resembling the typical metals in some way only, such as arsenic, antimony and tellurium, was recorded merely on a "sometimes" basis.
Use of the term metalloid subsequently underwent a period of great flux up to 1940. Consensus as to its sometimes application to intermediate or borderline elements did nae occur until the ensuing years, between 1940 and 1960.
This shift wasn't a reversal of the earlier understanding but a (badly) attempted clarification that took into account additional properties, such as semiconducting behavior. I say badly given the previous historical practice of calling what we now call "nonmetals" as "metalloids" i.e. there were only metals and metalloids.
Pauling's work in the mid-20th century didn't introduce a contrast but rather highlighted this transition. He mentioned the elements he regarded as metalloids which (in some senses) were becoming increasingly relevant in the context of emerging technologies and scientific theories.
The current text doesn't suggest a contrast but portrays the historical trajectory of the interpretation of metalloids—from initially noting their nonmetallic chemistry to a sometimes broader view of them as intermediate elements. This transition reflects a progressive evolution of terminological practice rather than a contradictory viewpoint.
I have however changed the 2nd paragraph from "more populary regarded" to "more or less popularly regarded". Including "more or less" subtly acknowledges that while the trend towards recognizing metalloids as intermediate elements gained popularity, this consensus was not absolute and there were variations in how different authors approached the classification of these elements. The article mentions this earlier in the Types section, penultimate paragraph. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, that you are trying to show the gradual development. This is not the impression this paragraph gives me as currently written. Restoring the wording I had about nonmetallic appearance imo would enhance this.
As to "more or less" this is imo worse than before, being wordier and having the appearance of weasel words.
The changing sense of the term "metalloid" did not seem to be in focus at all.
YBG (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The impression of the subsection is given by the two topic sentences namely:
1. “Boron and silicon were recognized early on as nonmetals but arsenic, antimony, tellurium, and germanium have a more complicated history.”; and
2. “While it was known from as early as the late 19th century that metalloids usually have a nonmetallic chemistry they came to be more or less populary regarded as intermediate elements.”
The remainder of each paragraph elaborates the topic sentence.
The transition is from 1 to 2.
”More or less” is historically more accurate. Pauling’s work, by its popularity, popularised the concept of metalloids, helped by concurrent developments in physics and technology. However, the concept of metalloids as intermediate elements was by no means universally accepted, as explained earlier in the article:
”The greatest discrepancy between authors occurs in metalloid "frontier territory". Some consider metalloids distinct from both metals and nonmetals, while others classify them as nonmetals. Some categorize certain metalloids as metals (e.g., arsenic and antimony due to their similarities to heavy metals). Metalloids resemble the elements universally considered "nonmetals" in having relatively low densities, high electronegativity, and similar chemical behavior.”
On the non-inclusion of metallic appearance I explained this earlier:
“The mention of a metallic appearance, while pertinent, is not omitted but rather is placed in context. It was not the defining criterion for classification as a metalloid, evidenced by the fact that elements such as graphitic carbon, grey selenium, and iodine—despite their metallic appearance—were not classified as metalloids. This underscores that the historical classification of metalloids hinged more prominently on chemical properties rather than physical appearance.”
Sandbh (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic sentence of the second paragraph gives me the impression of a discontinuity between its 1st and 2nd halves, that in the 1890s this handful of elements was considered distinct from metals but associated with nonmetals, but later, due to Pauling’s influence, as a 3rd category distinct from both. It sounds like Pauling disregarded or rejected something that was known and accepted from the 1890s. I’m sure you don’t intend to give that impression. Reiterating their mixed nature in the first half of this sentence effectively eliminates this impression, showing Pauling’s book as crystalizing or popularizing concepts that had been brewing for decades. YBG (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The first topic sentence notes that B and Si were recognised early on as nonmetals, and that the situation for As, Sb, Te, and Ge was more complicated. It was during the late 19th century that the idea of an intermediate type of elements was born, but the term metalloid was still being used in diverse ways. From 1920 to 1940 the situation was in great flux. It only really more or less sorted itself out due to the influence of Pauling and the happy coincidence of the development of band theory and the emergence of semiconductors. That, and the appreciation of Ge's status as a semiconductor rather than a metal. I've lost track of how many times I've said this: metallic appearance was not a criterion; here it is again:
“The mention of a metallic appearance, while pertinent, is not omitted but rather is placed in context. It was not the defining criterion for classification as a metalloid, evidenced by the fact that elements such as graphitic carbon, grey selenium, and iodine—despite their metallic appearance—were not classified as metalloids. This underscores that the historical classification of metalloids hinged more prominently on chemical properties rather than physical appearance.”
I suspect the reason was due to a combination of their amphoteric character; location in the periodic table next to metals like Al, Ga and Sn; and the semiconducting status of B, Si, Ge and Te. That, and Pauling's observation about their EN being close to 2, in the middle of his scale. Sandbh (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS an appreciation of metalloids would have become easier once Deming’s periodic table appeared in 1923, and became popular thereafter to the point of displacing the 8-column form. The p-block is quite hard to discern in the latter. —- Sandbh (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for rephrasing it so the text no longer sets out a contrast between Pauling and earlier authors. YBG (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is meant by the notion of these elements as metalloids? Are you speaking primarily about the idea that "metalloid" is a significant category of elements? Or that these particular elements make up the set of metalloids? Or perhaps something else entirely? YBG (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Yes, thanks for your continuing line of question, which eventually drew a good dividend. The two topic sentences are, "Boron and silicon were recognized early on as nonmetals but arsenic, antimony, tellurium, and germanium have a more complicated history." and "The more or less popular notion of these elements as metalloids coalesced during the period 1940 to 1960." So I’m writing about your second option. The peculiar status of metalloids is earlier elaborated in the opening paragraphs of the Types section. — Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that wasn’t clear from the text. I’ll try to make it more obvious. YBG (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ve changed it
from The more or less popular notion of these elements as metalloids coalesced during the period 1940 to 1960.
to The identification of these elements as metalloids was solidified during the mid 20th century.
Commemts
  • I considered "identity" but settled on "identification" as is seemed less POV
  • I said "solidified" but "popularized" or "coalesced" might be more appropriate; change it if you prefer.
  • I said "mid 20th century" instead of "40s to 60s" because the paragraph continues to the 80s. There might be a better way to phrase the time frame.
YBG (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I changed the topic sentence to, "It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements came to be more or less commonly recognized as metalloids.” as that is more consistent with the citation. — Sandbh (talk) Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1st suggestion:
Change: It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements …
to this: Beginning in the 1940s, these elements …
Reasoning: This is shorter, has no difference in meaning (that I can discern) and avoids the complexity of a negative statement.
Thoughts on 1st suggestion? YBG (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2nd suggestion:
Change … these elements came to be more or less commonly recognized as metalloids.
to this: … these elements came to be commonly recognized as metalloids.
Reasoning: "Commonly" is already a fuzzy term that doesn’t seem to need the extra fuzziness provided by "more or less"
Thoughts on 2nd suggestion? YBG (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because not all authors recognise metalloids as a distinct type, as explained in the Types section. Hence the expression "more or less" commonly. Sandbh (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: As above. — Sandbh (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly is rather much less than 100%, at least in my dialect.
what percentage would you guess? YBG (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Your dialect doesn’t matter. What matters is how the general reader reads it. As noted, including "more or less commonly” subtly acknowledges that while the trend towards recognizing metalloids as intermediate elements gained popularity this consensus wasn’t absolute and there were variations in how different authors approached the classification of these elements. The article mentions this earlier in the Types section, penultimate paragraph. Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, you're talking about recognizing metalloids as an intermediate top-level category, not about recognizing these elements as metalloids. Am I correct? YBG (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I’m talking about both. First in the sense that these six elements eventually came to be those most commonly recognised as metalloids, but they were individually by no means consistently recognised as metalloids. Indeed, some of them were instead recognised as metals or nonmetals. Second in the sense that not all authors recognised metalloids as a separate top category, unlike the 100% recognition rate of metals and nonmetals. Whiteford and Coffin (1939) were on the mark in saying that the introduction of a third category only compounded the confusion as to where metals ended, which elements were metalloids, and where nonmetals started.Sandbh (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
() @Sandbh, how about this:
From the 1940s onwards, these elements were increasingly called "metalloids" and, to a lesser extent, metalloids were considered a category separate from both metals and nonmetals.
It is longer because it explicitly calls out the two senses separately, which I think is helpful. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the existing sentence...
It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements came to be more or less commonly recognized as metalloids.
...is not reader friendly. The existing sentence says all that needs to be said; it captures the essential information concisely and effectively. Sandbh (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about
Beginning in the 1940s, these elements were increasingly recognized as metalloids.
YBG (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Changed to…
It was not until the 1940s onwards that these elements came to be increasingly recognized as metalloids, albeit not universally so.
…which is a good outcome, I feel. —Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh- Thanks. Definitely an improvement. I’ve continued this improvement as follows:
Beginning in the 1940s, these six elements were increasingly recognized as metalloids, though not universally so.
YBG (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More re 2nd paragraph § Classification of metalloids[edit]

resolved — Sandbh (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Sorry for the revert and unrevert. Somehow I’d missed seeing that you’d adopted my suggestion. The final text …

Beginning in the 1940s, these six elements were increasingly recognized as metalloids, though not universally so.

… is ok but I still think it could be improved. But if nothing occurs to me in a week or so, I’ll close this whole == section. YBG (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Refined so it now reads:
Since the 1940s, six elements have been increasingly, but not universally, recognized as metalloids.
Unless you have some major change in mind I feel this section could be closed; it can be revisited at any time. —Sandbh (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. YBG (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions & lists[edit]

resolved Sandbh (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the 2nd paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements:

  • Current text: There is no precise definition of a nonmetal;[12] any list of such is open to debate and revision.[13] Which elements are included depends on the properties regarded as most representative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[n 2]
  • Issue with current text: Many precise definitions exist.
  • Proposed text: Many ways to define "nonmetal" have been discussed; none precise enough to determine all edge cases has gained general acceptance.[both refs] The elements listed as nonmetals depend on which properties are regarded as most representative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[same note]
  • Issues with proposed text: Do existing refs support it? Where to place the refs? Is it WP:SYNTH?

Thoughts? ———YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that there is no "precise widely agreed definition". That is likely all that needs to be said. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A side question that seems interesting but probably doesn’t enter in to determining content of the article:

  • Do authors determine nonmetal lists based on their chosen definition, or do they consciously or unconsciously choose a definition based on the list desired?

——— YBG (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I suspect most authors don't have a chosen definition in mind apart from appreciating that nometals don't have predominately metallic properties. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might they have an unconscious assumption of how certain elements should be classified and evaluate particular definitions based on how it assigns those elements? YBG (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Probably most of those authors recall the limited or zero attention paid to metalloids from the textbooks they were exposed to in their youth. Probably they recalled that which elements were counted as metalloids, if at all, varied. Aside from my suggested quantitive definition in JChemEd, there is only one other quantitative textbook definition of metalloids that I know of. So, no, it’s very likely that the great majority of authors writing about metalloids flew by the seat of their pants. Either that or they parroted someone else’s work. — Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a related subject, I think you could write an interesting journal article on the various single-property definitions listed in § Suggested distinguishing criteria. The article would be essentially an annotation of a huge table with one row for each of these properties and one column for each element, with the cells colored to show whether the definition classifies the element as a metal or nonmetal. A note or a different color could indicate that the element wasn’t yet discovered at the time. YBG (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to explore those single definitions in a chapter of the book I pm’d you about. — Sandbh (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I think we can close this section. YBG (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allotropes[edit]

resolved Sandbh (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, @Double sharp: I have moved the brief mention of allotropes up earlier so that it can serve as a scoping statement describing which forms the article discusses. It also subsumes the hatnote about most stable form under ambient conditions. At the same time, I added a brief mention of hydrogen’s isotopes which seemed appropriate. I need you to verify that I listed the correct allotrope. I was not able to find information about iodine, so please add it to the list. YBG (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I feel there is now too much information up front. Allotropy is something that the general reader largely does not need to read about until later on. This is an aspect of the article that was criticised during a previous FAC round: too much detailed information too early on. Keep it simpler up front. A further unintended consequence is that the picture of shiny boron is now used twice and within close proximity. I will have a look at all of this and make some edits. Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Fair enough. I’ve restored the list of standard forms as a note within the hatnote; that way it is accessible for the interested technical reader without cluttering things for the more general reader. Some possible further changes:
  1. Move the list of standard allotropes out of the current note into the allotrope section and hyperlink it from the current note. I’m leaning to doing this.
  2. Deal appropriately with protium, either (a) leave it in the note, separate from the standard allotrope hyperlink, or (b) move protium into list of standard forms by expanding the allotrope section into alternate forms by including isotopes with significant property differences (which may just be H). I’m leaning to (b).
  3. Move this hat note to a better position. The present placement doesn’t seem like any of the standard uses of a section hatnote, but I don’t have a good alternative.
Thoughts on any of these ideas?
——— YBG (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in including isotopes. Yes, the isotopes of H and He show extreme differences that we don't see in any other elements' isotopes, but it does not affect their metallicity at standard conditions. Only at the extreme high pressures needed to metallise them do we probably see a difference (protium and deuterium should have noticeably different metallisation pressures), and these are not really relevant for the article (though I personally would like to learn more about the high-pressure situation!).
I also don't really see the point of listing all allotropes individually. What I do see the point of doing is noting up front the reason why we consider the situation at ambient conditions: that they differ in other conditions. In other words, I'd rather note very early on that the classification of an element as a metal or as a nonmetal is dependent on conditions, because physically speaking these change at high pressure. The demetallisation of Na, along with other changes in EN at high pressure, could be adduced as a brief explanation. This would help contextualise some other things in the article, like the Xe intermetallics in footnote 33 and the He and Ar compounds in footnote 59, that are dependent on high-pressure conditions. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp and YBG: The footnote in the middle of the hatnote has been relocated to the end of the hatnote. I've adjusted the listing of stable forms, including removing the isotope reference. I've added a footnote to the end of the Definitions and applicable elements section to cater for temperature and pressure variations. I believe this thread may now been addressed. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it appears to me that there is no need to say anything about isotopes.
One thing, however. I believe that "ambient conditions" should be wiki linked, but I’m not sure to what. @Sandbh, can you take care of that?
That being done, I’m ready to close this section. YBG (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I have linked ambient conditions to ambient temperature and to ambient pressure. — Sandbh (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it slightly. YBG (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s ok by you, go ahead and cot/cob this section. YBG (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article style[edit]

Should the style of this article be adopted as follows:

Paragraph construction in this article follows the topic sentence method. The first sentence of a paragraph—the topic sentence—summarises what is elaborated in the rest of the paragraph. It should be possible to follow the logical flow of the article by reading only its topic sentences.

To enforce such a style decision without raising WP:OWNership issues, this should be adopted by consensus. Editors are invited to express their opinions here. YBG (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I feel this would do:
The following note is offered as non-binding guidance on the structure of the article. It is not intended as a binding requirement for future contributions. The article was structured using the topic sentence method to enhance clarity and coherence, with each paragraph starting with a topic sentence that summarizes its main content. This approach was designed to facilitate understanding of the article's logical flow and improve readability by allowing readers to grasp the main points via these opening sentences.
Sandbh (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh Two points
  1. I would call this the 'topic-sentence-first' method, as a paragraph can have its topic sentence placed anywhere.
  2. I still think it would be good to adopt this by consensus
—— YBG (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Density & electronegativity[edit]

resolved YBG (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph of § Definition and applicable elements says Nonmetallic chemical elements generally have low density and high electronegativity. A similar sentence is prominently placed as the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of § top. In both cases it is placed before lack of shininess, poor conductivity, the character of their oxides and their brittleness and crumbliness. I reckon this order of emphasis might be somewhat startling to our target audience: the interested reader who seeks to expand his knowledge by building on what he already knows.

My question: does this emphasis reflect the literature?

If this emphasis is not the clear consensus reflecting the preponderance of the literature, I think our readers would be better served by working from what they know to what they do not. So I suggest that in both cases the paragraphs be recast by placing the sentence about density and electronegativity last or at least later in these paragraphs. YBG (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I’ve adjusted the relevant paragraphs in response to your concerns.
The literature generally mentions the lack of metallic properties seen in nonmetals i.e. lack of shininess and conductivity, and lack of ductility and malleability. More considered sources mention low density, high EN and the tendency to form acidic oxides; and exceptions such as the shiny appearance of iodine, the conductivity of graphite, and the malleability of white P. Sandbh (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks! YBG (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table of distinguishing criteria[edit]

Properties suggested as the distinguishing characteristic
between metals and nonmetals (by year of first reference)
Shading indicates physical, chemical, and atomic properties
Icon
ideas

I suggest that the three lists be combined into a single chronological list with the property types distinguished by background color and/or an icon, say, a flask for chemical, hammer for physical and an atom for atomic or electronic. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I feel it is more important to easily see the distinction between physical, chemical and atomic properties. The single chronological list would make these harder to discern. — Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I've inserted an example of the sort of thing I have in mind. I think the difference between the three types of properties is very clear, but this has the advantage of showing all three types in context. I picked the colors semi-randomly; I am not tied to them at all. I would like to improve this by including three separate icons, perhaps something like the ones shown. YBG (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I've tweaked the table to use letter codes instead of icons. YBG (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YGB: Comparing this suggestion with the current table, the latter is clear and straightforward whereas I feel that the former requires too much cognitive processing for no overall gain. — Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things that I think are important for this table to show:
  1. the distinction between physical, chemical, and atomic properties. Both forms do this well.
  2. the relative frequency: physical >> chemical ≈ atomic. Both forms do this well
  3. the relative chronological order within the three property types. Both forms do this well.
  4. the relative chronological order between the three property types. Only the new form does this well.
  5. that physical properties were proposed in early, middle, and late of the time range. Only the new form does this well.
  6. that chemical properties were proposed from early to the middle of the time range. Only the new form does this well.
  7. that atomic properties were proposed from the middle to late in the time range. Only the new form does this well.
The two forms (IMO) both do #1/2/3 well. Only the single chronology form does #4/5/6/7 well. Try as I might, the only advantage I can see for the status quo is that headings are slightly better than legends at labeling the three types of properties. So overall, it seems to me that the single-chronology form is significantly better.
-- YBG (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The purpose of the table is the foremost consideration. This is to show the physical, chemical or atomic properties historically suggested as a way of distinguishing metals from nonmetals. The current table does this well, with a minimum of clutter. Additionally, #4 to #7 are easily discernible. The extra visual clutter associated with the proposed table clouds the purpose of the current table. — Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh I think #4/5/6/7 cannot be discerned without looking back and forth a couple of times.
Does it appear less cluttered to you now?
YBG (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Thank you. Since most of the properties are physical only, only the expections need to be marked, and this does not require the use of colour. I've instead used the albemic ⚗ motif for chemical; and the atomic symbol ⚛ emoji for atomic properties, and boldly made it so. I hope you like it. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
() @Sandbh:: Thank you, this looks very nice. I particularly like the use of icons: (1) they improve accessibility over just using color; (2) the bold purple of the atomic symbol is great; (3) omitting the icon for physical properties reduces clutter. YBG (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve listed some ideas here:
  1. Eliminate the jaggedness most apparent in 1811-1927 and 1986-1999 by restoring {{mono}}. My skin/browser uses a font with all digits of equal spacing except for a narrower "1"; others might have even worse jaggedness if the other digits differ in width. I think {{mono}} is the only way to ensure this works for all readers. You might not see this if your browser font has all digits the same width. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Separate all 3 red-link explanations from the references. You can look at old versions of the article to see what I did there which was not reflected on the talk page which you used as your starting point. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: There are four red links. I don't understand what you mean. Each redlink is accompanied by an explantion. Looking at older versions of the article didn't show anything different. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: Of the four red links, one of them correctly separated the citation in ref and explanation in an efn. Three of them had both citation and explanation in the ref. I have separated all of them now. YBG (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Try to find a better chemical icon. The current one has two issues IMO: (1) even at high magnification I can’t tell what it is meant to be; and (2) it doesn’t stick out boldly so nicely as the purple atomic icon. Using a background color with a mostly transparent icon might go a long way to rectifying this. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Done. Replaced both icons with typographical synbols. Sandbh (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh. I’ve restored the colors and put the icons before the year. Alas, in the process I accidentally undid two of your edits. Could you redo them please? Thanks! YBG (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The G-H metalizarían criterion has an unsightly link underline in the hanging indent white space that did not exist in the talk page version. I’m not sure why. This might be browser dependent, I see it in the article but not the TP using the same browser, so there is some difference I don’t understand. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has disappeared YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Done. Showed on my browser. Now fixed. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The icon placement at the end makes it harder to notice the difference between the property types. I see several ways to rectify this:
    1. put the icons before the year. This would require ensuring that the icons are the same width and using an equal width of white space for physical properties. The extra white space might be a feature or a bug; I’m not certain.
    2. add background color to the year that matches the atomic or chemical icon. The two indicators would thus bracket the property description.
    3. put the icons before the year AND color the year. This might be too much.
    4. put the icons after the year with no white space for physical properties. I think this would be somewhat unsightly.
    5. put the icons after the year AND color the year. Offhand, this seems like the least likely to be visually pleasing.
    I think any of these would be better than what we have now. If you like any of 1/2/3 that works for me. If you choose 4 or 5, I’d want to see it before passing judgment. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Done. I trimmed the table title and incorporated the legend into it. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve moved the typographic "icon" marks to before the year and added color to make them more visible. They had almost disappeared before. YBG (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Still looked too cluttered. I've removed the icon "marks" and used underline or italics. The title has been streamlined. There's now no need to refer to the entries being listed by year. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh. I don’t see this listed as one of the uses under MOS:ITALIC. If I as a sighted individual find this hard to comprehend, I suspect it would be even worse for those using screen readers. I suspect that the bulk of the problems were caused by the cyan and pink colors, which I chose because they had only four letters. Please restore the left-justified °/^/nbsp and try to find some nicer colors. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: I've dispensed with all the clutter and replaced the double table with a single table of four columns for year, property, type, and cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: I was skeptical when I read your talk post … but in the article is a thing of beauty. I’ve made a couple of small tweaks. What would you think of moving the non-cite efn notes into the property column? That seems a better place for explanations. YBG (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Thanks. Good suggestion about moving the efn notes. Done. --- Sandbh (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Check the double-year entries for 1956, 1977, 1999, and 2017 to make sure they are in the best order. (This is a real nit, feel free to completely ignore it.) YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: NFA. Double entries are alphabetic by author, or alphabetic by title if the author is the same in both cases. Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta YBG (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do something about the 1811 entry. Maybe add a note explaining that this criterion requires that all three properties be met, possibly adding that all others are single property criteria- unless you add other multiple property criteria. Or maybe drop it from the list (but I don’t think this would be good.) YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Done. I've replaced the 1811 entry with an earlier version from 1803. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh, I’m fine with adding the 1803 entry, but I don’t understand why you removed the 1811 one. YBG (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: The 1811 ed. was the 2nd ed. of the work, which first appeared in 1802. The 1802 ed. is not online however the 1803 US edition is. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: The now-deleted 1811 entry said Fusibility, malleability, and ductility. The new 1803 entry says Density and electrical conductivity. Is there a reason why you chose not to include both combinations? YBG (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: I believe this is now the only remaining issue in this section. YBG (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ensure accessibility of icons for screen readers. Perhaps add {{abbr||Atomic property}} like YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: NFA given #3. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve signed each item individually to facilitate threaded responses. YBG (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
talk­refs

More re Table of distinguishing criteria[edit]

(section header added because I started this comment in the wrong section. YBG (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)) (section changed from == to === and moved into appropriate == section YBG (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  1. Are fusibility, ductility, and malleability one or three properties? YBG (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Three separate properties. — Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh, Should they then be on three separate lines? YBG (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: No. The "and" in “fusibility, ductility, and malleability” denotes this source suggested three properties concurrently. So a metal is distinguished by being fusible, ductile and malleable, else it’s not a metal. —Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: So it’s a good thing I changed the title so it no longer says "some single properties…". YBG (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Indeed. I was looking for the "singular" unaware that it’d been removed, conveniently so. Sandbh (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: Should the table have an entry for density and electronegativity? YBG (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: No, because: (1) aside from the 1811 first entry, all such suggestions have been based on single criteria; and (2) AFAIK nobody has ever suggested distinguishing metals from nonmetals using quantitative density and EN criteria. In any event, the table can always easily be updated. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vast/Overwhelming majority[edit]

Marked as resolved by Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh, I think the article was better before you removed "vast" and "overwhelming".

The revised lead gives the reader no clue of the superlative nature here - it could just as easily be a bare 51%. I think it would be better to express this superlative in both places, but especially in the lead. YBG (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: I removed the first term per WP:PUFFERY. It could go back in if it has a cite. The second term is redundant given the figures provided. — Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, I’m not sure WP:PUFFERY applies; nevertheless I think we can do better than the current or previous text. How’s this:
lead: Four nonmetals—hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—make up almost all of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere.
body: Three nonmetals—hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen—form almost all of earth's atmosphere (99.4% by weight) and hydrosphere (99%) and, with carbon, its biomass (96%). These plus silicon make up 84% of the more diverse crust.
By removing silicon and the crust, we can safely say "almost all" which is even more superlative but without sounding like puffery. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I’ve changed "majority" to "bulk" in both cases as it is shorter, one word, and conveys, I feel, an appropriate sense of a large portion of something. — Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an improvement. YBG (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more thoughts re § Abundance of nonmetallic elements:

  1. I think it would be interesting to expand the table to include the mantle and core if data are available, perhaps using expressions like "nn metals (pp%)", and then (if it can be supported) add to the body text something like "In the interior structures metals are more abundant." or "The deeper structures are more diverse and more metallic." YBG (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added a paragraph about this. It doesn’t warrant being added to the table. — Sandbh (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh I’ve moved this comment to where I think you meant it to be. Please revert if I’ve got it wrong. YBG (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a table row for this and marked the *metals. YBG (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought I decided to remove it. YBG (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What is the relationship between the Nelson reference in the table and the Steudel one in the body? Not suggesting any change at this point, I’m just curious. YBG (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: Steudel is now redundant here so I’ve trimmed it.— Sandbh (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. YBG (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could we use the more common 'oceans' in place of 'hydrosphere'? YBG (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @YBG: No, because hydrosphere refers to water found on, under, and above the surface. —Sandbh (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. YBG (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything in this section has been resolved. YBG (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-FAC check[edit]

@Graham Beards, Michael D. Turnbull, Mirokado, Jo-Jo Eumerus, YBG, and Double sharp:

Since this article was last at FAC in Oct 2023, I’ve been fine tuning it with the help of the latter two editors.

Much of this work has been discussed on this talk page, onwards from the section "Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination".

Aspects of the article worked on have included prose, the definition, history, tables and images.

On a no obligation basis could you please now let me know if you have any concerns about the article before I list it at FAC? Thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'fraid that after the work on Llullaillaco, I'll be too burned out to help to any substantial degree here. I'll note that there are still some red links at "Suggested distinguishing criteria" that could be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. Those red links now have accompanying notes. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I am travelling at present, but will comment as opportunity arises. So far, I'm seeing Use of English issues, but no factual problems with the content. See also any copyedits to the article.

  • Lead: since the first sentence is in the singular, the second sentence should start "These range ..." rather than "They range ...".
  • Definition and applicable elements:
    • "... lacking properties common to metals namely shininess, pliability ...": we need punctuation before "namely". Perhaps just a comma will be OK since "namely" is itself introducing the list, otherwise a colon.
    • "About a fifth ...": Is this intended as a completely separate statement, or to place the preceding lists in context? In the latter case (and as a better stylistic choice) we could say "Thus about a fifth ...".
  • Physical properties of nonmetals, Chemical properties of nonmetals: "of nonmetals" seems redundant in the section titles?
  • Allotropes: "Over half of nonmetallic elements": "Over half of the nonmetallic ..." would be correct here.
  • Chemical properties of nonmetals: "As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged or polarized atoms or ions, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions (or polarized) atoms.": this sentence need rephrasing, perhaps: "As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms." -- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Property overlaps: there is no information about why homopolyatomicity is regarded as a property of metals given that so many nonmetals can do this too. Perhaps the note can be expanded to give a bit more context.
  • Higher oxidation states: "... that better tolerate higher positive charges.": this risks confusion since the bonding in anions such as NO3 is covalent and although the oxidation state of N is −5, the charge on the anion is only −1.
  • Halogen nonmetals: "... under white light is a metallic-looking.": we need to lose "a", I think "... under white light looks metallic." would be better.
  • Suggested distinguishing criteria: I suggest a section link for "electronegativity (revised Pauling)".
  • Notes:
    • Those consisting of multiple sentences are terminated with a full stop. Others have no terminating punctuation. I would add the full stop for all the notes (including dagger notes for tables), but I guess that is the author's choice. I'm referring only to notes here, having the Citations section consistently without full stops is fine.
    • Note g: "These elements being semiconductors.[ref]": The amount of extra information here is so small I think it can be included in the content: "Moderate electrical conductivity is observed in the semiconductors[ref] boron, silicon, phosphorus, germanium, selenium, tellurium, and iodine." This will also avoid the problem that the note is not clear on its own without repeating the list of elements.

I have now read through the article. The points I have raised here are all fairly minor and this is very much an improvement on the previous FAC candidates. -- Mirokado (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Thanks for your astute pick up of grammar issues, and the other suggestions, and for doing so while travelling. I've rectified all of the issues bar the periods at the end of footnotes, which is a suggestion I'll look more closely at. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: FWIW, I think single sentence footnotes should always have periods, but incomplete sentences usually should not. But like @Mirokado, I’d leave the fragments up to your discretion. YBG (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four occurrences of "behaviour" although the article is specified as written in American English. Someone who can proofread for American English needs to check for other such problems. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemical: I think it would be useful to wl oxidation state. -- Mirokado (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is massive[edit]

See title. Are there any objections to upping the frequency which lowercase sigmabot III archives this page? I'd suggest something in the realm of 30–90 days, as opposed to the two years at present. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: I’ve changed the algorithm from 730d to 200d which will leave everything related to the current FAC preparation effort. YBG (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).