Wikipedia:Peer review/Nonmetal/archive2

Nonmetal

Previous peer review

I'm submitting this article for a second peer review in order to assess its suitability for an FAC nomination, following four unsuccessful such nominations.

Sequence of FAC nominations

The comments in the last column are my personal views. Nonmetal at FAC and FAC talk: Sequence of events Event Open Close Days ca. Words Editors Oppose Support Main concern FAC1 Jul 20 Jul 26 6 4,310 6 4 0 Request to undo close of Nonmetal Jul 27 Aug 1 5 1,517 Unstated FAC expectations PR1 Aug 2 Oct 5 64 35,360 16 FAC2 Oct 5 Oct 18 13 3,440 6 1 0 Closure of Nonmetal Oct 19 Oct 24 5 6,295 Closure before OP's responded FAC3 Oct 31 Jan 18 79 39,450 21 1 6 Closure of nonmetal FAC archive 3 Jan 19 Jan 20 1 1,752 Closure pre-opportunity to address o/s concerns FAC4 Feb 4 Feb 5 1 3,043 15 1 2 FAC4 talk Feb 4 Feb 5 1 730 Closure of nonmetal FAC archive 4 Feb 7 Closure pre-opportunity to address o/s unfounded concerns Days in FAC: 99 FAC editors: 64 (not counting me and the FAC Coord) Approx. net FAC word count: 86,470 Days between FAC 1 and 2: 71 Days between FAC 2 and 3: 13 Days between FAC 3 and 4: 17 Word count here at FAC talk: 9,564 Article word count: 6,800

At the end of each of the first three FAC nominations I acted on all o/s feedback before resubmitting. This included an extensive PR between the first two FAC nominations.

What follows are some further comments by me, and some responses to specific FAC 4 feedback (organised according to the associated editor). ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​I've pinged FAC3 and 4 editors, and a nonmetal talk page editor: FYI and in case you may be interested, Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sandbh

All FAC 4 feedback has been considered and acted on accordingly. I was astonished by the amount of effort that went into that feedback and will always be grateful to the editors involved.

I read Sandy Georgia's article on Achieving excellence through featured content, and Tony1's article on How to improve your writing. Some of the content in these articles comes down to stylistic differences with which I did not always agree, and I found the latter to be belaboured, and didn't finish it. Nevertheless, I get the point of such advice and applied it where I thought it would add value.

The gist of the nonmetal article can be got by reading only the topic sentence in each paragraph. The technical subject matter means there is some WP:JARGON, which I've attempted to minimise. YMMV. Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus

• Is it absolutely necessary to have all these citations in the lead section? [while I am no fan of WP:WIAFA#2's requirement of MOS compliance, it is one of the FA criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations discourages adding references to lead sections when they aren't needed, and they aren't needed here]

Thank you(!), I agree they aren't needed here and have removed them. They were originally added following previous challenges, when I wasn't aware of that nice bit of MOS guidance.

• Some sources have page numbers given and others don't - instead only featuring a "passim" even if the source is a long book.

Passim is used six times out of ca. 280 citations, for three sources. I use it when the information concerned is found in the source generally or in multiple places throughout. For example, I cite Wiberg 2001 as a source of information for the appearance and structures of the 23 nonmetals within scope of the article rather than list 23 specific page references. Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a procedural note: Here again we are splicing comments together in a way that while not particularly misleading in this specific case is a bit dodgy. Otherwise:

• There still are unsourced paragraphs.
• Some of the redlinks could use either an article or an in-article explanation with footnotes, akin to the ones at TRAPPIST-1
• One major concern I have here: Is there a broad scientific consensus for the definition of "nonmetal" given in the lead?

Thank you

1. There should be no more pesky unsourced paras.

2. I could not find any redlinks in TRAPPIST-1.

The red links in nonmetal occur in this passage:

...when Wilhelm Homberg mentioned non-metallic sulfur in his Des Essais de Chimie.[26] In that work he refuted the five-fold division of all matter into sulfur, mercury, salt, water and earth, as postulated by Étienne de Clave (1641) in New Philosophical Light of True Principles and Elements of Nature.

For the 1st red link I've added a vide reference to an article about those essays; the 2nd red link has a link to the applicable article in the Fr WP; for the 3rd red link I've added a cite to the tome in question.

And in this passage:

* physical... sonorousness;[35]... Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for metallization;[38][n 2]... liquid range;[42]... atomic conductance.[44]

These four red links have explanatory notes either built in to the short citation, or in a separate note.

3.In response to your query about the lead:

Yes, there is, bearing in mind nonmetals in particular have a wide range of properties. The lede paragraph of the lede starts with the more specific attributes of nonmetals, moves on to their form and appearance, notes their relatively wide range of electrical and heat conductivity values, and concludes with the parallels in their reactivity to the metals.

Sandbh (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Licks-rocks

• The [distinguishing criteria] section also does does not seem to make any attempt to establish what the current most used criteria are, or to explain how any of the criteria suggested would work or what differences it would make. Are all of them E?

I've added a paragraph about probably the best known attempt to distinguish nonmetals from metals, and noted the shortcomings of this criterion. They're more or less E, although not necessarily I, as the article now notes:

"Kneen et al. suggested that the nonmetals could be discerned once a [single] criterion for metallicity had been chosen, adding that, "many arbitrary classifications are possible, most of which, if chosen reasonably, would be similar but not necessarily identical." Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia

• This passage: "Fourteen elements effectively [H, O, N, and S; F, Cl, Br and I; and He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Ze, and Rn] always recognized as nonmetals…Up to a further nine elements are frequently or sometimes considered as nonmetals" What is the meaning of "effectively"? Why "frequently", in relation to such an old source? Is all of this still the case, or not? If so, an updated source would be helpful.

"Effectively" means that there are some very peculiar instances of H, N, S, I and Rn being referred to as metalloids, rather than nonmetals. I feel that these instances are so peculiar that they can be effectively ignored. The magnitude of the number of elements treated as nonmetals hasn't changed significantly since at least the 1960s.

• The prose is unnecessarily dense and jargon-filled.

I've edited the article in an attempt to reduce the density and to remove jargon where feasible.

• "Homberg's approach represented "an important move toward the modern concept of an element".[57] Subsequently, the first modern list of chemical elements was given by Lavoisier in his "revolutionary" [58] 1789 work..."

Both attributions namely [57] and [58] were there at the time.

• There are three uses of the word subsequently...

There's now one left:

"Homberg's approach represented "an important move toward the modern concept of an element".[26] Subsequently, the first modern list of chemical elements was given by Lavoisier in his "revolutionary"[27]..."

I feel this one is fine since the "subsequently" is designed to provide a thematic link.

• This looks like original research: "Since there are 118 known elements,[17] as of February 2022, the 23 nonmetals within the scope of this article are outnumbered by the metals several times." While it may be an obvious calculation of simple math, why is it in the article if not citeable to a high quality source?

Since metals and nonmetals represent the two great classes in chemistry it's there to provide some context as to the proportions involved. For example, even though there are so many metals, nonmetals nevertheless occupy the first ten places in a "top 20" table of elements most frequently encountered in 895,501,834 compounds, as listed in the Chemical Abstracts Service register for November 2021. See the Chemical section, para. 5.

Could be cited to Siekierski and Burgess, Concise Chemistry of the Elements, pp. 3–4 (2002 English edition). Of the 87 elements which under normal conditions form condensed phases 77 show metallic properties, 4 are semiconductors (Si, Ge, Se, Te) and 6 are non-metals (B, C, P, S, Br, I). Hydrogen and the gaseous p block elements (N, O, F, Cl and noble gases) are also commonly classified as non-metals. If we take into account that At, Fr, and the elements from 101 to 112 would form metallic phases if not for their nuclear properties, then the share of metals in the total number of elements becomes even greater. Well, modulo a few things: (a) they don't consider As and Sb nonmetals (but that's 2 elements out of 77), and (b) when they wrote that there were only 112 instead of 118 known elements, and (c) element 112 has since then been predicted to be a nonmetal. But it doesn't really change the domination. Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Look at Noble gases in edit mode. Why do short-note citations, which will almost never wrap, use non-breaking spaces, while something like "core may contain ca. 10¹³" does not?

I've used non-breaking spaces in short-note citations ever since receiving feedback as to the desirability of doing so during the successful 2014 FAC nomination of metalloid. The heavy metals FA (2016) likewise does so.

I will look in here over the next few days. I just glanced at the two FACs for metalloid and wasn't able to locate who told you to add those nbsps; could you point it out for me? They aren't necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• One of the first things the reader encounters is a WP:GALLERY (that did nothing to enhance my comprehension of the article).

The gallery was intended to show the variety in colour and form of the nonmetals. The gallery caption now makes this clear. Sandbh (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Variety in colour and form of nonmetallic elements

Boron shown in the form of its β-rhombohedral phase

Metallic appearance of carbon within layers of graphite

Blue color of liquid oxygen when boiling

Pale yellow liquid fluorine in a cryogenic bath

Liquefied xenon

Sulfur as a yellow powder

Metallic appearance of iodine under white light

Liquid bromine at room temperature

Ignoring the older issues listed above (hopefully addressed by now), I will undertake a more complete review.

The first issue (that I believe to be visually over-whelming) is an unprofessional feel of the presentation of some bits of the material; the insertion of a gallery mid-text with extremely long captions isn't helping the feeling of being overwhelmed by the visually offputting but necessary lists, superscripts and formulas interspersed with images with overly long captions. Minimize the sense of an overwhelming presentation: less is more, and will help make the article more easily digestible.

A start would be to get the gallery out of the flow of text, so the reader can concentrate on the text. Since the intent of the gallery is to illustrate the variety of color and form, that can be done without so much excess detail in the captions, and without having it stop the reader mid-article.

I feel that the reception afforded a gallery comes down to differences in stylistic preferences. Even so, I do like your suggestion. On super(sub?)scripts and formulae, they go with the territory. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is the current gallery format in the article
• This is my suggestion; captions are shortened, and the images are moved out of the way of the text.

Sandbh comment: An excellent idea, so implemented. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Minimizing the listiness of the article would help. In this section, the listiness combined with the complexity is off-putting. See the list at the "Comparison of content in both prose and description list form" application at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Description (definition, association) lists. It's much less busy.

• This is the current article text.
• This is my suggestion; it removed the need for a dash interspersed with bolding and a whole ton of redlinks, which is visually distracting, complies with MOS, and replaces the listiness with prose (full sentences).

Sandbh comment: Likewise, an excellent idea, so implemented. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(I see the undefined redlinks have now been defined there via the footnotes; it would be preferable to have that information parenthetically within the prose, but at least we can now find it somewhere). The same unnecessary bolding occurs elsewhere in the article, and breaches MOS:BOLD (sample, "Complications" section).

Bolding fixed. Well, it seems to me that the few breaches of MOS:BOLD improve the legibility of those parts of the article.Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH also in "Complications" section.

There's no sandwich I could see there. What did you have in mind? Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Odd, I must have been looking at an older version ... or something. (I will be out a good portion of today, only iPad editing from the car, so can't make much progress on substantial review until later.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The lists in the "Discovery" section could be prosified.

So done. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CAPTION: captions should be succinct. Too many of the images are trying to convey too much information in the caption. As some examples, everything in the gallery discussed above, and see Selenium here. If all of that text is relevant to this article, it will be in the article; if not, the reader can go to selenium.

I trimmed two words from two cations. The caption for Se is a double header in that it speaks to an interesting property, and the way in which this property has been used. The latter is relevant given the scope of the article extends to the uses of the nonmetals. The remaining captions are succinct enough, in my view.

What makes Daniel Cressey (nature blog) a reliable WP:SPS? (Just happened to see that one when checking for MOS:LQ, but will continue later with more complete review).

He's a science writer with degrees in journalism and the history of science, and was working with the prestigious journal Nature, in an editorial role, where he worked for 10 years, when he wrote that item, which was based on an International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry report. As well as the extract in question being true, it is so beautifully put. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of time for now, this was mostly cosmetic, will do more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much SandyGeorgia. I appreciate your expertise and scrutinous eye. Sandbh (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

SG continued

Resuming; sorry I couldn't make much progress yesterday. I will get to looking at prose, but am for now focusing on minimizing what was an overwhelming feel of Too Much Information, caused by lists, images, formatting, and all that.

• The change you made here is helpful; if you want to return the Table of Contents to what it was before creating the sub-sections, you can just add a TOCLimit.

  Good as is, thanks. I didn't know about that TOClimit function. Nice. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is another area where it seemed that the text one wanted to read was overwhelmed by a list that felt like a side tangent. This is my suggestion for how to include all that same information, while moving it out of the way for the reader who wants just the narrative. (OOPS, sorry, I had intended to remove the "as listed hereafter".) I am not good at Tables, so it wasn't set up quite correctly, but someone would know how to make "Electronic" look the same as "Physical" and "Chemical". If you like the idea, the Table can be finished up correctly by someone who speaks Tables better than I do. That allows you to present this level of detail, while the reader who isn't looking for that can more easily skim around it.

  Brilliant! Had the same idea and you beat me to it. So done. The entries are listed by type and within that, chronological order, to allow tracing of the thinking about the nature of metals (and nonmetals). Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Although I'm holding off on prose review with my five-thousand-and-one dumb questions, why is "Electrical conductivity" listed under Physical rather than Electrical? (I got an A in University-level chemistry, but hated every minute of the class, and wiped it all from my memory banks as soon as I took the final exam; my entire memory of that class is of the student who sat behind me and always tried to copy my exam answers, and something about the Periodic table more or less defining different characteristics of elements, along with a whole ton of useless lab experiments that I knew I would never need in life. In other words, although I did take University-level Chemistry, assume I Know Nothing.)

    I didn't enjoy Chem 101: too much on energetics and organic chem (yawn!). I consequently didn't complete it. So much depends on the calibre of the lecturer. The PT is the organising icon of chem, so if you can recall that you're well on the way. Electrical conductivity is what electricians do; it does not go under Electronic (as opposed to Electrical) since Electronics is what engineers do, and physicists somewhat, and chemists when they talk about the electronic structures of metals and nonmetals. In the case of metals it's their electronic structure that enables them to conduct electricity well.Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Also on that issue, considering that there are 22 possibilities listed in that table, I am wondering why we don't just have a sub-article on the entire topic, and you can just link to it, avoiding the whole thing in this article. Tight WP:SS is always a good thing; could that information not all be placed in one article, summarized back to here with what is now the first sentence of the paragraph? Would that not also address Licks-rocks concern (above)?

    Those 22 criteria could sustain a sub-article. I include them in a table in this article since the lack of an agreed set of criteria as to how to distinguish a nonmetal is what causes so many tears in the first place. The moreso since nonmetals such a wider range of properties than do metals. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Before I turn my attention to prose, there is still some distracting listiness, with no defined list style. In general, whenever a list can be converted to prose, I feel it is more inviting to the reader. But other than that, looking at this version, there are 3 different list styles:
  1. Distinguishing criteria has no style; there are sentence fragments that end in punctuation, sentence fragments that don't end in punctuation, and no defined sentences. My earlier suggestion would have converted them all to full sentences, but I much prefer the table format, as it puts all of that "what has been speculated" or "what has some acceptance" content out of the way, and allows the casual reader to get a better overview of the main content.
  2. Subclasses has a list that is sentence fragments correctly punctuated as clauses. That style occurs again in Extraction.
  3. But then in Unclassified metals, there is a different list format (full sentences, with uppercase, ending in punctuation). That style occurs again in Allotropes.

  Yes, since the first list has been converted into a table, two kinds of lists are left, and each is compliant with MOS:LIST as I understand it. The "but then" kind of lists represent content that that would otherwise be too laborious to read in prose form, and yet the sentences involved are too short to sustain individual paragraphs. Sandbh (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also, on formatting, the sentence following the table in Comparison gets lost; can it be placed before the table?

  So done. It fits much better there. Sandbh (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Another visual distraction is that some of the items listed in the table at Comparisons are preceded by the diamond ( ◇), while others aren't. Are those really needed ? (When I set up the table for distinguishing characteristics, I followed that style, as it was already in the article, but find that it just introduces another element for the eye and brain to process in an already-busy article.)

  When a cell in a the comparison table has more than one item, each is preceded by a diamond, in dot-point style. When there is one item in the cell of table a diamond is not required. Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  • In a similar vein, if you decided to go with a table in Distinguishing, then the Comparisons table is all lower case, where I had designed the Distinguishing characteristics as uppercase; they would need to match.

    The DC table is uppercase since the items in it are proper nouns of terminological equivalents. The comparison table has the capitalised proper nouns/terminological equivalents in the first column. The remaining columns have cells with dot point notes in them (fragments rather than sentences) and hence are not capitlaised. Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I promise to move beyond these stylistic matters, but my concern is that presentation was part of the problem at FAC, so the more we can streamline the content, the better I believe you will do at the next FAC.

When I do get around to looking at content, I am already in trouble by the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead, which should be digestible to every dummy like me. Their reactivity, akin to that of the metals, ranges from highly active to noble, the difference being that some of the latter are effectively inert has lost me in more ways than one. What does the latter refer back to, and how am I supposed to know what "noble" means at this point in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Latter" refers to the noble of the nonmetals; "noble" means aloof i.e. disinclined to react. That said, I’ve edited the sentence to hopefully make it clearer. Sandbh (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Much easier reading already, in the sense of visual distractions removed. Except for one thing ... when I set up the sample table for distinguishing characteristics, there was a header for the table. Somewhere in the accessibility MOS pages, we are told that tables must have headers for screenreaders ... could you add back in the header as in my sample? I will continue reviewing here after I get caught up elsewhere. There is a way to make it viewable only for screenreaders if you don't want it show, but I would have to figure out where to find that if that's what you prefer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the order of the items in the table (non-alphabetical) might be explained in a note at the bottom of the table, since to the uninitiated (like me), the current order appears random :) What is meant by "chronological order"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Table heading added. I’m no fan of the resulting duplication with the nearby section heading but I’d not thought about screen readers. “Chronological” has been changed to now refer to “ordered according to the date of the source”. Sandbh (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a way to add the heading such that screenreaders see it, but others don't. (Template sronly) But I don't find that sufficiently clear for regular readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow! That's quite a template. But I'll leave it as for the regular readers. Sandbh (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

SG key concerns

The article is much more readable now, and I'd like to begin picking at the prose (to add clarity for layreaders), but before I do that, I have three key concerns: 1) MOS accessibility on color, 2) complexity of lead image, and 3) sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Color

MOS:COLOR tells us that color should not be the only method to communicate important information. But all of the images of the periodic table depend on color only for comprehension. This issue must have come up before, and I wonder if Sandbh or ComplexRational have some info about where we stand on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This hasn't come up before. It's easily enough addressed by adding some notations to the captions or the alts. I've added notations to the lede image to show which elements belong with which color legend. The rest of the images with color coding to follow. Sandbh (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Note to self: Checking the rest of the images still to be done. Sandbh (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead image complexity

The first thing one encounters in the lead (besides the color issue) is an image and its caption that requires a lot to digest. First, the whole thing relies on color. Second, figuring out what the inset is and how it relates (so that the layreader cannot get a quick idea of what they're looking at). Third, additional complexity with how hydrogen is handled. Fourth, sourcing concerns listed below. All of this results in information overload at the outset for the layreader. Yes, it's probably info well understood by the chemist, but the lead should be aimed at layreaders. I don't have a suggestion for how to fix this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As a general observation, some complexity in chemistry is unavoidable. That said, and IMO, chemists tend to make things more complicated than they need to be. So I suspect we have some common ground.

More specifically:

1. Color: Addressed per above.
   
2. Inset: Moved to the end of the caption and given its own sub-caption in an effort to make what is going on here less complex.
3. Hydrogen: Its dual-hatted nature makes it a little complex. I've rewritten the accompanying text to make this a little easier to read.
4. Sourcing: I'll address this below, shortly. Sandbh (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead image is more clear now; still a lot to digest, but I am at a loss for how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel it’s a relatively “simpler but no simpler” summary of a complex situation. A small investment of some mental digestion energy yields a profitable return. Equally, skimming the image still conveys the right information concerning which elements fall within scope. I appreciate that YMMV. Sandbh (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Re hydrogen positions: I don't think the double positioning of H is relevant for the (top) image of nonmetals. What essential introductionary info would be lost if the article lead leaves this point out? If this dual positioning background is related to nonmetal property/ies, it can be addresses in the dedicated paragraph. At first glance, I could not find any noting of this aspect in the article body (which would imply that is should not be in the lede at all).

Related to this: given that the periodic table is mentioned throughout the article, in describing nonmetals and their properties and opposing them to metals obviously, the introducing (top) image could show the whole periodic table once. -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's also what I was wondering (do we need the H difference presented so soon ... this is what I mean about presenting basics first, and building slowly ... so the layreader doesn't have to work so hard in the lead ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The location of H question was discussed previously in PR1. That is why the lede image looks the way it does, and why the caption includes a small explanandum, bearing in mind the caption has already been streamlined as a result of PR2, and why the explanandum has an elaborating footnote.

An important consideration is that a majority of periodic tables place H over Li in group 1, at the far left, whereas the minority of tables place H in other positions including over F in group 17. If the lede image is to be representative of majority opinion, such as the lede image in the periodic table article, then it should show over Li in group 1, as it does. If it does not show H over group 1 then there needs to be a good reason for doing this.

In the case of the nonmetal article, the primary focus of which is on nonmetals rather than the periodic table, the image uses a graphic convenience in the form of the heavy right and bottom borders for the H box to make it easier to accommodate both camps, as explained by the note in the caption. If these borders are left out then the image is not representative.

Since this is an encyclopaedic article the position of H is not further discussed. This topic is instead discussed in the periodic table article, as it should be.

In a similar manner, the nonmetal article does not have a complete periodic table in its lede image since the focus of article is about nonmetals, rather than metals, metalloids, and nonmetals. It is not necessary to overwhelm the lay reader, at the outset, with the entirety of the periodic table.

It is a fact that chemists swim in a sea of complexity. Yes, there is a tiny (not onerous) bit of work in the lede image for the lay reader that will not hurt them, and will convey a little bit of the flavour of the field. They could just as easily skip the H nuance, and return to it as and when required or convenient or when their curiosity is piqued.

On the "start with the basics" question, Sherwin & Weston muddy the waters in my view by twice showing H over Li and H over F, without further explanation (at least not in chapter 1). That doesn’t however negate the value of starting with the basics, to the extent feasible, a suggestion that I still need to address. Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

This is a deal breaker for me. Back to the lead image on this version, the first thing I see as a layreader. Some elements are effectively always[1][2][3] classified as nonmetals, some frequently and others sometimes[4][5][6]. The way this is put together is screaming WP:OR at me; perhaps I'm wrong, but we have three very old sources on "always", no sources on frequently, and three more very old sources on sometimes. Further, I have to get to sources number 9 and 10 before I encounter a modern source, and 9 is only used in a footnote. As a layreader, how do I know those sources aren't cherrypicked, since I am given no modern source that simply tells me, if I were taking a University-level chemistry course today, what textbooks would be used, and how would those textbooks classify nonmetals? If this can't be sorted in the lead, and what looks like OR removed, then it won't make sense to move forward with prose nitpicks, and I don't think this article will ever be a viable FA candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The small challenge is that there's no widely-agreed precise definition in the literature of what is a nonmetal, even though nonmetals are one of the two great classes in chemistry.

That being so, the article can only attempt to summarise the broad contours of the literature:

1. Noble gases = effectively always counted as nonmetals

2. Halogens (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine) + hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur = ditto

3. Carbon, phosphorus, selenium = frequently counted as nonmetals yet their metallic appearance + the electrical conductivity of carbon + the semiconducting behaviour of phosphorus and selenium + the metalloid-like behaviour of Se in environmental chemistry, can cause some conniptions. Thus in a survey of 194 lists of metalloids, as reported in the literature, selenium was mentioned 46 times; carbon 16 times; and phosphorus ten times.

4. Boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, tellurium = the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids, yet because they occupy frontier territory, where metals meet nonmetals, their treatment varies from author to author. Some consider them separate from both metals and the nonmetals; some regard them as nonmetals or as a sub-class of nonmetals. Others count some of them as metals, for example arsenic and antimony, due to their similarities to heavy metals.

I'll add a note to the legend for C, P, and Se with one reference to their recognition as nonmetals and another reference to the metalloid survey article.

Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

More to follow shortly about old sources. Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On o/s, this was discussed at FAC3 with Graham Beards who initially objected to the o/s, and then withdrew his objection, saying, "I'm happy to go with the consensus, which is on this." See his dot point entry, Citations and my contributions thereto. Sandbh (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have known for about 15 years that Graham Beards is kinder and more patient than I am. :). This does not answer my question. It is clear that there is no widely-agreed precise definition; I understand the dilemma. If that's the case, then Wikipedia can't advance a chosen position based on a set of very old sources chosen according to unspecified parameters. My question was: "if I were taking a University-level chemistry course today, what textbooks would be used, and how would those textbooks classify nonmetals"? I am willing to spend the time and effort to work on the prose here, but only if sourcing is satisfactory; if that basic question can't be answered, and at least one modern interpretation provided, I don't believe there is a viable candidate here for a Featured article. Six very old sources do not tell me what is the most current scholarly thinking on nonmetals. What modern source gives me something to verify that the "always, frequently, sometimes" is not original research? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My ears were burning. I agreed to go with a consensus because I was losing the will to live. I could not and still cannot see why modern, 21st century sources cannot be used, unless they don't exist. If the latter is the case, any claim fails verification in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia.

Modern uni-level chemistry textbooks vary at the margins on which elements are classified as nonmetals. It comes down to the perspective of interest of the author—as noted in the article—or, more often, which older reference they decided to base their decision on in the face of publish or perish. The situation hasn't changed since the 1950s–early 60s, when interest in the semiconducting properties of first germanium, and later silicon, took off.

Most scholarly monographs on nonmetals (or metalloids) appeared from 1966 to 1977. Steudel (1977) published a 2nd ed. in 2020 ($US90, or ca. $117 for the e-book!) which contains no new encyclopedia-level information about nonmetals. A fair summary of modern thinking as to which elements are nonmetals inextricably rests on these historical sources. That's how I attempted to construct the article, and the result is a fair summation of modern, still inconsistent, thinking.

AFAIK, no modern source will verify "always, frequently, sometimes". OTOH, innumerable modern sources will count the noble gases, the halogens (F, Cl, Br, I) and H, N, O, and S as nonmetals. And a significant number will count B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, and Te as metalloids. And every now and then C, P or Se will cause hiccups (for considered reasons), as per the 2013 cite.

All that said, I've replaced the older cites in the lede image with a cite to Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 16^th edition (2016). Hawley's has been going since 1911. This reference most helpfully, relevantly, and importantly adds, "Any such list [of nonmetals] is open to challenge".

For the red-shaded metalloids, which sometimes are or aren't counted as nonmetals, I trimmed the 70s and 90s cites; kept the 2006 cite; and added a 2020 cite.

I hope these improvements will be acceptable. I'll check the rest of the article as to the need for for any knock-on adjustments. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. All knock-on sourcing adjustments completed. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Note to self: Check for orphaned references. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbh I have been pretty busy, am out all day today, but will try to revisit tomorrow. If I forget to revisit within a few days, please don't hesitate to ping me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Chipping away

Sandbh, I will start in and chip away as I have time on line-by-line review. For now, just one thing. At the FAC, I questioned whether this sentence was original research: Since there are 118 known elements,[16] as of February 2022, the 23 nonmetals within the scope of this article are outnumbered by the metals several times. And here, I've questioned what a current textbook would state. I found this textbook very digestible to the layperson (me), and found several items in the first few pages for consideration. (It is unclear to me if the 2016 version is updated from the 1966 version.) At any rate, things to be sorted ...

1. Page 6 allows you to source the statement about the nonmetals being outnumbered by the metals. It still looks synthy, and this book gives you wording you can use, even if more generalized.
2. Page 6 says that where confusion arises, elements are often classified as metalloids, an in-between state (have we said that?).
3. Page 5 says the scheme is not perfect, but there are generally no difficulties (which makes it sound less controversial than we are making it). Unsure if this is dated, though.
4. Page 5 says two-thirds of non-metals are gaseous; we say half. That's a big difference that needs to be sorted. If this book is old, what changed ?
5. Page 4 lays out a basic table (Table 1.1) of the seven main differences, according to Sherwin. If those are the generally most accepted differences, I would expect to see something like that front and center, with then a later explanation of the number of different classification schemes. We seem to dive right in to "there are huge differences and a huge controversy" before establishing the basics of what is currently taught. Even if Sherwin is old, I would still expect to see a more generally taught definition laid out before the myriad differences and possibilities.
6. The Preface states that "division long established ... classification not perfect" ... so even if this textbook is not in great use today, it gives confidence that we can find a modern textbook to cite more of the article to so it looks less synth-y. And the language and layout of these few pages in this textbook are easy for me, the layperson, to understand, so give an idea of directions in which this article might head.

All for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much SandyGeorgia. Your initiative is impressive.

That book is one of the good ones published in the 60s about nonmetals. It hasn’t been published in a new edition since its 1966 appearance. The World Cat entries are misleading. They happen to refer to scanned versions of the 1966 book, recently made available. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was worried about that ... but at least it's useful for sourcing the relative numbers bit ? And I think it's very useful for looking at the level of language you might aim for, as I found it completely digestible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, too quick for me :) In the meantime, here’s one item:

[4] Sherwin & Weston (1966) refer to the following as nonmetals (starred elements are gases):

He,* Ne,* Ar,* Kr,* Xe,* Rn* (6) 6*

H,* F,* Cl,* Br, I (6) 3*

O,* S, Se, Te (4) 1*

N,* P, As, Sb (4) 1*

C, Si (2)

B (1)

11 gases out of 23 = 47.8%

Ge, As, Se, and Te are later referred to by them, as metalloids; Sb is shown as a nonmetal but later referred to as a metal. They write, "Whilst these heavier elements [Se and Te] look metallic they show the chemical properties of non-metals and therefore come into the category of "metalloids" (p. 64). This is misleading since C and I look metallic too, and behave chemically like nonmetals, but are not referred to by them as metalloids. This is the case too for P although black P, the most stable form, would not have been so well known in 1966.

Removing the elements referred to by them as metalloids (As, Sb, Se, Te) and Sb = 11 gases out of 18 = 61.1, which I suppose is close enough to two-thirds.

As a half-century old source they still happen to be relevant, and broadly reflective of the modern situation in this regard. Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Re item [5]: SG, the impetus for these concerns isn’t clear to me. There are no huge differences and there is no huge controversy, and the article conveys this, unless I’m missing something. As noted, Sherwin wrote that in most cases there are no difficulties, per your item [3].

What differences there are occur near the margins, where the metals meet the nonmetals, as covered in the article.

The lede starts off by defining nonmetals as generally characterised by low density, low strength, and moderate to high electronegativity. It goes on to say they have a metallic, colorless or colored appearance, with about half being solid and half gaseous whereas nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids; and that most nonmetals are poor to moderate conductors of heat and electricity, unlike metals.

That covers the first three of Sherwin’s properties, with moderate to high electronegativity underpinning his and Weston's last two criteria. I feel that is plenty for a lede, with the remaining differences being addressed later in the article. Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Re item [6]: I concur about their language. They’re a good read.

Note to self. Compare article language with S&W. Timeframe not predictable as I don’t currently have access to the rest of their book. But maybe the first chapter'll suffice. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I will find time tomorrow to hopefully explain better the Re item [5] impetus ... it may be just a matter of the order in which information is presented. In the Sherwin read, I felt like a got a starting place: a basis from which I could understand then where the differences occur. And then, depending on my interest or knowledge level, I can opt to skip the rest. In the order of presentation in our article, I feel like I hit too many differences before I have the base from which they differ. Particularly, the somewhat (to a layperson) overwhelming list in the table in Suggested defining criteria, which comes early in the article. I don't feel like I'm explaning this well, but is the sense of being overwhelmed that the article gave earlier (we have chipped away at that), as opposed to a) here's the most fundamental definition, now b) here's where it gets complicated and there are differences. Building blocks. Give the less knowledgeable what they need early on, and then build on from there towards the complexity. If that doesn't make sense, I'll try again tomorrow when not iPad typing and I can look more specifically section by section. Generally, compare Sherwin, which I completely understood, to our article, where I am quickly into terminology and concepts over my head. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, to simplify, I'm asking if you can write the top part of the article around the "always", giving us the info needed to understand everything about those that everyone agrees are metals, and then move on to anything related to the "frequently", "sometimes" differences? A layreader should be able to get the "always", and can skip out on where it gets complicated and theoretical and imperfect. That is, I think it's just order of presentation that made me feel so overwhelmed. And leaves the article feeling synth-y. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the top is OK now since the opening paragraph defines and explains what nonmetals are, in general terms. The “effectively always-frequently-sometimes” descriptors are postponed until the closing paragraph of the lede. If the eye is drawn to the lede image there is now a helpful sentence saying there’s no precise definition of a nonmetal (hence the heat map). The order of presentation for the rest of the article is better, too. Sandbh (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Re item [1]. I’m not a fan of citing the obvious. That said, and taking up your suggestion, I found a modern source in Johnson (2007, pp. 13–14):

"Figure 1.1 [p. 14] shows a full Periodic Table colour-coded to reveal the periodic distribution of metals, semi-metals, and nonmetals. Of the 114 known elements, 90 are, or are likely to be, metallic. This, and the other books in the series, concentrate on the 46 typical elements. Here, metals are not so predominant, but, even so, they still outnumber each of the other two categories."

His nonmetals are:

H, He (2)

B, C, N, O, F, Ne (6)

P, S, Cl, Ar (4)

Se, Br, Kr (3)

I, Xe (2)

Rn (1)

Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, At (6)

The marginal difference is that he counts B as a nonmetal and At as a metalloid. In any event he counts 90 out of 114 as metals, and 24 as “not metals”, and speaks to the predominance of metals. Since 2007 we are now up to 118 elements, and just one of these is expected to be a nonmetal (Og, element 118). I feel J is fine as a recent source speaking to the predominance of metals, and have (or will have) added the cite. Sandbh (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Re item [2]. The article says, "Metalloids behave chemically like nonmetals but are sometimes treated as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals.” But this is only in the caption to the density v EN image. And it likely needs to be said in the main body of the article. So I’ll see where that could be. Sandbh (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Added a sentence + modern ref to the end of para 2 of the Definition and applicable elements section. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Chipping away (cont.)

OK, one more thing before I start line by line: I paraphrase WP:LEAD as "tell me why I care". Is page viii of the preface of Sherwin suggesting something in the sentence that starts with "Thus a hint of the exciting new developments ... " that we might include in the lead to give the reader an idea of why the identification and study of nonmetals matter? I hope that is the last of my general questions before I start a detailed look, but no promises :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

S&W say:

"Special items of interest have been included in a logical manner throughout the text. Thus a hint of exciting new developments in the field of noble gas compounds is given and topics such as acids and bases…are introduced in the appropriate places."

That's the approach taken in the article, the more so following the relocation of the historical content.

The gist of the article can be gotten by reading only the four topic sentences in the lede. The third sentence says: "Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic roles or uses.” That’s the, "tell me why I care" sentence, as I see it, presuming the lay reader was interested enough in the first place to look up the article. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah ha, one more general thing already. As I scan the page now, it feels much less overwhelming because of how we have gotten some listiness, tables, images etc under control. But I hit that huge table in the Comparison section, and my eye wants to skip over it to read the next section, but then my brain goes, oh, wait, there is still a chunk of text under the table in the Historical development section, which doesn't seem to flow. Everything introduced in Historical development seems to not be used elsewhere in the article, so why does the reader need to know it at this stage? Is there any reason that Historical development can't be merged to Discovery (at the bottom of the article), and the combination renamed Discovery and taxonomy, or some such? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

In fact, on this and my earlier suggestion to get the basics first, why can't most of "Historical background" also be combined to a History, background, taxonomy section at the bottom of the article? That would move General properties up, getting the building blocks first as I mentioned earlier. From Historical background, the final four paragraphs could be kept up top (that is, text beginning from "Probably the most well-know property") to merge the reader in to General properties. That would move the complex table in Distinguishing characteristics to the bottom, and get more of the basic building blocks first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

In a hurry. Great minds! I just moved all the historical content to the end of the article, and have now seen your post. More to follow when I can find some quiet time. Sandbh (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I’ve collapsed the comparison table, which I feel is a good way of improving the flow, while retaining valuable contextual information. I suspect the layout of the article should now be fine. Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DONTHIDE -- you should not collapse tables by default, and someone may say that at FAC ... although typically I'm the only one reviewing for MOS at FAC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. Collapse removed. Table moved to end of article. Section renamed, “History, background, and taxonomy” per your very good suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It all feels so much more readable now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Still on basics

This is So Much Better already. I will get to line-by-line; I will, I will. But there is another reorganization to basics to discuss. Never mind whether they are useful reliable sources or not; just as a sample of the language, have a look at what google coughs up (ignore the reliability, and oversimplification ... these are just to look at language):

• First the Springer book has Table 1.1 on p. 4 that gives me very plain, digestible language on the differences. "Solid, liquid or gaseous; no characteristic lustre; poor conductors of heat and electricity; neither malleable nor ductile (other sources clarify that language even better, brittle, can't be shaped or bent or made into a wire, etc);
• Feel good moment; have a look at the train wreck that is Britannica.

  Ho, ho, ho, Britannica. A gob-smacking prize train wreck. How the once mighty have fallen, at least in this instance. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thoughtco.com (whatever that is, it is readable) It doesn't look metallic, can't be made into a wire, pounded into shape or bent, doesn't conduct heat or electricity well, and doesn't have a high melting or boiling point. They are generally poor conductors of heat and electricity. Solid nonmetals are generally brittle, with little or no metallic luster.
• yourdictionary.com "The definition of nonmetal is an element that doesn’t have the characteristics of metal including: ability to conduct heat or electricity, luster, or flexibility."
• Somebody somewhere says "Metals are good conductors of heat and electricity, and are malleable (they can be hammered into sheets) and ductile (they can be drawn into wire). Most of the metals are solids at room temperature, with a characteristic silvery shine (except for mercury, which is a liquid). Nonmetals are (usually) poor conductors of heat and electricity, and are not malleable or ductile; many of the elemental nonmetals are gases at room temperature, while others are liquids and others are solids. The metalloids are intermediate in their properties. In their physical properties, they are more like the nonmetals, but under certain circumstances, several of them can be made to conduct electricity. These semiconductors are extremely important in computers and other electronic devices." ah ha; getting a glimpse of why it matters :)
• lumenlearning: "Nonmetals exist in all three states of matter. The majority are gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Bromine is a liquid. A few are solids, such as carbon and sulfur. In the solid state, nonmetals are brittle , meaning that they will shatter if struck with a hammer. The solids are not lustrous. Melting points are generally much lower than those of metals."
• Sign language: "Definition: The non-metals are elements on the right of the periodic table. Non-metals can be gases, liquids or solids. Non-metals are dull in colour, not shiny like metals. You can't hammer or shape a non-metal; it will just shatter if you hit it. Sulphur is an example of a non-metal. It's yellow and shatters if you hit it with a hammer. Non-metals don't conduct electricity well: they are insulators. There is one exception: graphite is a non-metal which can conduct electricity."
• vocabulary.com "In chemistry, an element that isn't shiny and isn't a good conductor of heat or electricity is a nonmetal."
• Byjus "Non-metals are natural materials that do not produce heat or electricity and that are structurally brittle (can not be easily rolling, moulding, extruding or pressing)."

From all of these, I can get a quick-and-easy, plain English idea of what the thing is. But the first thing google coughs up from Wikipedia is:

• In chemistry, a nonmetal is a type of chemical element generally characterized by low density, low strength, and moderate to high electronegativity. "Moderate to high electronegativity"? Isn't ... for example ... poor conductors of heat and electricity more useful to the layreader, at whom the lead should aim?

As a layreader, I don't know what two out of three of those mean, and I have no better idea of what a non-metal is than when I googled. That's not a link I am going to click on, because I can already see it's not giving me plain English. It's giving me terms I have to click on to understand what they are, and even if I do that, I still end up unclear. If I keep reading on Wikipedia, I eventually get most of this information, but not in such a digestible format as these samples. I don't want to have to click out to density, electronegativity, or reactivity. Can the first paragraph of the lead (and more importantly, the first sentence) be dumbed down one notch, to high school level, assuring no clicking out is needed, and working in more of the simpler language used in samples like those above? Then, when I get to the Definition section, the level can go back up a notch. And then when I hit the General properties section, I am ready for a higher level of detail ... that's what I mean about building it up for the reader. Can less is more be done to the lead, and then work up from there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m working my way through your fabulous selection of sources.

For now, I’ve changed the first sentence so that it reads:

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a type of chemical element generally characterized by low weight, low to no structural strength, and moderate to high electronegativity—how well an atom can attract electrons towards itself.

The post-em dash elaboration of what EN is comes from the simple English Wikipedia. I learnt about electrons (and quarks) in year 8, which is first year HS where I live. That was in 1969. These days I have heard from parents that the structure of DNA is taught in what we call primary school, which is years 1 to 7. I expect it is safe to presume that a lay reader would understand what low structural strength means.Sandbh (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Some general comments.

• As I understand it, plain English expresses things positively e.g. in terms of what things are rather than negatively i.e. in terms of what they aren’t. Admittedly the word nonmetal doesn't get things off to a good start, but there it is. Onwards and upwards.
• In a chemistry article, the definition of a nonmetal ought to include a reference to at least one chemical property.
• In classification science a class is usually characterised by more than two properties.
• At the same time it’s not necessary, at the start, to list six properties as per S&W.
• Although the Britannica entry is a tragedy it at least attempts to first define a nonmetal in terms of what it is, and all by itself rather than by being compared to something else.

Back to the FSoS, paper notepad, pencil and eraser at hand :) Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I trimmed the last sentence of the lede referring to reactivity. This is not so important to say up front. Doing so allowed me to add references to the friability of the solid nonmetals and the plasticity of most metals.

Looking again at the still good Springer ref, there are two general-reader non-friendly items in their list i.e. covalent bond and normal oxides. I remember reading this source the first time, many years ago, and being stumped by the expression “normal oxide”. I count about a dozen properties mentioned in the FSoS. Eliminating the esoteric, and the just plain wrong, the lede paragraph now mentions all these properties bar small size and acidity, but these two are picked up later on.

I’m happy with the lede now, in light of your request. Now going to check the build up for rest of the article. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. The build-up from the lede to Definition to General Properties to Subclasses is quite pleasing, I think. Thanks! Sandbh (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph again

Sandbh, the first sentence and paragraph still don't give me (layreader) what I found on the other websites listed above. The first sentence is what Google will display, and affects whether a reader is likely to click the article. I was hoping for something broader yet plainer, along the lines of this (recognizing I could be off in some adjectives etc.-- just some ideas): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Current

Ideas

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a type of chemical element generally characterized by low weight, low to no structural strength, and moderate to high electronegativity—how well an atom can attract electrons towards itself. Nonmetals have a metallic, colorless or colored appearance, with about half being brittle to crumbly solids and half gases; in contrast, nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids with many of these being malleable and ductile. Most nonmetals are poor to moderate conductors of heat and electricity, unlike metals which are moderate to good conductors.

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that can be a gas, liquid or solid; they are usually lower than metals in weight, structural strength, shininess, and ability to conduct heat and electricity. They don't have the characteristics of metals, that are typically silvery-gray solids; often shiny; moderate to good conductors; and usually capable of being molded, shaped or hammered into thin wires or threads without crumbling or shattering. Nonmetals may have a metallic, colorless or colored appearance, with about half being gases and half being brittle to crumbly solids. They are moderate to high in electronegativity; their atoms cannot easily attract electrons.

Thanks SG! That makes your thinking plain, and it’s clever too. I’ll now mold, shape and hammer the paragraph with a view to refinement and honing, hopefully without any cracking or crumbling :) Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, here’s the before and after. I went back and leveraged your earlier “start with the basics” idea, hence the first sentence reference to typical nonmetals. The rest of the paragraph flowed easily out of the topic sentence. Finishing with the EN sentence is very nice. Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ideas

Polished

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that can be a gas, liquid or solid; they are usually lower than metals in weight, structural strength, shininess, and ability to conduct heat and electricity. They don't have the characteristics of metals, that are typically silvery-gray solids; often shiny; moderate to good conductors; and usually capable of being molded, shaped or hammered into thin wires or threads without crumbling or shattering. Nonmetals may have a metallic, colorless or colored appearance, with about half being gases and half being brittle to crumbly solids. They are moderate to high in electronegativity; their atoms cannot easily attract electrons.

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that is typically a colorless or colored gas, such as oxygen or chlorine, and a poor conductor of heat and electricity. Less typical nonmetals include shiny or colored solids such as carbon or sulfur. These are lighter than most metals, and brittle or crumbly; they cannot be hammered into sheets or easily drawn into wires without shattering or breaking. Nonmetals are moderate to high in electronegativity; their atoms tend to easily attract electrons.

Now we're cooking with gas ... but curious ... why not say in the lead that they can be gas, liquid or solid? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's but one liquid nonmetal out of 23 nonmetals i.e. the liquid state is not typical. The fact of one liquid nonmetal is not something immediately germane to the lay reader, who may possibly be more familiar with oxygen, carbon, sulfur or chlorine. Sandbh (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

ah, ok ... just a reminder to doublecheck that the new wording in the lead is also all reflected in the body of the article ... I will start a line-by-line review this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, Br is so volatile that it’s normally topped by a fog of its own vapours. So it can be regarded as being somewhat of an honorary gas. I’ve therefore inserted mention of it between the O and Cl sentence and the C and S sentence. It reads well, I think. So all the bases are now covered, per your observation. I managed to review the consistency between the lede and the body yesterday and it looked OK then. Will check again. Sandbh (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandbh so are we at a stable place now such that I can start line-by-line look at prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I’m re-checking the nuances of that situation now. Will ping when done. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: Yes, we're now in a stable place. Please note that the definition section 1 starts with just two properties, in order to provide the highest level perspective on the entire class. The rest of the article then fills in the details. This is consistent with your idea of starting with the basics, and proceeding from there. Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Holding off on further work until ComplexRational's concern is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition and applicable elements

Starting in. When reviewing, I sometimes edit the article directly; feel free to revert anything I do. I also sometimes leave inline queries if that is easier/faster than transferring a question to here; feel free to remove the inline once addressed. And lastly, I list queries here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why does the image/table/graph plot only the first 100 elements? I am guessing there is something about the next 18 that is not apparent to the non-chemist? Can that be addressed?

  The next 18 are so radioactive that they have never been produced in bulk quantities, so data for them is not known. Although that is also true for elements 85 (At) and 87 (Fr), which are included (using predictions)... Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Could this be explained somewhere with the graph/table ... maybe in a footnote? Maybe I will hit this later in the article, but it is needed with the table/image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think Sandbh has handled this. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, via footnote. And reducing the number of elements to the first 99. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is the word corresponding redundant? The top right inset shows the corresponding periodic table locations...

  No, as there are two different maps of elements involved. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessarily convoluted wording ... This is the top of the article, and language at this stage still needs to be plain and digestible to a layreader (increasing complexity as we get further in is acceptable). All the definitions are probably somewhat rigorous, just not widely agreed, etc. Simpler sentence structure. Property or properties is the same as properties here. --> ?? -->

Current	Ideas
Since there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal,[10][12][13] some variation may be encountered among sources as to which elements are classified as nonmetals. Such decisions depend on which property or properties are regarded as being most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[14]	There is no widely-agreed, precise, rigorous definition of a nonmetal.[10][12][13] Variation among sources as to which elements are classified as nonmetals depends on which properties are regarded as being most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[14]

The expression “property or properties” is deliberate, and not the the same as “properties”. Sometimes an author will put forward one property as a basis to make the distinction. At other times more than one property is used or implied. Hence the expression was worded the way it was.

The start of the ideas sentence now appears to have two redundant qualifiers namely “widely-agreed”, “precise”.

I’m not a fan of the way the second sentence in the ideas column requires the reader to effectively hold their breath for the first half dozen words, before being able to completely work out what the sentence is getting at. The first sentence of the current version gives a more natural and contextual introduction.

The “some” qualifier in the current expression "some variation" is deliberate in the sense that the variation is modest rather than helter-shelter (so to speak).

All that said, I’d like to look again at this paragraph, tomorrow (with fresh eyes) to see if there is scope for refining. Sandbh (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What does generally add (besides making the reader think they're not being told something important)? Don't tell the reader what to note.

Current	Ideas
Generally, up to twenty-three elements may be regarded as nonmetals,[15] noting any such list is open to challenge.[1]	Up to twenty-three elements may be regarded as nonmetals,[15] but any such list is open to challenge.[1]

”Generally” is used here deliberately in order to provide some wriggle room. Reference 15, as a 2020 source, refers to 23 nonmetals but that source is no more authoritative than any other source that has classified some elements as nonmetals over the past (say) 150 years. Chemistry is replete with such fuzziness. “But” is generally an ugly, overused, and tired word, in my view, and I try to avoid it. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The "as of" date a) seems misplaced, and b) seems unnecessary. If it applies to the 118 elements, do those change often enough to require an as of date? If it applies to the 23 nonmetals, even if some on that list are reclassified, that doesn't change the conclusion about being outnumbered by metals several times, so it seems that if an "as of" date on the classification of the 23 is needed, it should be placed higher up, by the sentence "Generally, up to twenty-three elements may be regarded as nonmetals ... ". Why "within the scope of this article"? Is there something we're not being told about that is missing?

Current	Ideas
Since there are 118 known elements,[17] as of February 2022, the 23 nonmetals within the scope of this article are outnumbered by the metals several times.[18]	Of the 118 known elements,[17] the 23 that may be regarded as nonmetals are outnumbered by the metals several times.[18]

• the theoretical and experimental evidence is indirect, but strongly suggests that it is a metal --> ?? --> indirect theoretical and experimental evidence strongly suggests that it is a metal ?? personal preference, but I find it less convoluted?

Done ×2. Sandbh (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Always, sometimes, frequently

Now, back to the "always, sometimes, frequently" issue. It is still synth-y (although now at least using more modern sources), still in the lead, and still likely to cause an issue at FAC. I would like to float an idea, and inquire what Graham Beards thinks of it. I believe you can overcome the synthiness via plain ole attribution. IF the entire construct is attributed in the body, then I don't mind it being presented as is in the lead, and it no longer feels synth-y. It's a simple statement of what sources say what, attributed. Move the "as of" to here, and the newest source is 2020, not 2022. Why do we have two versions of Vernon? So my version would do something along these lines (I might not have all the detail correct, but you'll get the idea): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Current

Ideas

Generally, up to twenty-three elements may be regarded as nonmetals,[Steudel 2020, p. 43]noting any such list is open to challenge.[Larrañaga] The fourteen effectively always recognized as such are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the corrosive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon.[Larrañaga] Up to a further nine elements are frequently or sometimes considered as nonmetals, including carbon, phosphorus, and selenium; and the elements otherwise commonly recognized as metalloids namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium.[Larrañaga][Vernon2013][Vernon2020] Metalloids behave chemically like nonmetals but are sometimes treated as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive.[Hill]

Up to twenty-three elements may be regarded as nonmetals as of 2020,[Steudel 2020, p. 43] but any such list is open to challenge. Larrañaga et al (2016) recognize fourteen elements as metals: hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the corrosive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon.[Larrañaga] Up to a further nine elements are sometimes considered nonmetals by Larrañaga et al (2016) and Vernon (2020) carbon, phosphorus, and selenium; and the elements otherwise commonly recognized as metalloids namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium. According to Hill, et al (2017), metalloids are sometimes classified as nonmetals. Metalloids behave chemically like nonmetals but may be treated as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive.[Hill]

Sources

You may need to rejig that to get it to work right, but for me, something along those lines would solve the whole dilemma of this article at FAC. That's all I have for this section. When I start on the General properties, I'll expect more detailed language and a higher level of knowledge, but still generally decipherable to a non-chemist, and after that, I'll be less worried about what I don't understand :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The two Vernon articles are on different topics and are cited accordingly. Vernon 2013 is about which elements are metalloids and notes that in a survey of 194 lists of metalloids, C, P, Se were included 16, 10, and 46 times respectively. Vernon 2020 is about organising the metals and nonmetals, and treats metalloids as nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this may cut the mustard[1]:

Ideas

Proposed

Up to twenty-three elements may be regarded as nonmetals as of 2020,[Steudel 2020, p. 43]</ref> but any such list is open to challenge.[Larrañaga] Larrañaga et al (2016) recognize fourteen elements as metals: hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the corrosive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon.[Larrañaga] Up to a further nine elements are sometimes considered nonmetals by Larrañaga et al (2016)[Larrañaga] and Vernon (2020):[Vernon 2020] carbon, phosphorus, and selenium; and the elements otherwise commonly recognized as metalloids namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium. According to Hill, et al (2017), metalloids are sometimes classified as nonmetals. Metalloids behave chemically like nonmetals but may be treated as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive.[Hill]

Although Steudel,[cite] in 2020, recognised twenty-three elements as nonmetals any such such list is open to challenge.[cite] Fourteen effectively always recognized as such are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the corrosive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon; see e.g. Larrañaga et al.[cite] While the same authors recognized carbon, phosphorus and selenium as nonmetals, Vernon[cite] had earlier reported that these three elements were instead counted as metalloids in a survey of 194 lists of metalloids, 16, 10, and 46 times respectively. The elements commonly recognized as metalloids namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium are sometimes counted as intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive;[Hill17] at other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry.[cite]

Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. In a slightly modified form. Sandbh (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

Thanks SandyGeorgia for your diligence. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (to all) for you patience as I fumble around in unfamiliar territory; hopefully, my fumbling will pay off eventually at FAC. I am going to get busy for a few days catching up on much delayed work at the J. K. Rowling Featured article review, which will leave some time to sort the quantum mechanics issues here (which I note is another article in quite good shape, thanks to User:XOR'easter, and together with metallic bonding, gives me a digestible sense of what's missing here and why it's essential). Graham Beards has a special ability to write clear and plain prose on complex topics (while I don't have that ability, even on simple topics :); I'll catch up here after I get some balls rolling at Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Until the weekend or so have I’ll have some RL obligations which will make my capacity to respond and contribute unpredictable. At this early point in my thinking, mention in the lede of e.g. covalent/metallic bonding, the Fermi gas, and quantum mechanics, strikes me as equivalent to boiling the ocean, from a lay reader perspective, especially the last two. For the first one I previously said I’d left this out on account of it being too technical (for the lede), noting Graham’s concerns about dumbing down, and Double Sharp’s suggestion. Bonding considerations are, in any event, discussed later in the article. That said, I’ll look more closely at these questions and continue the thread below, as appropriate. Sandbh (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting we add quantum mechanics or Fermi gas to the Lead. I was just suggesting we should include something on chemical bonds which are basic to the distinction between metals and their counterparts. Something along the lines of the suggestion below would be enough. In my view, not including this would be a major omission and a deal breaker at FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As a layreader in this area, I'll add that there is nothing difficult in the wording below, which looks helpful and necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Tx Graham and SG. I’ll continue the thread in the metallic bond section, currently below. Sandbh (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The metallic bond

Did you see my comment on the article's Talk Page where I wrote: " In my view the fundamental difference is the metallic bond and the presence of the Fermi gas in metals. The tensile strength of metals, their high melting point , opacity, ductility and conductance are all because of that bond...non-metals...show a broader variety of properties because of (the different) way they are bonded and this is the fundamental difference. The Lead seems to be dodging this because it is deemed to be too technical perhaps?" - Graham Beards (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have re-read that now, Graham, and think I see the problem. (Please hit me over the head again if I'm still missing it.) Initially, I only skimmed that discussion, hoping the chemists among us would sort the big definitional problems in the lead. When Double sharp put up an alternative, I mistakenly assumed the chemists among us had settled on something agreeable, so I could continue review. Re-reading that discussion now, I see there may be a notion that the metallic bond and Fermi gas can't be mentioned in the lead because laypeople (eg, me) can't understand it and are asking for it to be removed. The significance of (and simplicity of) what you mention is scarcely discussed in the article, and was not discussed in any more depth, nor was it in the lead, in the version that was last at FAC. In other words, this is a new problem with the article to me, the explanation is perfectly understandable, I have not asked for anything of that nature to be dumbed down a level, and this looks to be a serious deficit in not only the lead, but also the article, that needs to be overcome before continuing. I mistakenly thought we were at the level where I could start nitpicking prose; that looks not to be the case. The metallic bond article lead is clear enough. And your explanation is clear enough. Sandbh, I don't understand why this isn't covered in the article, and I'm less sure if I've been spinning my wheels trying to get the article to a point of more visual clarity and clarity in prose, if there are still fundamental inaccuracies or missing pieces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A step towards mentioning this could be to add some stuff to the first paragraph of the lede. Perhaps it could even be done with a single sentence: "In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties. They tend to have high ionisation energies, so that in condensed form, they do not have the mobile electrons that are characteristic of metallic bonding. As a result, they are typically transparent or non-metallic in appearance, have low weight, and are poor thermal and electrical conductors. Solid nonmetals are brittle to crumbly, cannot be flattened into sheets or easily drawn into wires without shattering or breaking, and have low to no structural strength. The rest of the nonmetals are nearly all gases at room temperature; there is only one liquid nonmetal, bromine. Nonmetal atoms are moderately to highly electronegative; they tend to attract electrons in chemical reactions and to form acidic compounds."

As for the rest of it: Nonmetal#Physical at least roughly gets at this essential distinction, so that's a start. It could be made even more clearer. I wrote some stuff about this at Periodic table#Metallicity; that's an even more general article, so maybe this one should go a bit more in depth about the distinction. Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not mentioning chemical bonds in the Lead is a mistake. This, (from Periodic Table) gets it right IMHO; "Nonmetals exhibit different properties. Those forming giant covalent crystals exhibit high melting and boiling points, as it takes a lot of energy to overcome the strong covalent bonds. Those forming discrete molecules are held together mostly by dispersion forces, which are more easily overcame; thus they tend to have lower melting and boiling points,[75] and many are liquids or gases at room temperature.[3] " After all, isn't chemistry solely about the behaviour of electrons in how they share themselves? Graham Beards (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With some help from wikilinks, the only part I find inelegant is "more easily ovecame", and I have not encountered before London dispersion forces. Is there a way to provide a dummies 101 on that concept? Even if you just add a few clarifying words, the layreader can get the gist even if they don't understand the specifics ... something like this, because rather than buried in the body of an article likely to be read only by those who already have a knowledge base, we are in the lead which has to be more digestible:

Nonmetals exhibit different properties. Those forming giant covalent crystals exhibit high melting and boiling points, as it takes a lot of energy to overcome the strong covalent bonds. Those forming discrete molecules are held together mostly by dispersion forces acting between atoms and molecules. These forces can be overcome more easily (??than covalent bonds?? Or something else??); thus, nonmetals tend to have lower melting and boiling points, and many are liquids or gases at room temperature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it should read "overcome"; there's a typo in the Periodic Table article, which I didn't spot. We need a better expression than "a lot of" (which my English grammar teacher said had no place in the written language). How about something like:

Nonmetals exhibit different properties. Those that form giant covalent crystals exhibit high melting and boiling points, as it takes considerable energy to overcome the strong covalent bonds. Those forming discrete molecules are held together mostly by dispersion forces acting between atoms and molecules. These forces can be overcome more easily than covalent bonds and discrete molecules tend to have lower melting and boiling points, and many are liquids or gases at room temperature.

-Graham Beards (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The fly-by list (FBL)

Here are some fly-by thoughts, in a rough order, without any considered analysis:

1. There is no widely agreed precise definition of a metallic bond.
2. None of the 22 historical attempts to define the distinction between metals and nonmetals have relied on the presence of metallic bonding.
3. This is because one cannot measure metallic bonding; one can only infer its purported existence from the presence of tangible phenomena.
4. The metallic bond has had a very spotty record in the chemical literature. See, for example, What Is the Metallic Bond? (1994) https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00098a050; The Metallic Bond—Dead or Alive? A Comment and a Reply https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199520041; Does the Death Knell Toll for the Metallic Bond? (1995) https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199510811; In Defense of the Metallic Bond (1999) https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p1330; Direct Space Representation of the Metallic Bond (2000), “The metallic bond appears to be a partial covalent bond.” https://doi.org/10.1021/jp992784c; The origin of the metallic bond (2009) https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p278
5. None of the eight sources listed by SG refer to the structures of the nonmetals, or metallic bonding in metals, whereas six of them mention that nonmetals can be gas, liquid or solid. I attribute this to the fact that, for the lay reader, the three states of matter have more meaning.
6. The gas-liquid-solid division provides a foundation to distinguish metals and nonmetals. All gases are nonmetals. Insulating liquids are nonmetals (Br); conducting liquids (Hg) are metals. The solids are ductile and malleable (quite a few metals); hard and brittle (if a semiconductor they are a nonmetal, like B; if a conductor, like Mn, they are a metal): or soft and crumbly (if they react with nitric acid to give an acid or oxide they are a nonmetal; if they give a nitrate (Ga, Bi) they are a metal).
7. Graham, the metallic bond properties referred to i.e. the “tensile strength of metals, their high melting point, opacity, ductility and conductance” are not seen in all metals. There are low melting point metals; brittle metals; translucent gold; and metals that, while they conduct electricity, do so poorly compared to e.g. silver, which is the best conductor. For thermal conductivity, some metals do this worse than some nonmetals.
8. To some extent, the standard line that nonmetals show more variety in properties than do nonmetals is exaggerated.
9. Re, “The tensile strength of metals, their high melting point…are all because of that bond” is not the full story. The strengths of the strong transition metals and those with high mp arise from a covalent-bond-like overlapping of d orbitals between adjacent atoms.
10. Covalent or directional bonding occurs among Be; the early actinides; and the post-transition metals; and explains the distorted crystalline structures seen among most of these elements.
11. Metallic bonding occurs to some extent in B, C, P, As, Se, Sb, Te, and I as seen in metallic lustre, semiconducting properties, and bonding or valence bands with delocalized character.
12. The focus of the article is on nonmetals and their properties, rather than metals and their properties + nonmetals and their properties.
13. In the modified wording of the periodic table extract, the expression, “Nonmetals exhibit different properties” is redundant.
14. More generally, the modified extract, has, for a lede, “general-reader non-friendly” jargon, and is inaccurate.
15. Here are the crystalline structures of the nonmetals:

    3D lattices: Si, Ge;

    2D sheets: C,* P,* As,* Sb*;

    Chains of a thousand or so atoms: Se,* Te*;

    Polyatomic molecules: B,* S;

    Diatomic molecules: H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I*; and

    Single atoms: He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn

    *partially metallic bonding.

16. So far, the prospect of mentioning metallic bonding in the lede strikes me as a can of worms. Which probably partly explains why I left it out of the lede, the other reason being the “not general reader friendly” jargon. Sandbh (talk)
17. While plasticity (malleability, ductility) and electrical conductivity are associated with free electrons in metals, plasticity and electrical conductivity also occur in nonmetals. C, P, S, Se have non-brittle forms: C as exfoliated (expanded) graphite, and as metre-long carbon nanotube wire; P as white phosphorus, the most abundant form, (soft as wax, pliable and can be cut with a knife, at room temperature); S as plastic sulfur; and Se as selenium wires. The electrical conductors are C, As, Sb. Sandbh (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
18. Further to the spotty record of the metallic bond noted at # 4, Jensen[2] added:

    "Whereas the thrust of band theory has been the prediction and rationalization of the thermal, electrical, and magnetic properties of metals, chemists are far more interested in bonding models that offer simple correlations between valence-electron counts and both the composition and structures of possible compounds. Though they have been very successful in developing such correlations in the cases of both the covalent and ionic bonding extremes, similar success in the case of intermetallic compounds and alloys has been almost totally lacking. Though one can cite the pioneering attempts of such metallurgists as Hume-Rothery, Laves, and Engels, as well as the brilliant work of the German chemist, Eduard Zintl, on the transition between ionic and metallic bonding, the situation today remains much the same as when it was summarized by Fernelius and Robey in 1935 (10):

    The classification of intermetallic compounds is very difficult. Not only are the experimental difficulties great, but as yet no single theoretical or empircal method of treatment has been sufficiently powerful to elucidate more than a portion of the entire field."

    Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

19. As Graham wrote[3]: "Don't dump accuracy in favour of simplicity..." Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

---

---

Not general reader friendly? The BBC has this for our 15 year olds [4] I think you may be a little too stubborn. Graham Beards (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Re # 5 above (None of the eight sources listed by SG ... ) I'm not comfortable with this use of that list. I chose those sites only to look at examples of how we might simplify language, with no regard to reliability, as I specifically stated. That BBC page looks quite helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion this list is simply not seeing the forest for the trees. Surely every first-year chemistry text explains what metallic bonding is and talks about the different structures formed by metals and nonmetals as part of periodicity. For one thing, even The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry does it. And the lists of elements regarded as nonmetallic tend to correlate extremely well with the elements whose crystals don't have metallic interactions as the main bonding contribution. Why, their properties are very often explained in those terms.

Yes, "a lattice of ions in a uniform sea of electrons" is not true even for caesium, but it is a fairly good simplification, which is what we're after. More importantly for an encyclopaedia, it is an extremely standard simplification. It is not the full story, but if you understand that, you know pretty much the most important part of the story. After all, there is no such thing as a fully "ionic bond" either, not even for CsF.

As you correctly note, some partial metallic interactions occur between the layers/chains for C, P, As, Sb, Bi, Se, and Te. (Inclusion of Bi here is deliberate; it's not a "metal" by physical definitions.) I even wrote that in Periodic table#Metallicity to explain the appearance of semiconductors near the diagonal line: there is a band gap, but it's small. (Band gaps diminishing down each group are a periodic trend, after all.) But I don't do that until I explain what the metallic bond theoretically is. That's nothing special, you often have to simplify things pedagogically before you can explain something more complicated that's closer to the truth.

Indeed, there are many odd cases on either side. That is why authors do not agree on what elements exactly are metals and nonmetals, as the article already correctly notes. In fact, this is my main quarrel with your point #6: yes, one can distinguish the nonmetals from the metals that way if one so chooses. One also can use other criteria. It seems that metallic bonding is a more common way to distinguish them than such criteria as what happens when you react the element with nitric acid. Who uses the latter?

Returning to The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry, I suggest that its footnote on p. 53 be paid due attention: "Disclaimer: there are exceptions, as with nearly everything in chemistry." Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp, did you mean to outdent this one level? It looks like you're responding to me (eg my list of sources), when I believe you responding to Sandbh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Sorry! Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The following comments address concerns raised by SG and GB. Double sharp, thanks; I hope to able to respond to your contribution this weekend, if not before, noting Jensen speaks to your first point.

Per SandyGeorgia’s previous advice, “giant covalent crystals”, “covalent bonds” and “dispersion forces” are not general reader friendly. I’d probably add “molecule” to that list, too. Per SG’s previous advice, it should not be necessary, in a lede, for the general reader to click on a wikilink to decipher such terms.

Graham, that page on the BBC site is not primarily relevant as it discusses Metallic bonding and structure, and this is not the focus of the nonmetal article per # 12 above. Yes, it may be written in language a 15 yo could understand. No, it is a whole lot of extra wordage that is not necessarily required.

More generally, I abandoned the “fundamental difference” approach that was originally based on phases of matter even though this is the more popular approach consistently taken in the sources mentioned in this thread. The metallic bond “fundamental difference” approach is even more problematic and mentioned by fewer authors.

What is instead more helpful at the BBC site is their page on Metals and non-metals, including the specific properties of metals, and those of nonmetals, and which—once again—says nothing about metallic bonds.

SG, the sources that were listed are fine, in reliability terms, at the level they’re pitched at. For academically reliable sources consider the 22 of these listed at item # 2 above, and in the nonmetal article, NONE of which refer to metallic bonding!

Harking back to one of the other sources I listed at # 5 above, Jensen (a chemistry professor and respected historian of chemistry) in his peer-reviewed 2009 review of the origin of the metallic bond, further concluded:

”Given these problems it is perhaps not surprising that…the vast majority [emphasis added] of introductory chemistry texts continue to ignore it [the metallic bond] and to [in his opinion] incorrectly inform readers that all bonding is ionic or covalent.”

Now, I’m betting I could find one modern textbook that talks about the metallic bond. But has the vast majority ignored it? I find this hard to believe. OTOH, knowing Jensen has previously surveyed chemistry text books, I presume he was onto something. Sandbh (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Jensen's statement seems incredibly hard to believe. Books literally titled "Introductory Chemistry" talking about metallic bonds: 2020, 2014 (literally one of the "Key Terms and Concepts"), 2002, 1986, 1979. Some others at here, here, here. And in school chemical education around the world. Perhaps he was looking at some truly dire and forgotten textbooks.

In my opinion that BBC page is really dumbed down. It mentions all sorts of properties that metals and nonmetals have, but neglects to inform us about the causes of them, which are naturally the metallic bonding in metals and the covalent bonding in nonmetals. I think we can and should do better.

If we can't even mention "covalent bond" and "molecule", then are we doing a basic article on chemistry, or an exercise in constrained writing? Not every article has to start from ground zero. Hyperlinks exist and so do brief parenthetical explanations. I explained the London dispersion force briefly at Periodic table#Metallicity after linking to the article on it; I don't see why we couldn't do something similar here.

And surely your criterion (#6) about what happens when the element is reacted with nitric acid is even less commonly adopted than presence/lack of metallic bonding in the simple substance? Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you are overstating the case for accessibility of text, and underestimating how much a layreader can deduce from the context of words supplied around the technical term. For example, your earlier lead had a string of words in the definition with no context for understanding what any of the three words meant-- the reader was forced to click out. By the context given, I can understand what dispersion forces are and can opt to click out only if I need to know more. That's how article leads should work. As a layreader, I am able to understand all of the terms you list above relate to what holds the elements together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That is, as samples, compare:

• In chemistry, a nonmetal is a type of chemical element generally characterized by low density, low strength, and a tendency to form acidic compounds. About half are colored or colorless gases whereas nearly ...

Most of the actual words used are simple, and yet without context, the sentence means nothing to me as a non-chemist. The paragraph moves straight from three concepts (density, strength and acidic compounds) to a new topic (color) without helping the layreader understand how those three concepts relate to whether something is a metal. Most of the words themselves are simple (density, strength), but the sentence tells me nothing if I don't how the density or acidity of an element affects its metallic properties. I'm left no more knowledgeable than when I started reading.

Compare to:

• Those that form giant covalent crystals exhibit high melting and boiling points, as it takes considerable energy to overcome the strong covalent bonds.

I don't need to know the relevance of "giant" or "covalent" because I can understand from the context in which they are used. This sentence explains to me that these types of elements behave as they do because they are held together in a way that requires energy to overcome a certain kind bond that keeps them together.

• Those forming discrete molecules are held together mostly by dispersion forces acting between atoms and molecules.

And then this sentence tells me there is another type of element that is held together differently; that is, by a kind of force acting at the level of their atoms and molecules. I don't need to know what a dispersion force is; context explains that. If I want to know what it is, I can click out, but I am not obligated to click out to understand the meaning of the sentence.

• These forces can be overcome more easily than covalent bonds and discrete molecules tend to have lower melting and boiling points, and many are liquids or gases at room temperature.

And then this sentence ties it all together. It explains that these melt or boil more easily because what is holding them together as elements is less strong. Perfectly understandable.

Summary: whether content is digestible to a reader is much more than just the words used. All of the metallic bonding proposed text is more helpful and meaningful to me than "density, strength and acidity" were, because the lead before gave me no idea how those words defined distinguishing properties and characteristics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

But, with such a fundamental difference about the chemistry existing between you, Double sharp and Graham, and a difference over what sources support, it is premature for me to be nitpicking prose. There is a comprehensiveness and basic accuracy dispute here; resolving that supersedes simplifying the text in the earlier parts of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Double sharp and I reached agreement on these matters and, after some input and correspondence from and with Graham Beards. I likewise reached agreement at the end of the "A paragraph about electrons, plasticity, and conductivity" subsection, although I haven't heard from him recently. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So, last Tuesday is not "recent"! Graham Beards (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good to know you're still around. Sandbh (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Cox PA 2005, Inorganic Chemistry, 2nd ed., Instant note series

Cox [5] is the most straightforward text that immediately comes to mind. A reviewer of Cox, in JChemEd,[6] wrote:

"I would confidently recommend this book as an inexpensive supplemental text for an upper-level inorganic chemistry course. Students will benefit from the concise explanations of the concepts and will not get bogged down by cumbersome calculations. The book would also serve as a useful reference for those wishing to learn the more descriptive aspects of inorganic chemistry. Finally, I can see it being helpful for those who need to brush up on inorganic chemistry before taking a standardized exam as most of the classic examples of inorganic chemistry are included in the book."

Cox speaks clearly on: typical nonmetals; exceptions in characterisation (per the Cartoon Guide); borderline elements; that the bonds between metals are a special kind of covalent bond; being wary of oversimplified bonding models; and metallic and covalent interactions arising from overlapping atomic orbitals (as occurs among the transition metals).

He notably says nothing about plasticity (ductility and malleability) in metals, or brittleness in solid nonmetals, that I could find, nor that nonmetals have low densities, whereas metals usually have higher densities. He does however gets half the distinction right (p. 26) when he says that EN is an obvious parameter that determines the different kinds of behaviour.

Some extracts follow.

Chemical periodicity

Page 26:

"The most important classification of elements is that of metallic versus non-metallic. Metallic elements form solids that are good conductors of electricity and have structures with many near neighbors and where bonding is not strongly directional. Non-metallic elements form molecules or covalent solids, which are generally poor conductors of electricity and where bonding is markedly directional in character. This distinction on the basis of physical properties is fairly clear-cut and is shown in the periodic table in Fig. 1 [24 nonmetals including the metalloids and At]. All elements of the s, d and f blocks are metallic (except hydrogen), non-metallic ones being confined to hydrogen and to the upper right-hand part of the p block. The most obvious atomic parameter that determines this behavior is electronegativity (see Topic B1, especially Fig. 1).

Different types of chemical behavior are associated with the two kinds of element.

• Typical metallic elements are good reducing agents (for example, reacting with water to produce dihydrogen) and form hydrated cations in aqueous solution (Na⁺ Mg⁺, etc.). They have solid halides and oxides, which are well described by the ionic model. The oxides are basic and either react with water to produce hydroxide ions (OH^-) or, if insoluble under neutral conditions, dissolve in acidic solutions. Their hydrides are solids with some ionic (H^-) character.
• Typical non-metallic elements form ionic compounds with electropositive metals. They form anions in water, either monatomic (e. g. Cl^-) or oxoanions (e.g. NO₃^-, SO₄^2-). They have molecular hydrides and halides. Their oxides are either molecular or polymeric covalent in structure and are acidic, reacting with water (as do halides) to produce oxoacids (H₂CO₃, H_2SO₄, etc.)

It must be recognized that this classification has many limitations, and borderline behavior is common. In addition to their typical cationic behavior, most metals form some compounds where bonding is predominately covalent (see, e.g. Topic G6). Some form anionic species such as MnO^4- or even Na^- (see Topic G2). Many metals in later groups are much less electropositive than the typical definition would suggest, and the metal-nonmetal borderline in the p block involves a continuous gradation in chemical behavior rather than a discontinuous boundary (see Topic G6). Non-metallic elements close to the metallic borderline (Si, Ge, As, Sb, Se, Te) show less tendency to anionic behavior and are sometimes called metalloids."

EN and bond types

Page 22

"When A and B are both electropositive they form a metallic solid, characterized by high electrical conductivity and a structure where each atom is surrounded by many others (often 12; see Topic D2). Metallic bonding involves the delocalization of electrons throughout the solid. The electrons are shared between atoms as in covalent bonding (see below), but in a less specific way and without the directional character of covalent bonds."

Page 24

"One should beware of using oversimplified criteria of bond type based on physical properties. It is sometimes stated that ’typical’ ionic compounds have high melting points and dissolve well in polar solvents such as water, whereas covalent compounds have low melting points and dissolve well in nonpolar solvents. This can be very misleading. Diamond, a purely covalent substance, has one of the highest melting points known and is insoluble in any solvent. Some compounds well described by the ionic model have fairly low melting points; others are very insoluble in water on grounds that can be explained perfectly satisfactorily in terms of ions (see Topic E4)."

Introduction to solids

Page 98

"Although these broad distinctions [between molecular, metallic, covalent or polymeric, and ionic solids] are useful, many solids show a degree of intermediate character, or even several types of bonding simultaneously. Metallic and covalent interactions both arise from overlapping atomic orbitals (see Topics C4—C7) and the distinction in physical properties arises from the energy distribution of electronic levels (see Topic D7). The structures and electronic properties of elements show a gradation in character at the metal-nonmetal borderline (see Topics B2 and D2). A similar gradation is seen between ionic and covalent compounds as the electronegativity difference between two elements changes (see Topics Bl and D4). Furthermore, solids with predominantly ionic bonding between some atoms can also have covalent bonds between others (see Topic D5)."

Sandbh (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this book is very good. I think it's okay if not every single qualitative rough distinction between metals and nonmetals is there; they are tendencies. More important that the root cause (bonding) is there. :) Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

A paragraph about electrons, plasticity, and conductivity

Ahead of responding to the most recent additions to the thread, I've added a paragraph about electrons etc to the Physical properties section of the article, after the "Outwardly..." paragraph and before the "Inwardly..." paragraph, as follows:

[P1] "Plasticity (malleability, ductility) and good thermal and electrical conductivity are ordinarily associated with the presence of free moving and uniformly distributed electrons in metals;^[cite] with some exceptions, the electrons in nonmetals typically lack such mobility.^[cite] Among the nonmetallic elements:

• plasticity occurs in limited circumstances only in carbon, phosphorus, sulfur, selenium, and the metalloid nonmetals;^{[note 8]}
• good electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity is seen only for carbon, arsenic and antimony;^[cite] and
• thermal conductivity values comparable to those of metals are otherwise evident only for boron, carbon (diamantine), silicon, phosphorus, and germanium;^[30] such conductivity is transmitted though vibrations of the crystalline lattices of these elements.^[cite]

Sandbh (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a great improvement IMHO. I'd like a brief (perhaps single-sentence) summary of such considerations in the lede, though. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've drafted some more on this topic:

[P2] "Inwardly, whereas metals tend to have closely-packed structures in which each atom is typically surrounded by eight to twelve of its neighbours, nonmetals have structures with fewer nearest neighbours. At the same time, the electrons in metals are shared throughout the entirety of their structures while those in nonmetals tend to be shared only between individual neighbouring atoms. Consequently, and with some exceptions, nonmetals tend to be lighter than metals and to have lower melting and boiling points."

I also want to integrate this into the Physical properties section. I intend to then review the lede. Sandbh (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The first bit about close-packing is good, though as a nod to Bi and Po (six nearest neighbours, same as As), perhaps we should add a "usually" to have "nonmetals usually have structures with fewer nearest neighbours".

However, isn't lower melting and boiling points rather explained by dispersion forces vs covalent/metallic bonding, rather than directional vs non-directional? Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp, I think "usually" covers off on Bi and Po, doesn't it? Arsenic (and Sb) I read as having 3 nearest neighbours, with 3 next-nearest neighbours. For a nonmetallic element, B has the most, at 5+ nearest neighbours. I though we had a precise average figure somewhere on wp but I can't find it right now.

For mp and bp, I haven't said anything about directional v directional.

I wanted to imply that metals tend do better since there are more bonds involved holding the metal lattice together due to the delocalized electrons/Fermi sea (augmented by extra covalent bonding seen in the TM). Since H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn don't have delocalized electrons they don't do well. Whereas the eight nonmetals with some degree of delocalized electrons (B, As, Sb, Te, C, P, Se, I) have mp's comparable to those of metals, as do the two network covalent solids Si, and Ge. Sulfur has an mp of 389 K which is better than Hg, Fr, Cs, Ga, Rb, K, Na; I don't know why it's is so high.

The average mp of the elements is 1261. For metals it's 1450 K whereas that of the solid nonmetals is a mighty 1321 (above average!). For nonmetals it's 641. For the fluid nonmetals it's 100.

So I'm saying that since non-metals tend to lack itinerant electrons, they don't do so will in the mp/bp stakes, without saying anything else about how the nonmetals are held together. But I haven't yet looked at how to integrate those two new passages into the physical properties section so everything's still on the table. Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For reference here are the mp's involved:

• Nonmetal gases and one liquid (H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn) = 12, molecules held together by dispersion forces

Nonmetals solids, and their mp or volatilisation points in degrees K:

• Metalloids: B 2348, Si 1687, Ge 1211 As 1090, Sb 903, Te 723 = 6
• C 3915, P 689(?), S 388, Se 494, I 389 = 5

Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I added that word "usually" to what you wrote. If you consider As and Sb to be 3+3, then the natural rejoinder is that the same is true of Bi. And Ga, Sn, U don't have a lot of "nearest neighbours" by such a measure either. That's why I think the "usually" is warranted. :)

My point is basically that high mp depends on how easy it is to break the bonds holding the crystal together. Metallic and covalent bonds are both much stronger than London dispersion forces, when all things are equal, so high mp simply means you have the former situation rather than the latter. I think that's the standard explanation you'd get in school, after all, and explains high melting points for network-covalent C (diamond), Si, and Ge. So maybe some clarification is in order: it's not the lack of itinerant electrons that makes nonmetals not do so well, but the fact that many of them are only held together weakly as solid crystals. :)

For S, it's simply because S₈ is a big molecule, so lots of electrons (128 to be precise) to make stronger instantaneous dipoles than something like O₂ (16 electrons). Same reason for I₂ (106 electrons). Whereas something like Na has very few electrons contributing to the metallic bond. So in principle it is not too different to why N≡N has a much higher bond energy than F–F. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp: It occurred to me that the physical properties of the nonmetals could be explained in terms of their electron structures as insulators semiconductors, or semimetals, compared to those of metals:

Physical properties of the elements up to Pu (Z = 94) excl. At, Ac

E-structure	Elements	Appearance	E-conductivity	MP (K)	BP	Packing %	Plasticity	Notes
Insulator (13)	He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn; H, N, O, F, Cl, Br; S	transparent or coloured	low	< 300	< 750	1–19	◇ not applicable ◇ S is crumbly ¶	◇ monatomic ◇ covalent diatomic or polyatomic (S8)
Semiconductor (7)	Se, Te; I;^ P; B, Si, Ge	shiny #	moderate	≥ 300	> 750 §	24–36	brittle ¶	◇ covalent chains, layer lattice, sheets, or 3D-network ◇ partial delocalisation in Se, Te, I, P, B
Semimetal (4)	C, As, Sb, Bi		good			17–43		◇ covalent-metallic sheets ◇ partial delocalisation in C ◇ limited charge carriers in As, Sb, Bi
Metal (68)	Active,† transition, post-transition			≥ 300 ‡		39–74, 80% ≥ 68	c. 80% of metals are ductile	brittle metals (12): Be, Mg, Cr, W, Mn, Rh, Ir, Ru, Os, Ga, Po(?), Pu
^ Iodine has a structure very similar to that of gallium † Groups 1– 2, Ln, An, Al # Cu has has a pinkish-orange hue; Cs yellowish; Au reddish-yellow ‡ Hg = 235 § Hg = 630 ¶ Plasticity occurs in limited circumstances e.g. C as exfoliated (expanded) graphite, and as metre-long carbon nanotube wire; P as white phosphorus (soft as wax, pliable and can be cut with a knife, at room temperature); S as plastic sulfur; and Se as selenium wires, drawn from the molten form

Harking back to what Graham suggested:

Current

Ideas

Those that form giant covalent crystals exhibit high melting and boiling points, as it takes considerable energy to overcome the strong covalent bonds. Those forming discrete molecules are held together mostly by dispersion forces acting between atoms and molecules. These forces can be overcome more easily than covalent bonds and discrete molecules tend to have lower melting and boiling points, and many are liquids or gases at room temperature.

Those existing in monatomic forms or as discrete molecules tend to have low melting and boiling points as they are held together mostly by weak dispersion forces acting between atoms or molecules. Many are gases at room temperature. Those that form giant structures, such as chains of about 1,000 atoms, sheets or 3D lattices, exhibit higher melting and boiling points, as it takes more energy to overcome their stronger covalent bonds.

Per FBL # 19, there remains an issue of how to accommodate iodine, which is held together by a combination of delocalised electrons and dispersion forces, but at least the Physical properties table and the Current/Ideas table can all go into the mix. More generally, I also think the delocalised bonding that also occurs in e.g. B and Se may be worth a mention.

Re nitric acid, Cotton and Wilkinson (1976) wrote:

"All the [Group 15] elements react readily with halogens but are unaffected by non-oxidising acids. Nitric acid gives, respectively, phosphoric acid, arsenic acid, antimony trioxide, and bismuth nitrate, which well illustrates the increasing metallic character as the group is descended."

— Cotton F. A.; Wilkinson, G. Basic Inorganic Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1976, p 288.

On this basis they treat Bi as a metal. Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the ones with macromolecular structures tend to also have smaller band gaps. I like your suggestion. To handle the delocalised bonding, perhaps a sentence could be added, something like "Nonmetals closer to the dividing line often have some weak metallic interactions between their molecules, chains, or layers, consistent with their proximity to the metals. Such interactions increase in strength down the group." Adding "molecules" handles this situation for Cl-Br-I (Siekierski & Burgess, the chapters on group 17). This way it is even true for noble gases, which are the reason why I don't say metallisation is reached in the end. (That and semimetallic bismuth.) Theoretically it may be but 7p elements are too unstable to experimentally find out.

Thanks for finding a source for the nitric acid thing, though I wonder how many others use it. After all, hot conc H₂SO₄ gives respectively phosphoric acid, arsenic trioxide, antimony sulfate, bismuth sulfate, so I can see other authors disagreeing on where exactly to draw the line. I very much like how you're keeping it about tendencies rather than strict criteria in the article, and I really like how you say "Such decisions depend on which property or properties are regarded as being most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character". :D Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp, I've finished an initial rewrite[7] of the physical properties section, incorporating your suggestion, and the two earlier paragraphs, now marked as [P1] and [P2], that I wanted to integrate. I don't know of any other authors using nitric acid although sources describing the reactions of nonmetals with it are easy enough to find. Our article on antimony(III) sulfate says it is more often described as a mixed oxide Sb₂O₃.3SO₃. Thanks for your other feedback, which is very encouraging. Sandbh (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Thank you, that looks very good! Looking forward to seeing it cited.

Yes, antimony sulfate is not well-described as a salt, but it has the "right stoichiometry". In the absence of others explicitly using nitric acid as the guideline, it may be better to simply say that reactions with acids go from producing acids to oxides to salts as an illustration of increasing metallic character, without making a claim for where the threshold of metallicity is passed. This "metallic character" is itself something of a main-group generalisation – rhenium dissolves in conc HNO₃ and H₂SO₄ to form perrhenic acid, after all – but that only suggests a possible addition of interest, if you can find something noting that not just post-transition metals (which you already mention) but also heavy transition metals have some similarities to nonmetals. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp: I've now adjusted the lead paragraph of the lead to match, per your earlier request along these lines.

The notion of reaction with acids to form acids to oxides to salts is pleasing; I'd not thought about looking at it that way. That example of rhenium is interesting. Sandbh (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Nice, thanks.

I'd prefer to see someone mentioning that notion a bit more explicitly than C&W did before putting it in, but I think it makes sense that they meant it. :)

As far as I can remember, only Tc and Re spring to mind as doing that among transition metals. They are interesting cases. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp: Thanks. Yes, the article doesn't mention a nitric acid "test" for nonmetallic status. The Physical properties, Chemical section only says:

"Nonmetals have moderate to high values of electronegativity[39] and, in chemical reactions, tend to form acidic compounds. For example, the solid nonmetals (including metalloids) react with nitric acid to form either an acid, or an oxide that is acidic or has acidic properties predominating.[n 10]"

Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Yes, I think that's good (putting it just as an example). :) Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards: Graham, with the help of Double sharp I believe I've now managed to address your concerns about the internal difference between metals and nonmetals. Most of the work went into the Physical properties section, with the lede now picking up a mention of this, via free electrons and more or less localised electrons. Does it look OK to you now? Thanks, Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the prose is not FA standard. We can't have a sentence this long in the lead:

"Whereas electrons in metals are free moving and account for the fact that metals are good conductors of heat and electricity, and that most of them are plastic (malleable, ductile), the electrons in nonmetals, with some exceptions, tend to be fixed in place and less mobile, accounting for the generally weaker conducting properties of nonmetals, and the brittle nature of the solids."

It needs to be broken down and the redundancy ("the fact that") removed. How about something along the lines:

The electrons in metals are free moving and this is why they are good conductors of heat and electricity and most metals are malleable and ductile. The electrons in nonmetals, with some exceptions, are fixed in place, and nonmetals are usually poorer conductors and brittle when solid.

We certainly can't say "most of them are plastic". (My linking). Graham Beards (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards, I've rejigged your words, and adding a linking sentence:

Suggestion	Implemented
The electrons in metals are free moving and this is why they are good conductors of heat and electricity and most metals are malleable and ductile. The electrons in nonmetals, with some exceptions, are fixed in place, and nonmetals are usually poorer conductors and brittle when solid.	The electrons in nonmetals behave differently to those in metals. With some exceptions, those in nonmetals are fixed in place, resulting in nonmetals being poor conductors of heat and electricity and brittle or crumbly when solid. The electrons in metals are generally free moving and this is why metals are good conductors and most are easily flattened into sheets and drawn into wires.

After some trimming, the opening paragraph of the lede now reads:

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties; they range from colorless gases to shiny and refractory (high melting point) solids. The electrons in nonmetals behave differently to those in metals. With some exceptions, those in nonmetals are fixed in place, resulting in nonmetals usually being poor conductors of heat and electricity and brittle or crumbly when solid. The electrons in metals are generally free moving and this is why metals are good conductors and most are easily flattened into sheets and drawn into wires. Nonmetal atoms are moderately to highly electronegative; they tend to attract electrons in chemical reactions and to form acidic compounds.

It appears to read well. Sandbh (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

DePiep

On sentences and wordings:

• In § Suggested distinguishing criteria: "Jones, in contrast, and writing on the role of classification in science, observed that ...". To me, confusing at first. The subjects 'contrast' and 'writing on' are not on equal foot (it is not a listing), they are not two arguments. Removing and would solve the issue I guess. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• In § Complications: "prominent in hydrogen, (boron), carbon, ...". Being a running sentence & with regular grammar, the meaning of the ( )-brackets is unclear. I guess one could simply remove the brackets, and make sure the exception is clarified in the appropriate subsection(s). Clarifying in-sentence would de facto not be clarifying IMO. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• In § Suggested distinguishing criteria and below: "different properties—physical, chemical, and electronic—have ...". I am not sure the word "wikt:electronic" is clear or even unambiguous. It has multiple, closely related different meanings. See also next bullet. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also, the lede says "poor to moderate conductors of ... electricity", which is not present in the "Some properties .." table. I wonder how this wording then made it into the lede, tbh. The formal fact that the table just says 'some properties' does not remove this doubt; one would expect in the topic-defining section to be more complete and at least list by priorities. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Done: Thanks DePiep. I've edited the article to address these items. Sandbh (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• By now, I think Talk:Nonmetal § New lead sentence, 19 March 2022 is (disappointingly) part of the continuing reviews. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Class name & classification ground mixup

• The article now states

  Some authors further divide the elements into metals, metalloids, and nonmetals although anything not a metal is, on categorisation grounds, a nonmetal.[ref #Oderberg2007]"

  — § Suggested distinguishing criteria

  However, this is mixing up the in-chemistry chosen & applied name to have the literal (philisophical) meaning as "not-a-metal". ("it is not a metal" does not imply "it is a Nonmetal"). Obviously, the source's logic has not been accepted or applied in this topic, which makes this theory fringe—at best. On top of this, the casual application here, without fleshing out consequences/fleshed out consequences, appears as an OR. A claim with such huge consequences, when considered relevant & applicable, should open a major section and make about all other classifying considerations superfluous.

Incidentally, and interestingly, that same souce invoked casually here, also claims that non-essential properties do not matter—worth applying to the first sentence re color & phase then. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DePiep. You raise good points. I've changed the sentence in question so it now reads:

"Some authors further divide the elements into metals, metalloids, and nonmetals although Odberg argues that [italics added] anything not a metal is, on categorisation grounds, a nonmetal.[ref #Oderberg2007]"

Anyone is then free to agree or disagree with Oderberg's argument. The approach taken in the article is to say that:

"The elements commonly recognized as metalloids...are sometimes counted as intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive;[17] at other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry.[5]"

I understand what the source is saying about non-essential properties (e.g. phases and colour) not mattering. In the case of nonmetals they do matter since there are no gaseous metals and shininess is normally associated with metals. I've changed the first sentence to add some examples, so that it now reads:

"In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties; they range from colorless gases (like hydrogen) to shiny and high melting temperature solids (like silicon).

Does that resolve your concerns? Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record: no these does not resolve the issue(s). Saying "Anyone is then free to agree or disagree" is unclear bout whom can: the reader (homework)? authors (who reads them for this)?; open ended anyway. The whole section is about the advocacy to have a two-class division (quarreling about single-border setting criteria), but still does not fundamentally excyclopidize (by authors) that half-metals are not ever a third class. In this, Oderberg is used as a ontological argument, a very simplistic one at that, but do not alternative approaches have been brought forward? Of course his claim can be made, especially in isolation as is done here, but the quote, the section, and so the article does not attempt to describe let alone convince to conclude that half-metals are not a third class. This issue is missing in the article. -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DePiep.

The article does not say that anyone is free to agree or disagree.

What it does say is:

• in the lede image, that the metalloids B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te are sometimes classed as nonmetals[4][5];
• in the image caption in the Definition and applicable elements section, that metalloids behave chemically like nonmetals but are sometimes treated as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals.[1][11] The first of these two sources says that chemists no longer use the term metalloid and that the elements involved are nonmetals. The second source says that the elements of the periodic table are "at all times” divided into metals, metalloids, and nonmetals;
• the accompanying text says: "The elements commonly recognized as metalloids namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium are sometimes counted as intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive;[17] at other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry.[5];
• in the Subclasses section: "Since the metalloids occupy frontier territory, where metals meet nonmetals, their treatment varies from author to author. Some consider them separate from both metals and nonmetals; some regard them as nonmetals[92] or as a sub-class of nonmetals.[93] Others count some of them as metals, for example arsenic and antimony, due to their similarities to heavy metals.[94][n 17] Metalloids are here treated as nonmetals in light of their chemical behavior, and for comparative purposes";
• in the Suggested distinguishing criteria section: "Once a basis for distinguishing between the "two great classes of elements"[235] is established, the nonmetals are found to be those lacking the properties of metals,[236] to greater or lesser degrees.[237] Some authors further divide the elements into metals, metalloids, and nonmetals although Odberg argues that anything not a metal is, on categorisation grounds, a nonmetal.[238]" Thus, source 235 refers to two great classes (metals and nonmetals), and the second sentence says that some authors further use three classes whereas Odberg[238] argues against this; and
• the following Comparison section says: "The dashed line around the metalloids denotes that, depending on the author, the elements involved may or may not be recognized as a distinct class or subclass of elements."

Thus, the article says that how the metalloids are treated varies from author to author, and provides 12 supporting citations.

Does that resolve your concerns? Sandbh (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: No it does not. I see a repetition in the replies: yes the quotes and statements are in the sources (not disputing that), but the logic applied is not resolving. For example, the article still fails to explain why or how color and state of matter are classifying properties. (The only statement so far: their colors and SoMs are sourced—yes and not disputed). Yet these properties are kept in the lede, opening sentence even. This shows that the Sandbh is not applying a basic encyclopedic aim: What is a nonmetal?. Given that these two are kept in the lede, one has to wonder and check how (other?) classifying properties are treated. And so far now I am not addressing the mixup between two classification levels (say metal-metalloid?-nonmetal and the subclasses metalloid-..-noble gases), applied undistiuinguishable throughout the current article. It appears the editor/author (not the sources) is conjecting two classification levels, and missing the grand requirement to have (whichever) classification following researched properties, not listing them. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

GA-stable

WP:GAN was passed in 2013. Then, in July 2021, one author Sandbh recreated the whole article [8] (July 5–25, 1000s of edits; for example see the change of TOC i.e., article structure). Since then, the author made 1000s of edits. At least one can state that the WP:GAN critaria #5 "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" is not met: both with the rewrite and with the subsequent edits.

Both edit series (first the big structure overhaul in Julyu 2021, then thousands of content edits by the author) do not suggest stablility. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp

I'll just give a few comments when I find time and notice them. :)

I think that if we're going to have H and He move around between table illustrations, we need at least a sentence saying why. To that end I would suggest adding a sentence to "First row anomaly" along the lines of "The first row anomaly for hydrogen and helium is so strong that they are often not placed in their electronically-based positions atop the strongly metallic s-block elements, but are often moved above the p-block to join the more similar halogens and noble gases." OK, so that's more common for He than it is for H, but either way it's still not too unusual. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Standard note

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nonmetal

Discussion related to the peer review occurred at Talk:Nonmetal#First_sentence. Sandbh (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hi @Sandbh:: this PR has received lots of feedback, but has become inactive for over a month. If more comments are requested, can you ping or ask editors to add their feedback? If no more comments are anticipated, can you close this PR? Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I might add more posts. -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(The thing here is, that I have had to repeatedly enter the same issues & questions in the prolongued & repeated structured article discussions such as FACs, and the responses to these, that I'd took a wait before diving into this again. For example, I thought it would be good to wait a bit until this PR has stabilised -- as it is now agree). -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks @Z1720: I intend to finish copy-editing the article, which should not take too much time, and to then check at PR with DePiep if he has any remaining outstanding concerns, before proceeding to FAC. Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that DePiep had kindly posted his concern/s, which I will shortly address. Sandbh (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: It has been a month since the last comment was left here. Are we ready to close this PR? Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Yes, good to close. Sandbh (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: no, please do not close. Will elaborate. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:GAN was passed in 2013. Then, in July 2021, one author Sandbh recreated the whole article [9] (July 5–25, 1000s of edits; for example see the change of TOC i.e., article structure). Since then, the author made 1000s of edits. At least one can state that the WP:GAN critaria #5 "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute" is not met: both with the rewrite and with the subsequent edits.

As illustration, I can note that objections to have color and state-of-matter was written as relevant, and in the lede (opening sentence even) was very often mentioned (by me and others). However, this lead to no change by the author, nor are the arguments appear to be digested. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Surely this is not a valid reason for keeping the PR open. This is PR not a request for comment.Graham Beards (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the editor who has opened the PR has indicated that this can close, I'm going to close this. @DePiep: the purpose of PRs is to solicit ideas on how to improve an article, and in this case, how to make improvements for an eventual FAC run. An editor does not have to implement the comments, and conversations can continue on the talk page if needed. If you are thinking of working on this article yourself and would like feedback, you can open a new PR. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

So be it. Let me note that in this article's intense cycle of PR-FAC-kedits-talks the same issues keep coming up without resolution. My contributions are also to establish that some quality-claiming "has passed PR, so .." conclusion would not be in place. DePiep (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You can say this on the Talk Page and at any future venue. Graham Beards (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: May I request a short delay (of, say a day) before going ahead with the close, in order to address(bookend) DePiep's concerns. I thank Graham Beards for his thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Having read the Query-responses here by Graham Beards and Z1720, I understand PR is a different discuss-&-conclude structure, so I'm fine with leaving open ends. Other venues might apply, all fine. -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My intention to rewrite the nonmetal article was announced at WP:ELEM on 4 July 2021 [10]. WP:ELEM members contributed their thoughts along the way and during the four FAC nominations. The article has been relatively stable since the end of April 2022, when User:SandyGeorgia concluded her copy editing involvement and help. AFAICR all my edits since that time were made to finish the copy editing process before another referral to FAC.

On your concerns DePiep, I only note that 53 days passed between my 1st request asking if there were any remaining concerns and the reply; and another 42 days passed between my 2nd request asking if there were any remaining concerns and the reply.

I intend to continue any further discussion at the nonmetal talk page. Sandbh (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I undid my close, should be fine. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks; should be OK to close now. Sandbh (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)