Talk:Metalloid

Bismuth

According to many textbooks, Bismuth is not a metalloid? AstroBlue403 6:19pm Feb 1st, 2006

Are you asking a question? From everything I've read, bismuth pretty much is the textbook example of a semimetal. eaolson 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

yoohhh, I was saying that in a lot of textbooks at our school, it says Bismuth is not a metalloid. I'm not sure, so I just put a question mark on the end. Still lots of homework to do, so I tried to make it fast on the last comment.AstroBlue403 11:46pm Feb 1st, 2006

• If you have an "official" definition of metalloid or semimetal, please feel free to put it up here, or even just the citation. Verifiability is always a good thing. I'm not yet convinced that metalloid and semimetal are exact synonyms, but haven't done significant research on it. I'm pretty sure that Bi is generally considered a semimetal, though. eaolson 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ununhexium

I've found nothing to suggest that ununhexium is a metalloid, am I missing something? Ctachme 17:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neither is ununseptium, according to its article. I've commented out both. Radagast 19:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Conduction and valence bands

OK, I'll admit I'm a new editor, so I'm not quite sure how things work around here. Is it really true that there is no way of telling a metalloid from a semiconductor from a metal? What I've always thought was that metals have overlapping conduction and valence bands, semiconductors have a large bandgap and metalloids have a bandgap small with respect to kT. "Large" and "small" are fairly subjective terms, of course, but I've never heard anyone refer to silicon or germanium as anything other than a semiconductor, or bismuth as anything other than a semimetal.

Eric 22:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bold text== Bismuth is not a metalloid ==

From what I've seen (in school textbooks) bismuth is always considered a metal. The Wikipedia article on bismuth states that it is a poor metal, which Wikipedia defines as "occuring between the metalloids and the transition metals". From this BLA BLA BLAit seems that bismuth is, in fact, a real metal (though maybe not the best example of one!).

220.235.249.246 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Webelements.com describes all the metalloid elements as "semi-metallic", but Bismuth is described as "metallic". I'm for removing Bismuth from the list. Polonium is described as metallic too, though it is worth remembering that Chemistry is not black-and-white. CaptainVindaloo 22:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I am pretty sure that Bi has either a very small bandgap or that the conduction and valence bands overlap only indirectly. (I forget.) I will try to find some references as soon as I can. eaolson 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

On Monday, I'll check with my Chemistry teacher. CaptainVindaloo 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bismuth

There's some dispute about whether bismuth belongs on this page. I'm pretty convinced it does. I think part of the problem is that these are not hard and fast categories, but to some extent a matter of opinion. So it is possible for bismuth to be a poor metal, a heavy metal, and a semimetal.

From G. Jezequel, J Thomas, I Pollini. "Experimental band structure of semimetal bismuth." Physical Review B. 56. 6620 (1997):

The electronic properties of Bi, like those of the group-V semimetals, such as As and Sb, have been for a long time the center of the center of interest of many theoretical and experimenta investigations. Bismuth is a prototype semimetal..."

From J. Heremans et al. "Bismuth nanowire arrays: Synthesis and galvanomagnetic properties" Physical Review B. 61. 2921 (2000):

The galvanomagnetic transport properties of nanowires of the semimetal Bi...

From V. Edelman. "Electrons in Bismuth". Advances in Physics. 25. 555 (1976):

Studies of the electronic properties of bismuth are of interest, first, per se because of the intermediate position of bismuth between ordinary metals and semiconductors.

From an electrical standpoint, bismuth is very different from ordinary metals. So you can see why I feel it should be included in this section. eaolson 03:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"Bismuth (Bi) also has some metalloid properties."

It definitely has some metalloid properties, and is in about the right place on the Table for a metalloid, but has some properties that may not be expected of a metalloid as well. CaptainVindaloo 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is another meaning for semi-metal, not equivalent to metalloid

In physics, a semi-metal is a material in which the density of states is zero at the Fermi level. Graphene is an example; the metalloids are not. The "Semi-metal" entry should be reinstated and reference this entry -- it should not be redirected to this entry, as it is now. Does anyone know how to undo a redirection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.194.19 (talk • contribs) .

When you use the redirect page (ie, you search for Semi-metal and get redirected to Metalloid) there will be a link at the top of the page saying "Redirected from Semi-metal". Follow the link back to the redirect page, which you can edit as a normal article. See Wikipedia:Redirect. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Semimetal vs. metalloid

I've been doing some research, and it seems to me that "metalloid" is used primary in the chemical sense and "semimetal" is used primarily in the electrical sense. I think metalloid is a more general term, referring to materials partway between metals and nonmetals, and semimetal has a more specific meaning, generally referring to something partway between a metal and a semiconductor. The best, most explicit definition I've found is from Burns's Solid State Physics, but unfortunately, there's no online version.

I've created a draft of a new article for semimetal, and would appreciate comments. I'll probably move this over to the actual semimetal article in a few days. eaolson 16:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I realise why there is much ado about Bismuth now! Some people are looking at this as Chemists, others as Physicists. Chaos results.

The draft looks pretty good. Is there any way it could be illustrated, maybe? Diagrams? Are there any extensive listings of Semi-metal materials at all? Also, it might be an idea to add a notice to make sure anyone looking up either Metalloid or Semi-metal is getting the correct article (eg, getting the Chemical article when they want the Physical article). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added my draft article at semimetal and changed the "semi-metal" redirect. eaolson 00:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aluminum is not a metalloid

The 8 metalloids are Boron, Silicon, Germanium, Arsenic, Antimony, Tellurium, Polonium, Astatine. "... the majority of known elements are metals; only 17 elements are nonmetals, and 8 elements are metalloids."(Chang, Raymond. 2005. Chemistry, Eight Edition.) Sorry, there is no direct quote saying Aluminum is not a metalloid. However there is a periodic chart showing the metals, non - metals and metalloids. It shows aluminum as a metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.73.254.247 (talk • contribs) .

• Citation? eaolson 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, a citation would be lovely, considering the amount of ruffled feathers over bismuth. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, in my textbook, it says that Aluminum IS one. Ctifumdope 20:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Wait--neither polonium, or astatine are metalloids--they just usally say that they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Metalloids" according to the American Chemical Society

Check out the periodic table ACS provides at [1]. I don't know what the original source of their data is, but they give B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po as metalloids, Be, Al, Ga, Sn, Bi as metals, and C, P, Se, I, At as nonmetals. Uuh has no designation; after Lr, they stop labelling the element as a metal/nonmetal (they stop specifying it as a solid/liquid/gas after Sg). youngvalter 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to make it plain that "metalloid" is not a rigorous term, but just a useful general one for elements which show properties intermediate between "metals" and "non-metals", and that some allotropes of an element may be more metalloid than others. All these squabbles about whether bismuth is this or polonium is that are moot and just terminology quibbles.--feline1 11:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Three undiscovered elements could be considered metalloids

Are elements 167, 168, and 218 are considered metalloids. I knew that element 117 is a metalloid [formerly a metal] while astatine is a nonmetal [formerly a metalloid], and aluminum is a metal even if placed next to a series with single metalloid by looking at the metals and non-metals periodic table. Group 3A is the only group that has just one metalloid--boron and just below it, a metallic aluminum, but boron is bordered at the top of the block. It is hard to predict if these elements should be considered metalloids by following periodic trends from top-left to bottom-right [staircase] of the p-block. Cosmium 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is a bit pointless, as these elements don't exist - we've never found them in nature, no-one's yet ever managed to make them in a laboratory. So we could only speculate what they might be like, if they ever could be made. There's probably more chance of me winning the lottery than element 218 being discovered! :)--feline1 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the stairstep line called?

Ok, so that line that is surrounding by metalliods is normally called the stairstep line. What is it really called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrn121 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:RD/S. Personally, I've only ever heard 'stairstep' used. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Its called an amphoteric line--76.234.102.194 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a small question

This article is practically a word-for-word reproduction of the first half of this article. The only thing I'm wondering is: who's copied who? Joelster (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As the guy who wrote most of the sentences in the wikipedia article, I can tell you that "chemical-universe.com" copied wikipedia (in fact, mostly copied ME). B*stards.--feline1 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It worried me at first, but after reviewing this article's history, I think we were here first, and they're WP:MIRRORing us. Take for example, the vaguely familiar first and second revisions (diff) from way back in 2002. A later revision in from 2004 (diff) again just looks like iterative progress, and looks very much like what we have today (diff), for instance in the use of the Greek translations. The same thing appears to have happened with Alkali metal[2]. Obviously, a few more eyes on this would be a good idea rather than relying on my opinion alone, but I don't think there's a need for panic here. Not too great on the GFDL front on their part, but it's not the end of the world. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for answering that. Man, they could at least put it in their own words! The website article on metalloids also seems to have copied (seems like another copy-and-paste job) the bullet-point summary from this article on about.com. Joelster (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone should probably send a GFDL non-compliance letter, or drop a note at WP:AN. This kind of thing gives me the fear. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Include Polonium and removed Astatine

As it seems to be. --Feministo (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Period 6 confusion

There appears to be some confusion along the Period 6 elements, as to whether they are metalloids or not—particularly polonium and astatine. Looking around the web, I see conflicting classifications of elements as metalloids:

Polonium included

• WP article for Polonium (with this ref), as well, most figures and content on Wikipedia (look around, you'll see the shading on Po)
• about.com ("Polonium is often considered a metalloid, too")

Astatine included

• Lecture notes for Chemistry course
• UCAR "Windows to the Universe" education website

Both Po and At are included

• Yahoo! Answers: Metalloids?
• http://chemical-elements.info/
• The Chemistry of Nonmetals
• Encyclopedia Britannica "...sometimes included"

Neither are metalloids

• Yahoo! Answers: Scientifically, are Polonium (Po) and Astatine (At) metalloids?
• Polonium and Astatine are not Metalloids

After digging into this issue, I'm possibly more confused. Could anyone with a good chemistry background offer some incite? +mt 05:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Constant slow edit warring

Considering the rate at which the list of metalloids is changed back and forth, wouldn't it be better to just mark some of them as 'disputed' or 'occasionally considered metalloids'? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 11:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

Metalloid

A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.

A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.

A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.

A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

I believe this article meets all of the A-class review criteria. For A2, a fair amount of detail is included in order to provide a comprehensive picture. The literature is relatively scattered. Many sources say a few things about metalloids but very few say more. This has resulted in a high reference count. Sandbh (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

R8R review

I'll post my opinion in a few days--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be short: The article, in whole, reads like a research book rather than an encyclopedia. Maybe that's just me, though.

Major reorganization needed. The only (but a huge!) thing I really dislike it talks too about grouping and what elements can be included rather than describing (before you start to make conclusions, consider a page entitled like Possible metalloids or whatever rather than deleting all this useful info). The properties section can be converted into text. Worse for graphical readability but better for "encyclopedishness." In my opinion, a major reorganization is needed before you can consider A-class, but then you can. Other opinions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback.

The reader experience for a GA article is: "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia."; A class is "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." and FA class is "Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information."

As there isn't any universally agreed definition of a metalloid I've tried to summarise what the literature says about what is a metalloid, their properties, which elements have been classified as metalloids, where they're located on the periodic table, and what they're good for. My aim has been to provide a complete, thorough and definitive encyclopedia entry.

I don't understand your suggestion about a "Possible metalloids" page. There is already a page called List of metalloids lists. I'm not sure what would be gained be creating another page?

I don't understand what would be gained by turning the Properties section into text. Many encyclopedias use tables. Turning the properties section into prose would make it harder, in my view, to see how the properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals compare. Sandbh (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TCO review

Cool topic and I can tell that you love it. And have looked at a look of sources. But I agree with R8R. Needs work to make it more helpful to an encyclopedia reader. Heck, even as a specialized monograph or the like, would need work to get more paragraphing.

Add more prose in front of some of the honking tables. Condense some of the very short bullets into paragraphs. Make the lead summary style and without citations.

Get RexxS to work with you on the table layout (can we make it look better, transmit more info more cleanly, what is the rationale for order from top to bottom of properties, etc.)

Do not spend all the article on a discussion of what is/is not a metalloid. Sure, that is a tricky topic and part of the question. But how about the person who is not an inveterate cataloguer, not a taxonomy debater, but just wants to know more about the metaloids themselves!

TCO (Reviews needed) 07:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the super-quick response.

It's a gnarly topic with many twists, turns and rabbit holes. Having said that, it's great to be able to put together a comprehensive literature-based summary.

Could you give me an idea of what prose you'd like to see in front of the properties tables, apart from the rationale for the top to bottom order?

The very short bullets were originally in paragraph form. I turned them into bullets in order to reduce sentence length and improve readibility. Could you please confirm if you expect to see the very short bullets turned back into paragraphs?

Your comment about the lead seems to be at odds with WP:LEAD, which suggests that complex or controversial subjects may require citations. The definition of a metalloid contained in the lead has been subject to some past (limited) controversy.

I'll ask RexxS about the table layout.

I'm not sure about your last comment re the casual reader. I have tried to write a complete, thorough and definitive encyclopedia entry—at least as definitive as it can be given the state of the literature. The casual reader can pick up a lot by just reading the first paragraph of the lead, and then the opening paragraphs to each section. Someone who just wants to know about metalloids themselves can click through to the article for each particular element. There are wikilinks in the table next to the lead and in the Applicable elements section. Sandbh (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late in responding, but I wanted to give sufficient time to the review. I've appended this to TCO's review as I think his intention was to involve my comments on only very limited aspects of the article. I've spent some time looking at the five tables in the article and I would like to make some general and some specific suggestions mainly concerning accessibility, which you may want to look at if you intend to make the article fully MOS-compliant.

There's a general principle in web design that information should not be made available purely by the use of colour. Imagine you are a blind visitor using a screen reader to read the table in the Location and identification section and you hear:

• "Elements with grey shading appear commonly to rarely in the list of metalloid lists. Elements with light tan shading appear still less frequently. Elements with pale blue shading are outliers that show that the metalloid net is sometimes cast very widely."

What would you be able to gain from that? I understand that a table has more visual appeal to the sighted, and it allows the context within the periodic table to be shown, but without additional text for the visually impaired, we fail to convey some of the information to them. Would you consider expanding the text to read something like this:

• "The elements with grey shading (B, C, Al, Si, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te, Po, At) appear commonly to rarely in the list of metalloid lists. Elements with light tan shading (H, Be, P, S, Ga, Sn, I, Pb, Bi, Uuq, Uup, Uuh, Uus) appear still less frequently. Elements with pale blue shading (N, Zn, Rn) are outliers that show that the metalloid net is sometimes cast very widely."

I hope you can see how we can use redundant text to compensate for some visitors' inability to see the information provided by colour. I'd recommend you look at the other tables and try to put yourself in the place of someone who can't see the tables, but can hear the text in them. Are they able to receive the same information that a sighted person can?

Have a think about the purpose of the images in the article. Hopefully, they are more than decorative, so they are likely to be conveying some information - probably what a particular metalloid looks like. What I was describing above applies in the same way to images. We can't give blind visitors a way to see those images, but can we supply some text that still conveys some of the information to them? That's what alt text should do. If you look at the File:Polycrystalline-germanium.jpg image as used in the Germanium article, it has this alt text: "Grayish lustrous block with uneven cleaved surface", which is better than hearing the filename (which is is what many screen readers would read out in the absence of alt text).

You may want to supply each image with a short piece of alt text that briefly describes what you see.

There's a section of WP:ACCESS that gives good guidance on how to construct data tables that are easy for screen readers to use at WP:DTAB. I'd recommend you have a look at that and consider whether you could improve the tables with captions and by identifying the scope of column and row headers. The headers are less useful for small tables, but as a table gets larger, headers help a visually impaired visitor to navigate around a table in different directions by speaking out the row and column headers for the current cell if desired.

I'd suggest that the physical and chemical properties tables would benefit particularly from defining the scope in the column and row headers.

I should say I found the article well-written and engaging (to me at least). I'm quite sure that most visitors will find a lot of information about the subject, meeting the A-class standards, but there is room to broaden the audience to include those who have a visual impairment. If you are interested and would like any specific guidance, I'm happy to assist. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's huge love for the topic, huge info, and lots of references. I just wonder how we can draw the readers in more. I think trying the organization listed below is worthwhile. I know it is work and I know there is no perfect cookie cutter structure (good to have different articles try different things). That said, wrestling with the structure and trying a rewrite would be worthwhile. Will be value added in the end.

On the tables, I really worry more for the sighted viewers! (I mean let's add the access, sure, no argument.) I know there is huge info in there, but I'm concerned people will be put off and skip it. Any ways to make it cleaner or transmit the info better? (I don't really know, just expressing a concern). Perhaps putting them deeper down in the topic would help? Perhaps more subdivision? (not just two). Can any of them be converted from text to graphical insights? (e.g. showing band gap for different semiconducting elements and having a dashed line zone. (.1ev to 1.5 eV or whatever!) Sorry, if I am not giving better direction. Maybe throwing this out helps others think on it.

TCO (Reviews needed) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible restructure

This might work and possibly address the concerns about the focus of the article. I won't know until I give it a go:

1 Properties

1.1 Physical

1.2 Chemical

1.3 Distinctive

2 Recognised metalloids [ie B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te]

2.1 Descriptive chemistry

2.1.1 Physical

2.1.2 Chemical

2.2 Occurrence

2.3 Production

2.4 Typical applications

2.4.1 Glass formation

2.4.2 Alloys

2.4.3 Semiconductors and electronics

3 Other metalloids

3.1 Selenium, polonium and astatine

3.2 Aluminium?

3.3 Near metalloids

3.4 Allotropes

4 Inclusion criteria

4.1 Variability

4.2 Semi-quantitative

5 Periodic table location and identification

6 Nomenclature origin and usage

7 Notes

8 Citations

9 References

10 Monographs

There may not be enough in common about the recognised metalloids to make 2.2 and 2.3 meaningful but I can have a look. Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it.TCO (Reviews needed) 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Am currently working on the mini-portrait of boron, summarising its physical and chemical properties. Once I get that done (tough element to start with) it'll hopefully serve as a template for the other five common metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Boron done. Tried to focus more on the 'in-between' characteristics rather than duplicating what is already in the boron article. Silicon will be interesting. Sandbh (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on feedback

R8R, TCO, RexxS, the feedback has been great. The restructure will take a little while. Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Initial edits posted just now. Went quite well I thought. Sandbh (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Double sharp's comments

It would be nice to have a gallery of the elements in the p-block, showing a trend in appearance from metals to nonmetals (passing through the metalloids). Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Group #	13	14	15	16	17
Period
2	5 B	6 C	7 N	8 O	9 F
3	13 Al	14 Si	15 P	16 S	17 Cl
4	31 Ga	32 Ge	33 As	34 Se	35 Br
5	49 In	50 Sn	51 Sb	52 Te	53 I
6	81 Tl	82 Pb	83 Bi	84 Po	85 At

For the metalloids category, I have included the first two clusters only (the elements Wikipedia usually colours as metalloids, plus astatine). You might want to change the colours used to indicate the clusters of metalloids (if necessary). I did not use the "halogens" category. You could experiment with the size, among other things. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the alt text should be changed to make it more useful to visually impaired readers. Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not completely sure which way to go with this table. Trying to avoid duplication of content, and maintain focus on metalloids. Am currently thinking it would make a fine addition to the p-block article. Then to add some comments to the metalloid article about the reduction in metallicity going from L to R across the periodic system, and the increase in metallicity going down the s- and p-block groups, resulting in the diagonal twilight zone between the metals and nonmetals. Plus a wikilink from the metalloid article to the p-block article. Sandbh (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many instances when the chemical symbols of an element not previously mentioned is not linked. Double sharp (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the links Sandbh (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the term "amphoteric line", sometimes used to mean "metalloid line"? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Restructure Mk 2

In light of the good feedback, and thinking about this some more, I currently intend to try the following:

0 Introduction

1 Elements commonly recognised as metalloids

1.1 Boron

1.2 Silicon

1.3 Germanium

1.4 Arsenic

1.5 Antimony

1.6 Tellurium

1.7 Typical applications

1.7.1 Glass formation

1.7.2 Alloys

1.7.3 Semiconductors and electronics

2 Elements less commonly recognised as metalloids

2.1 Selenium, polonium and astatine

2.2 Other metalloids

2.3 Aluminium

2.4 Near metalloids

2.5 Allotropes

3 Location and identification on some periodic tables

4 Comparison of properties with those of metals and nonmetals

4.1 Physical

4.2 Chemical

4.3 Distinctive

5 Semi-quantitative description

6 Origin and usage of the term metalloid

7 Notes

8 Citations

9 References

10 Monographs

Sections 1.3 to 1.6 are still to be done. I'll also expand section 4.3 as this currently only talks about the distinctive properties of metalloids. The rest will be moving stuff around and tidying the resulting new joins between sections 1 to 5. Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)