Talk:Nonmetal

Work in progress

I'll be tidying up the article. Among other things, I'll discuss the following four "clusters":

• metalloids (for comparative purposes)
• unclassified nonmetals
• halogen nonmetals
• noble gases.

I expect it'll be an engaging rewrite. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe I've finished the major tidying up work. With one exception it will be detail work from here on, with a view to submitting it as a FAC. The exception is to add a cost subsection. Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Nonmetal article, some comments are made (also by me), so the current state of this article might not be fit for GAN. The issues are, IMO, about sub-classification of the nonmetals. Since this also involves the (abandoned?) enwiki 'categorisation' concept, it is wider than this article (and so at WT:ELEMENTS). -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede image issues

• apart from other problems, the current lede image has these formatting issues: (1) naming provocatively incorrect; (2) red bg color for matalloids does not match current enwiki standard; (3) using white for a regular subclass (1 of 4) is inconsistent, same color is (more correctly) used for off-topic elements (ie metals). Will propose changes, keeping WP:ACCESS in mind. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Each of the "other problems" have been addressed at WP:ELEM and, where relevant, changes made to the nonmetal article.

(1) The caption to the lede image is:

"Periodic table extract showing nonmetallic elements." The elements shown as metalloids are those commonly regarded as such by authors who recognize such a class; they are included here for comparative purposes since they behave chemically predominately as nonmetals."

(2) Since use of the periodic table colour categories was deprecated in the lede periodic table in the article of the same name, there is no current enwiki standard. Among other reasons this was done to provide more flexibility when discussing parts of the periodic table.

(3) see (2), and this extract from a post to WP:ELEM[[1]]:

"With these three you mention, it seems perfectly right to point out the remaining ones as "unclassified nonmetals" (nice neutral name) in applicable places. Obviously we do not want mixing with old categories, so I understand that the other elements (metals) are left white [emphasis added] in this instance…Have a nice edit, DePiep (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)"

Proposals to change the colours can be made at any time, of course. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(1) it is named "nonmetals".

(2) the categorisation (classification) metal–metalloid–nonmetals was never dropped nor disputed. That includes their coloring (which is what this is about): still around. Also, the coloring for noble gases and halogens is still in use (even in this image).

(3) Nice gotcha! Shows how thinking progression was made in just 11 days, whith so many new issues popping up. -DePiep (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.
(1) There is no universally agreed definition of "nonmetals". The concept of a metalloid is understood but whether they are treated as a class or subclass is inconsistent. The article includes now includes metals, and metalloids, for comparative purposes. The variable status of metalloid elements is explained on several occasions in the article, in response to the helpful suggestions. The article is the better for these suggestions.
(2) The colour categories, which incorporated metal-metalloid-nonmetal, were dropped from the lede PT in the FA periodic table article for various reasons including, as I understand from my reading of WP:ELEM, to provide more flexibility in related articles. Certainly the concept of metal-metalloid-nonmtal exists but its application in the literature, compared to metals-nonmetals, is not consistent. Even so, there is still a an FA metalloid article, which notes that variable treatment of the metalloid set.
(3) It is good to have clarity as to what was going on with that earlier statement. Sandbh (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Goldhammer-Herzfeld ratio for graphene and black phosphorus

The Goldhammer-Herzfeld ratio for an element = R/V where R is the isolated atom’s molar refractivity and V is the molar volume for the bulk element. The ratio has no units. It is a simple measure of how metallic an element is, metals having values ≥ 1. It is proportional to density (Edwards & Sienko 1983).

Graphene

The ratio for carbon as diamond is ca. 0.62

The density of diamond is 3.514 g cm⁻³

It is known one square metre of graphene would weigh 0.77 mg

The C—C bond length in graphene is 1.4210 x 10^-8 cm,^ which translates to the thickness of monolayer graphene. The volume involved is therefore 100 cm x 100 cm x 1.421 x 10⁻⁸ cm = 1.421 x 10^-4 cm³

^ In stark contrast, the distance between each layer in graphite is 3.25 × 10^-8 cm.

The density of graphene is therefore its weight divided by its volume = 0.77 mg/1.421 x 10^-4 cm³ = 5.419 g cm⁻³

The GH ratio for a graphene layer, within which electron delocalisation occurs in graphite, is therefore (density graphene/density diamond) × ratio for diamond = (5.419/3.514) × 0.62 = ca. 0.95

Black phosphorus

The ratio for white P is ca. 0.57

The density of white P is 1.8232g cm⁻³

That for black P is 2.69

The ratio for black P is therefore (density black P/density white P) × ratio for white P = (2.6/1.8232) × 0.57 = ca. 0.84

Selenium

The ratio for Se₈ is ca. 0.77

The density of Se₈ is 4.4 g cm⁻³

That for gray Se is 4.802

The ratio for gray Se is therefore (density gray Se/density Se₈) × ratio for Se₈ = (4.802/4.4) × 0.77 = ca. 0.84

References

• Density values: Wiberg N 2001, Inorganic Chemistry, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 575, 680, 785
  
• Ratio values: Edwards PP & Sienko MJ 1983, "On the occurrence of metallic character in the periodic table of the elements", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 692–693, doi:10.1021/ed060p691
• Weight of graphene: "Class for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences" 2010, "Graphene," The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, viewed August 13, 2021
  
• C—C bond length in graphene: Hill G & Holman J 2000, Chemistry in Context, 5th ed., Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, p. 124

Pre FAC comments

As promised, a few comments before the next nomination. I've got about an hour, so I'll mainly focus on the lede. I've not read the FAC2 yet, to give an independent review.

Lede

• The lede currently has six paragraphs. The MOS recommends 3 to 4 for articles this length
• The lede is fully cited. While WP:leadcite doesn't say remove them, for noncontroversial articles it does seem to lean towards recommending no citations.
• The article on metals makes a distinction between the physics and chemistry. Should something similar be done here. Or is the term nonmetal purely chemistry?

Lede is now 4 paras. Other editors seem to expect citations for everything so I’ve gone w/the flow. ‘Nonmetal’ has a fairly narrow application and meaning, unlike ‘metal’. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Per WP:UPFRONT, I wonder whether you can start the article with a more general definition. The second sentence woudl start with "More precisely". I find the first sentence quite hard to parse.

The start has been subject to numerous edits and refinements.

• The solids are either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly and, in contrast to most metals, tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no structural uses (as is the case for nonmetals generally).
• Sentence is too long. Sentences above 12 words (WP:MTAU#Avoid overly technical language) become hard to understand, so make sure they make up a relatively small fraction of text. This sentence stands at 37 words.

Further to the above I believe this is no longer a problem.

• The sentence seems to mix up themes. Hard/crumply is main characteristics, no structural uses is application, which would fit in the last paragraph

Ditto

• I don't understand " no structural uses". Does that mean it has no application in the construction industry

Now refers to no load-bearing uses.

• If so, are you saying that the liquids and gases have no application in construction? That would be obvious.

Yes.

• Different kinds of nonmetallic elements include, for example, (i) noble gases; (ii) halogens; (iii) elements such as silicon, which are sometimes instead called metalloids; and (iv) several remaining nonmetals, such as hydrogen and selenium.
• This seems to be exhaustive with category (iv). Why the words for example? If it is because multiple classifitions exists you can start the sentence with something like: "Nonmetals can be divided into

No longer an issue; superseded by subsequent refinements.

• The unclassified nonmetals are moderately nonmetallic, on a net basis -> I think 'on a net basis' can be omitted.

The 7 unclassified metals are H, C, N, O, P, S and Se. Six are moderately nonmetallic; O is more strongly nonmetallic. Hence ‘on a net basis’.

• tendency to form predominantly ionic compounds with metals -> tendency and predominantly seem to be redundant

The nature of compounds formed by F, Cl, Br, I with metals varies, with the degree of ionic character being F > Cl > Br > I. As well, not all such compounds are necessarily ionic; it depends on the number of nonmetal atoms bonding to the metal atom. It’s safer to express what’s going on the way it is now.

• Boundary overlaps, including with the metalloids, occur as outlying elements among each of the kinds of nonmetals show or begin to show less-distinct, hybrid-like, or atypical properties
• Another long sentence. There must be a simpler way to phrase this. The second word can be a verb or a noun, which forces people to think grammar when reading the sentence. I needed 3 reads to mostly understand it.

It’s a longer sentence with one technical word and does not exceed 30 words. The commas provide rest stops.

• Nonmetals largely exhibit a breadth of roles in sustaining life -> rm largely

Can’t do since while most do exhibit such a breadth, not all do.

• Near-universal uses for nonmetals are in household accoutrements; lasers and lighting; and medicine and pharmaceuticals. -> Sentence structure is a bit convoluted. What are accoutrements? Items?

Quite so and I’ve now used “item”. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Femke (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no universal agreement on which elements are nonmetals as some are harder to definitively characterize.
• Is the word definitely necessary here? I think it's redundant with characterize

Yes it is necessary. While most elements are relatively easy to characterise the difficulty is with the elements that are not so.

• This sentence can mean two things. I think it's meaning to say that there are a few nonmetals that are difficult to measure: maybe because they have a low life time. It could also mean that some are harder to place in a category, but then it would be redundant with the second sentence. The second sentence (different defintions of nonmetal) is more important, right? Put that reason up front. Femke (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is no longer there. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Rest of article

• It's quite heavy on tables and figures, compared to text. Are all tables necessary, or should they be in subarticles? I expect at least some prose to accompany sections like Nonmetal#Physical_2

Tables and figures have been trimmed. All sections now have prose. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• You use c. and ca. to abbreviate circa. Be consistent

Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• c. ~10−18 S•cm−1 -> c. and ~ mean the same

Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a lot of lists. I think at least some of them need to be converted to prose. MOS:EMBED

The previous general opposition to lists in FAC noms seems to have passed. There can be a lot of item by item content in descriptive chemistry which would otherwise be laborious to render in prose form.

• I'm noticing some WP:Words to watch, specifically talking to the reader directly.
• It needs to be borne in mind here that

I feel this a question of style preference. That expression is no longer there in any event.

• CHON -> if unclear what something means, see alsos should be annotated (MOS:ALSO).

Fixed.

• Consider moving the majority of notes into subarticles. Femke (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The majority of notes are no longer there.

• Honing the concept -> Is there a different word for honing? I'm only half familiar with the word. Femke (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That word is no longer there. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Process

If I were you, I would not resubmit next week. After working through the ce you were doing and this feedback, it may be wise to contact one of the people commenting on your second FAC and ask for them to go over the article once more. A nomination that reviewers feel comes too fast after a previous nomination is more likely to be archived. It would be a shame if this article doesn't reach it FA potential because of friction with reviewers and over-enthusiasm. Femke (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sandbh: did you see the comments? I had hoped they would all be addressed before the next FAC. Femke (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Femkemilene. Thank you. I didn't see these comments because, oddly enough and up to now, the nonmetal article was not on my watchlist. I appreciate your interest and advice, the basis for which I understand. I'll add something about this to the compilation of unstated FAC "rules" and expectations that ought to be made visible to all potential FAC nominees. I'll share it at FAC talk after nonmetal attains its bronze star, if not this time then at a subsequent FAC. Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: I’ve just read your remarkable feedback. The article has been considerably refined since then. I’ve responded to your comments in any event given how much care you took in providing them. Quite impressive. Thank you. Sorry about mucking up some of your bullet formatting. I was getting some odd results when previewing my responses via iPad. Keep safe. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Chemical Abstracts Service top 20 list of elements found in compounds

As at November 2nd, 2021

#	Element	Count
1	C	187,987,762
2	H	187,665,781
3	N	172,740,782
4	O	166,497,214
5	S	58,568,561
6	F	49,250,153
7	Cl	40,089,432
8	Br	15,904,063
9	I	4,123,913
10	P	2,766,438
11	Si	2,736,304
12	Fe	1,264,913
13	B	1,173,252
14	Cu	805,475
15	Ni	800,589
16	Mn	759,112
17	Cr	614,474
18	Al	606,842
19	Co	575,882
20	Na	570,892

Source: CAS Customer Center Case #01271182
--- Sandbh (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Monographs

Author, actor, and musician articles often have a bibliography, filmography, and discography sections. If the list is long, these sections often include just a link to the subsidiary article. Perhaps this approach could be taken here? YBG (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @YBG: I've moved the list into its own article, List of nonmetal monographs, and added a link in the See also section of the nonmetal article. Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

MOS:FIRST suggests that:

• The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• It should be in plain English.
• If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist.

In plain English, it's preferable to define things in terms of what they are rather than what they aren't.

So the Nonmetal first sentence now reads as follows:

"In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that is lighter than iron, that is brittle or crumbly if solid or frozen, and that forms an acid or an oxide if it reacts with nitric acid."

I used "that" three times, in imitation of the definition of a planet in the lede of the article of the same name.

The definition first refers to the relative lightness of nonmetals since the heaviness of naturally occurring metals such as gold, copper, and iron may have been noticed in prehistory and, in light of their malleability, led to the first attempts to craft metal ornaments, tools, and weapons. All metals discovered from then until 1809 had relatively high densities; their heaviness was regarded as a singularly distinguishing criterion.

Among other nonmetallic elements, the definition accommodates the noble gases, the halogen gases F and Cl, the halogen liquid Br, and the residual nonmetallic gases H, N and O, since these are all crumbly if frozen. The definition further includes physical and chemical properties, as would seem to be appropriate in a chemistry context.

Note that noble gases do not react with nitric acid so that the last part of the definition does not apply to them. This is OK though since they're lighter than iron and crumbly when frozen.

"Acid", "oxide" and "nitric acid" could be said to be technical terms however these are allowed in plain English if there's no plainer equivalent. They're wikilinked in any event.

The word count of the lede paragraph has been reduced by about one-third.

Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that a positive definition is generally better than a negative one, that preference is not found in MOS:FIRST. This sentence has one explicit AND, another implicit one, three ORs and two IFs. And I note that it requires an explanation on this talk page to convince the knowledgeable editor that the noble gases satisfy the description.

This is not a definition but a complicated description that practically speaking requires boolean algebra analysis to apply in any specific situation. Compared to this the previous 1st sentence is simplicity itself.

Plain English is not simply a matter of avoiding technical vocabulary. It also requires simple, easy to follow sentence structure. This sentence does not qualify as "plain English", and so does not meet the MOS.

The example you cite planet is instructive. It gives the generic class and then says which things in that class do not qualify.

A planet is a large astronomical body that is not a star or stellar remnant.

The comparable lede would be

A nonmetal is a chemical element that is not a metal or a metalloid.

Simplicity itself. But because of the ambiguity with metallois I would prefer something like this:

A nonmetal is a chemical element which does not have the properties common to metals.

There is no commonly accepted definition of nonmetal. But everyone agrees that they are not metals.

Please restore plain English to the first sentence.

YBG (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Thanks YBG. I appreciate your interest and taking the time to post your concerns. I note you concur that a positive definition is preferred.

MOS:FIRST provides that the first sentence “should be in plain English.”

In plain English, it's preferable to express things in terms of what they are rather than what they aren't. It also seems to me that defining a nonmetal as something that is a not a metal is a redundancy that is further inconsistent with the spirit of plain English. It further imparts nothing to the reader since it requires them to know what the (common) properties of a metal are. Probably most people do and since two of these properties are a shiny appearance and good electrical conductivity there is scope to erroneously conclude that graphite (carbon) is a metal.

Given the idea of a definition expressed in terms what a nonmetal is, the next task is to write it as plainly as possible.

I posted an explanation here as a matter of courtesy since the definition has been subject to some to’ing and fro’ing.

I’ve since simplified the definition, and made it less specific, so it now reads:

A nonmetal is a relatively light chemical element that is brittle or crumbly if solid or frozen, and that forms an acid or an oxide if it reacts with nitric acid. (31 words)

@Sandbh: I strongly suggest removing relatively light, as it is not accurate for all the nonmetals. At least, nobody would agree that iodine, xenon, or radon are relatively light, and relatively is subjective anyway (with respect to iron? tin? oxygen?). ComplexRational (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @ComplexRational: I feel it's relevant to note that ca. 80% of nonmetals have a density < 5 gm/cm³ and ca. 80% of metals have a density > 5 gm/cm³. The intended meaning of "light", given most metals are heavy, is "low density". In what sense were you saying no one would agree that I, Xe or Rn are relatively light? The "relatively" qualifier is there in the sense that there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal. The situation is the same in chemistry with regard to what is a metal(?), there being no rigorous definition. Thus the topic sentence of the next paragraph in the nonmetal lede says, "While the term dates from at least 1708, it has no widely-agreed precise definition." OTOH metals have an average density of ca. 9.5 gm/cm3 whereas the nonmetal average is ca 1.8 gm/cm3, noting there are light metals such beryllium, magnesium and aluminium, and relatively heavier nonmetallic elements such as antimony, and tellurium. Sandbh (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

When I read relatively light, I interpret it to mean "having relatively low mass" (i.e., low atomic mass, which I, Xe, and Rn certainly do not have). If "having relatively low density" was instead the intended meaning, I would suggest rewording or relocating. This ties in with YBG's comment: especially in the opening sentence, we want a definition that accurately describes an element if and only if it is a nonmetal – "relative" definitions can be fleshed out and clarified elsewhere in the article. ComplexRational (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I've replaced "light" with low density, and further generalized and streamlined the definition. I hope the updated version works for you. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Better now. I'm also guessing that "where applicable" implies the exception of noble gases? ComplexRational (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Yes, that’s it. Sandbh (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Boolean algebra is not required. The definition (now) has a simple and relatively easy to follow sentence structure. It is written in plain English, noting that technical terms are permitted in plain English where there are no plainer equivalents. Since the subject matter itself is technical, a few technical terms ought to be less than controversial.

Regarding your concerns about the definition of a planet given at the planet article, here’s the definition I was comparing the nonmetal definition to:

"A planet is a non-stellar body that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, that directly orbits a star, and that has cleared its orbital zone of competing objects.” (32 words)

The question of what is a nonmetal is a complex area and I’ve tried to address this as plainly as possible, with a view to avoiding redundancy and minimising scope for unnecessary confusion.

Could you please consider my response and reconsider your request. Thank you Sandbh (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandbh (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Note

• A description presents the characteristics and aspects of that which is being described in sufficient detail that the audience can form a mental picture, impression, or understa≥nding of it.
• A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).

I remain convinced that a negative definition is vastly superior to a description that contains nested ANDs & ORs. YBG (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of definition

YBG, on what fundamental basis are you saying there is a difference between "definition" and "description"?

Meanings of "definition" include mentions of "descriptions", for example:

• "…extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes)" – See "definition"
• "In mathematics, definitions are generally not used to describe existing terms, but to describe or characterize a concept." – See "definition"
• "a description of the features and limits of something" – Cambridge Dictionary
• "a statement that describes what something is" – Merriam Webster
• "a defining; a description of a thing according to its properties" – The Chambers Dictionary.

The nub of these meanings is to define what a thing is, according to its features, properties and limits, rather than what it is not.

In a similar descriptive manner, here's the IUPAC recommended definition of a hydrogen bond:

"The hydrogen bond is an attractive interaction between a hydrogen atom from a molecule or a molecular fragment X–H in which X is more electronegative than H, and an atom or a group of atoms in the same or a different molecule, in which there is evidence of bond formation."

Curiously, the origin of definition is late Middle English: from Latin definitio(n- ), from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ (see define). Thus, the nonmetal definition attempts to set bounds to what is a nonmetal.

Could you let me know what a "nested AND" is, and where the "nested ANDs" are?

1. There may be scope to remove one of the "ORs" as follows:

"A nonmetal is a relatively light chemical element that is mechanically weak, and that forms an acid or an oxide if it reacts with nitric acid." (26 words)

I'm not sure if "mechanically" is quite the right term since the intending meaning is that nonmetals (normally) have no structural strength.

2. There may be scope to remove the other "OR" as follows:

"A nonmetal is a relatively light chemical element that is mechanically weak, and that forms an acidic compound if it reacts with nitric acid." (23 words)

Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence now reads:

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a type of chemical element generally characterized by low density, low strength, and a tendency, where applicable, to form acidic compounds.

I hope that works for you. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is much better. I'm wondering if the final clause is even necessary in the lede sentence. Certainly the noble gasses are both low density and low strength. If that clause were placed later in the paragraph, you would avoid the "where applicable" language which seems a bit troublesome.

As to the issue of definition vs. description (the topic of this section, from which the discussion has wandered): this is a meta-discussion which I think is no longer necessary here. We could, if you wish, continue it in user space or off-wiki.

YBG (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear from you YBG. As you implied that final cause isn't necessary. So I removed it and added a sentence about the reactivity of the nonmetals, that addresses the noble gas question. I'll pass on the definition vs. description question. Sandbh (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

New lead sentence, 19 March 2022

The lead sentence has been recently changed to read "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." I see at least two major problems with this phrasing. First, nonmetals are a variety of elements of different states of matter, so we should not open by emphasizing gases, even if a majority are gases, because this is an incomplete and misleading definition of what a nonmetal is. Second, "colorless or colored" describes a set and its complement, so can be interpreted as "a nonmetal is a chemical element that is typically a gas", which is both a vague and inaccurate description. I haven't modified anything myself because of all the discussions regarding the lead; further discussion and suggestions are welcome. Pinging Sandbh and YBG. ComplexRational (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ComplexRational did you happen to view my first suggestion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nonmetal/archive2#First paragraph again? I am concerned that I may be spinning my wheels as a non-chemist if others aren't also engaging at the peer review; I'll wait for this to be sorted before I continue at the PR. I was just preparing to start a line-by-line review ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I didn't have the PR on my watchlist, so I don't think I saw your suggestion until just now. My thoughts are pretty much the same as yours: a broad statement qualifying what a nonmetal is. Should I copy-paste this comment to that page to keep the discussion in one place?

Also, as much as I'd like to engage, I don't expect to have any significant free time for the next two months, so my contributions there will likely only be a few isolated comments and responses. Moreover, I'm happy to offer a second opinion on more generic content (or some crossovers with physics), but I'm also a non-chemist with just a casual interest in the topic. ComplexRational (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ComplexRational Yes, it might be optimal to keep comments on the peer review, but now that this is here, copying it over would just create a jumble. It might be clearer if, once we get this sorted, I just add a link there back to this discussion here, so everything is included without the need to copy. I understand you're busy, but appreciate you keeping an eye on things as you are able; few science-minded editors have the clarity of prose that you do, and I have No Clue when it comes to Chemistry! I kind of liked my attempt at the first paragraph of the lead, but what do I know :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current led sentence is problematic for all the reasons you have mentioned. Exacerbating this is the presence of the word "typically". YBG (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@YBG and ComplexRational: does the version I first proposed here work, and if not, could you suggest improvements to it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Here's my tweak of your first suggestion:

In chemistry, nonmetals are a type of chemical element 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, which are typically shiny silvery-gray solids; moderate to good conductors; and can be 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.

YBG (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The last clause should rather be "their atoms can easily attract electrons". :) Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oopsie ... my typo, that got propagated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

YBG, a missing word that after element? Otherwise looks good to me. I know that Sandbh was concerned not to define nonmetals as what they are not, as the second sentence does, but that seems unavoidable. After all, their name is nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The proposed adaption is unintentionally misleading where it says, "They don't have the characteristics of metals, which are typically shiny silvery-gray solids; moderate to good conductors." C, a nonmetal, is a shiny gray solid and a good conductor. H, a nonmetal, is a moderately good conductor of heat. These problems go away by distinguishing between typical and less typical nonmetals, consistent with the fact that nonmetals show a variation in the degree of their nonmetallic character. Describing nonmetals in terms of what they aren’t is not plain English, and should be mostly avoidable, in my view, with careful crafting. Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I intend to shortly post some thoughts on the background to the evolution of the lede. For now, please note that I’ve further refined the lede paragraph. Sandbh (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This lead paragraph is focused on some specific elements, without providing the broad and general definition as in YBG's more general adaptation of the lead I proposed. I don't understand it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Initial (quick) thoughts:

The most recent version of the lede is written for the lay reader per SandyGeorgia’s idea. It starts with the basics and then progressively fills in the rest of the details. The idea is to provide the lay reader with a tangible sense of what nonmetals are.

I thought I had it down pat yesterday but changed my mind after reading it on my phone. I feel this current version, linked by SG, now does the job for the lay reader.

YBG, the context for “typical” is that metals are typically solid, shiny, plastic, and good conductors. Conversely, the “typical” nonmetals (H, N, O, S, F, Cl, Br, He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn) are not solid, not shiny, not plastic, and poor conductors (of electricity).

That just leaves the shiny nonmetals C, P, Se and I; and the part-time nonmetals err metalloids B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te. There are no poor conductors here: C, As, Sb are metallic conductors; the rest are semiconductors consistent with their shiny appearance. Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't like "Rounding out the field"; are nonmetals a field? It sounds odd. And aren't solids, liquids and gases states of matter rather than a fundamental characteristic? Graham Beards (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. All metals we know of are solids apart from Hg. Conversely, the nonmetals that are not shiny are all gases, apart from Br and S. For the lay reader I feel that counts as a fundamental and characteristic difference. Your thoughts?. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not fundamental. 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 and an understanding of the metallic bond requires quantum theory. Non-metals (and the term is informal) show a broader variety of properties because of they 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? But I see no way round it. As it stand, the article is not accurate and this is a major problem. Don't dump accuracy in favour of simplicity or you might just as well say metals are made by elves and non-metals are made by pixies. Graham Beards (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to jam a layperson-understandable explanation of Fermi gases and metallic bonds into a footnote? Think African humid period and TRAPPIST-1 as examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for the lede, based on what I wrote at Periodic table#Metallicity and what we currently have:

“ A nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks metallic properties. Nonmetals are often liquids or gases at room temperature, and are brittle when solid. Many have low densities, poor thermal and electrical conductivity, and lack metallic lustre. Chemically, they usually have moderate to high electronegativity, i.e. a tendency to attract electrons: this rationalises their properties, as it makes it difficult for them to lose electrons and engage in metallic bonding. In the periodic table, nonmetallic character tends to increase as one goes from bottom to top and left to right; nonmetals are thus mostly clustered in the top-right corner.

Although the majority of elements are metals, many nonmetals are among the most common elements in Earth and the universe. Two nonmetals, hydrogen and helium, make up about 99% of ordinary matter in the observable universe by mass. Five nonmetallic elements, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and silicon, largely make up the Earth's crust, atmosphere, oceans and biosphere.

Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic roles or uses. Living organisms are composed almost entirely of the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Near-universal uses for nonmetals are in medicine and pharmaceuticals; lasers and lighting; and household items.

While the term non-metallic dates from at least 1566, there is no widely-agreed precise definition of a nonmetal. Elements near the borderline between metals and nonmetals on the periodic table often have properties characteristic of both categories, so that different classifications can be justified by different criteria. Consequently, which elements are recognised as nonmetals depends on the classification criteria used by each author. Fourteen elements are effectively always included and up to about nine more elements are frequently to sometimes added, as shown in the accompanying periodic table extract. Some authors classify borderline elements into an intermediate category of metalloids or semimetals.

”

This is of course just a statement of "tendencies". Given all the edge cases everywhere, I think it's a better approach than listing individual cases. It can be argued that C, As, Sb, and Bi are only forming quasi-metallic structures anyway, since the atoms are not equivalently positioned and metallic conduction comes from interactions between the layers, so even the simplification has a grain of truth to it. (Though since Po is more metallic than Bi, it's still a simplification.) Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sigh. Is this still in there? First paragraph? Once more:

Both state of matter (SoM) and color are, per the article itself, non-defining and even non-descriptive appearances. Their relation to being a nonmetal is not even described or based in the article body. It is not stated as classifying metal/nonmetal property (not in the body, so not in a source then). They are not listed in any of the § Chemical and § Suggested distinguishing criteria "some ..." (ouch) properties lists. Being science, still no predictions are (can be) made for lesser known elements. For edxample, what about the heavy halogens and nobles? How can they be excluded/included from these statements/claims/notes if there is no scientific base for these two properties?

It has, by the authors Sandbh's own article writing, no place in the article, and so no reason to even be referred to in the lede. At all. The continuous wrangling with the writing is a prohibitive sign that it is not yet of encyclopedic level or GA stability. The fact that the lede is (still) problematic in this, is an issue for the current peer revieuw. -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Colour is, indeed, irrelevant. Cu, Cs, and Au are clearly metals and equally clearly coloured.

State of matter is slightly less irrelevant, because being a liquid/gas at r.t. usually means that a metallic state is thermodynamically unstable. Then again, it means that a large macromolecular structure is also thermodynamically unstable. And in any case this should be explained. Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Re Double sharp's proposed text at 07:58, which I generally like (pending resolution of color), but some comments:

1. See #"Near-universal" below.
2. The first sentence is fine for a paragraph within the body of Periodic table. But for the first sentence of the lead here, it says nothing except a nonmetal is not a metal, which is not entirely helpful for what will be coughed up by Google. It could benefit from one more clause that gives a "such as" overview of the mentioned properties.
3. Please avoid using i.e. in the lead (or in articles, for that matter).
4. "Rationalizes their properties" will be lost on layreaders ... first paragraph for a concept taught in high school needs to be accessible.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments, suggestions and ideas. Since nonmetals, in chemistry, are those judged to have a predominance of applicable properties, the lede sentence now simply says just that:

"In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element judged to have a predominance of characteristic properties such as being transparent or colored; having a low weight; low to no structural strength; poor thermal conductivity; poor electrical conductivity; low melting point; low boiling point; and a tendency to form acidic compounds."

This is an accurate statement of the situation, largely written in plain English, for the lay reader, in accordance with WP policy.

I’ve retained "colour" since 4 of 23 elements or 1 in 6 of elements within scope of the article are colored; conversely the fact that 3 of 95 or ca. 1 in 32 metals are known to be coloured is effectively meaningless. Color for nonmetals is significant in that the band gaps of the semiconducting elements P, Se, I, B, Si, Ge, and Te are less than the visible spectrum cut off of ca. 1.8 ev, hence their metallic appearance. Conversely the band gaps for red P and S (yellow), for example, are greater hence their coloured appearance.

For context, the rest of the lede’s first paragraph says:

"Solid nonmetals, such as graphitic carbon and sulfur, are brittle to crumbly, and cannot be hammered into sheets or easily drawn into wires without shattering or breaking. Nonmetal atoms are moderate to high in electronegativity; they tend to easily attract electrons."

The “negative” reference to "not being hammered into sheets or easily drawn into wires" is not plain English, but this is probably unavoidable.

Other characteristic properties such as bonding types, oxidation numbers, and cation/ion formation are included later in the article.

Double sharp: I’ll later look closer, if I may, at your mention of elements close to the border between metals and nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve abandoned the idea of defying nonmetals in terms of what they are. Picking up on Double sharp’s suggestion, and SG’s comment, the lede paragraph now reads:

“In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties. They are nearly all gases or solids at room temperature, such as oxygen or sulfur. The only liquid nonmetal, bromine, is usually topped by a layer of its fumes. They typically lack the shiny appearance of metals, have low weight, and are poor thermal and electrical conductors. The 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. Nonmetal atoms are moderately to highly electronegative; they tend to attract electrons in chemical reactions and to form acidic compounds.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs)

I still feel that the topic should be defined before branching into specific examples or elements, which only confuses the layreader. At least move sentences two and three to the end, after the definition, but reading about a layer of fumes at the very beginning of the article is just odd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: To some extent, as you alluded earlier, a nonmetal is something that is not a metal. The implication being that metals have so shaped civilisations over thousands of years that everyone, including lay readers, know that metals are shiny, usually heavy, and good conductors of heat (a hot car under the sun) and electricity (lightning rods, etc). So the term “nonmetal” just by itself conveys much information already. The Br mention is meant to suggest that while Br is the only liquid metal, it is so volatile that one usually encounters it together with its fumes i.e. gaseous vapours. So the nonmetals are almost all either gases or solids, unlike the metals which are all solids, bar one. Otherwise, having to account for Br as the only liquid nonmetal becomes rather exasperating in terms of prose construction. I’ll look at this some more along the lines of your suggestion, and maybe post, revert, and ping you a link, if something good comes of it (or not). Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: I moved sentences 2 and 3 further down, reordered then, and joined some other sentences so there are now only four sentences left:

1. In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties; they are typically transparent or non-metallic in appearance, have low weight, and are poor thermal and electrical conductors.
2. 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.
3. The rest of the nonmetals are nearly all gases at room temperature (the only liquid nonmetal, bromine, is usually topped by a layer of its own fumes).
4. Nonmetal atoms are moderately to highly electronegative; they tend to attract electrons in chemical reactions and to form acidic compounds.

So the result is now a definition that is more than negative in expression, followed by the physical distinction between the solids and the rest, and closing with two chemical properties. I hope you like it. Sandbh (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I find this version digestible, clear, thorough and understandable as a non-chemist (although I still think the fumes are adding verbiage that is unnecessary and lost on a general audience). If others are satisfied, I'll continue tomorrow (doc app't today) my line-by-line, at the peer review, but wish others would be watching as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s beaut! I’ll remove mention of the fumes and see if this can be better placed in the nonmetal halogens section. Sandbh (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Double sharp, fyi that I’ve incorporated your good suggestions here to the extent that I feel is practical and appropriate. I’m reluctant to say something in the lede about "metalloids" as a sometimes third class (notwithstanding they behave chemically as nonmetals) given the lede is supposed to give the lay reader an overall impression of the subject matter, and it currently does that. In my view, more details about the pesky or mysterious metalloids can be left to the main body of the article, as is currently the case. Sandbh (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Near-universal"

While you all sort the ongoing issues with the definition in the lead, I will postpone my line-by-line at the peer review, where I had next planned to tackle clarity of prose. A good deal of progress has been made, but the article is yet a long ways from FAC ready.

But as long as we're looking at the lead, can this (as a sample of lacking prose clarity) be sorted:

• Near-universal uses for nonmetals are in medicine and pharmaceuticals; lasers and lighting; and household items.

What does "near-universal" refer to? Does it mean almost every nonmetal is used in at least one of these applications, or does it mean that almost every one of these applications involves a nonmetal? The reader should not have to stop, in the lead, to sort out what a sentence is saying. As written, it is adding nothing but confusion to my layreader knowledge, and could be re-written in plainer language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh! You thanked me :) before I’d gotten round to saying I’d fixed this. Nicely spotted BTW. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"by each author"

• which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals can vary depending on the classification criteria used by each author.

Is "by each author" redundant ? Other than that, I'm satisfied with the readability of the lead and will move on to the body starting tomorrow. I am still concerned about the "always, frequently, sometimes" construct, as it may still feel too synth-y to get by FAC, but I will propose a way to fix that on the peer review page. Sorry to be working so piecemeal, but that is the luxury that peer review affords, over FAC, and is a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lede suggestions: Trim, poor conductor first, and "Nonmetal element"

As a first-time reader, the lede is clear and well-crafted, but the following things jump out:

1. In the first sentence, stating the poor electrical and thermal conductivity would be much more helpful than the rather technical mention of tending to form acidic compounds, which makes the noble gasses and ammonia feel unwelcome. The pure semiconductors are poor conductors compared to metals, and carbon's exceptional behavior shouldn't take away from beginning the article with the main idea for a general audience.

   I mention a tendency to form acidic compounds as I feel it's important to say something about the chemistry of the nonmetals. I haven't included poor electrical conductivity in the first sentence of the lede since graphite is a rather good electrical conductor, and arsenic and antimony, which are sometimes counted as nonmetals, are rather OK such conductors. For thermal conductivity, metals range from 6.3 W m⁻¹ K⁻¹ to 429 for silver. The thermal conductivities of the following nonmetallic elements fall within this range: B, C, Si, Ge, P, As, Sb. The third sentence in the lede does say however, "Unlike metals, most nonmetals are poor conductors of heat and electricity."

2. This lede sentence is more distracting than helpful:
    "This is so even though the number of nonmetal elements is several times lower than the number of metal elements"
   Simply cutting it would make the paragraph stronger. The brief discussion that precedes it makes very clear the overwhelming importance of the four named nonmetals.

   That sentence no longer exists.

3. Changing the article title to "Nonmetal element" would be helpful. The first sentence of the lede makes clear that this is specifically about elements, but then abandons any readers who are looking to learn about materials that are non-metals in general; they have to scan the whole article to find out that compounds and molecular materials are simply not covered, and then begin a hunt for another article. Metal covers all metallic materials, elemental or not, and the change in scope between that and Nonmetal is puzzling.

   The first sentence of the lede makes its scope clear: "In chemistry, a nonmetal is a type of chemical element..." My feeling is that the most popular use of the term nonmetal is in the sense of chemical elements. I don't know of a field of study that is devoted to "nonmetal(lic) materials" which would presumably cover e.g. ceramics and glasses, plastics, composites, foams, textiles and presumably nonmetallic liquids and gases. Sandbh (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I made no edits to the article because I note that the solicitation for FAC nomination for this article has begun. If suggestions are not helpful at this time because they disrupt that process, then please ignore for now. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by the nominator, as the editor requested to have comments at the talk page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nonmetal/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notifying @Sandbh:.

Look, I know that you have worked on an article so hard, yet the article gets reassessed and it seems like no one cares about you. But, I really do understand your stress, and thus I don't nominate Nonmetal for community assessment, because surely the FAC people will batch you into death. I want this article to be way better than this now. And you are not alone, I also has SpaceX Starship being culled for review even after so many months of work.

Anyways, the primary reason I want to reassess the article is at criteria 1a (the prose is clear, concise...), 1b (complies with the manual of style guidelines...) and 3a (it addresses the main aspects of the topic) at here. I have a feeling that this article is written in a way that break the prose badly, shown one example below (criteria 1a + 1b):

---

The distinction between metals and nonmetals arose, in a convoluted manner, from a crude recognition of natural kinds of matter. Thus:

• matter could be divided into pure substances and mixtures;
• pure substances eventually could be distinguished as compounds and elements;
• "metallic" elements seemed to have broadly distinguishable attributes that other elements did not...

---

I also has concerns at the comprehensiveness of the article. What are the enormous uses of the nonmetals? How does nonmetals are discovered since the ancient times? Why do the nonmetal criteria is so convoluted? How about bio-compatibility? There's much to discuss. (criterion 3a)

I want to mention accessibility and layout problems as well, but that's for another time. There's a ton of work to do already :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy keep and close this GAR

I see no reasons for a GAR on this article at all. I don't think CactiStaccingCrane is capable of appraising the prose given the gibberish they have written on this page. What on Earth does "How does nonmetals are discovered since the ancient times?" mean? The question is totally incomprehensible. The review of SpaceX Starship has absolutely nothing to do with this article or its GA status. This nomination just comes across as some sort of convoluted tit for tat and is disruptive editing. Graham Beards (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. If you guys don't like it, then there's no reason for me to continue further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy keep and close this WP:IGF GAR
I intend to edit the article in light of feedback rec’d at FAC #4, and to then list it for the second time at PR. Concerns of the kind raised above, if still outstanding, can be listed in that forum. Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)