The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [1].

---

Nonmetal[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking consensus that this article now meets the FA criteria.

All concerns raised by the non-committed editor were addressed or resolved by agreement.

In response to some concerns raised by the opposing editor I changed the article accordingly, and in other respects explained my basis for taking no further action including in terms of WP policy, style, or the literature, including having regard to the complex nature of the subject matter.

Since then, and as an outcome of discussions with one of the supporting editors and the non-committed editor, the lede definition has been simplified, associated edits have been made to the main body, and an inset map added to the lede showing the location of the nonmetallic elements in the full periodic table.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Views etc.[edit]

N.b. At FAC 3, it garnered six supports and 3 opposes, of which two were subsequently withdrawn, one non-committed. A clear majority for support.

• Support. Too few articles on scientific subjects make it to FA status. This one deserves to be promoted. Petergans (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an accepted reason for promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, a good reason to spend a bit more time and effort working out the issues on an article like this one that is getting close to promotion. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 15:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vanisaac we have a system for that. SN54129 16:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was happy enough with the state of the article at FAC3 to support it then. It seems to me that the article has only improved since then, so it seems natural for me to offer my support again. Double sharp (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• Ping participants in the last FAC: Double sharp, YBG, DePiep, Dirac66, Graham Beards, Doncram, Michael D. Turnbull, Petergans, Mirokado, ComplexRational, Jo-Jo Eumerus (t · c) buidhe 06:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: I'm afraid your paging of eleven editors is rather beat out by Sandbh's leaving of 30 talk page messages ;) SN54129 07:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First thoughts: Is it absolutely necessary to have all these citations in the lead section? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• " Is it absolutely necessary to have all these citations in the lead section?" from JJE is most certainly relevant to the essential issue. Hog Farm _Talk 00:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Second thoughts: The sourcing needs some work. Some of the footnotes contain claims that need to be sourced. Some sources have page numbers given and others don't - instead only featuring a "passim" even if the source is a long book. "elemental selenium is occasionally found" and the second paragraph of the chemical sections is unsourced. Unrelated but I also have to object to Petergans's rearranging of comments here; while I don't oppose moving purely procedural comments to the talk page, they did break up conversations seemingly at random and several issues were actionable problems [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] were also removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am a bit confused by the distinguishing criteria section. the combination of a (seemingly largely unnecessary) quote, infobox, bullet list and enumeration make it very cluttered. The 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? Licks-rocks (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by the source review I provided at FAC3 for the content and sources it covers. However, the article content has changed somewhat, so I cannot blindly stand by all my comments from there and a new (partial) review would be required. At this time, due to RL, I don't have time to provide such a review, so in all likelihood I won't be voting this time.

Also, in my opinion, this has been rushed into FAC4 and several editors have raised valid concerns, so I would strongly recommend working on the article outside FAC and perhaps send it through peer review again before coming back here. While I'm all for trying again in principle, I get the impression that this is the third time it's rushed back into FAC after a closed nomination and that won't sit well with some reviewers. I sincerely believe the article has potential to reach FA, and don't feel like opposing on these grounds alone, but rushing improvements and re-nominations won't do it any good. ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Why were these posts removed? And, no, they aren’t “irrelevant “ nor is this one. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like to dispute that this post was "irrelevant". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored them. Whether they like the posts or not, Petergans is not the arbiter of TPO, and if they pull that stunt again, ANI. SN54129 12:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them because they have no bearing on the essential issue - is the article up to the required standard. Petergans (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

We have an issue [2] with canvassing where it clearly says "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Graham Beards (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to the canvasing issues, sourcing concerns, and lack of a pause between this FAC and the previous one without addressing the concerns of reviewers. This is starting to feel like an extended exercise in "if I ask enough they will say yes eventually" and is bordering on being disruptive and wasteful of the time of good faith reviewers. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

• Petergans - if you do not quit removing other user's comments, rearranging other comments, and canvassing, I may have to partially block you from this page. Hog Farm _Talk 17:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support that, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I could live with this certainly, in everyone's interests. SN54129 17:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: Oppose and suggest withdrawal[edit]

Further commentary on the talk page of this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this nomination courtesy of the attention drawn to it on the lengthy discussion at WT:FAC. Looking at the article for the first time (on its fourth FAC), I am surprised at the level of deficiencies still present, considering the article had garnered some support in its earlier FACs. (The level of issues still found in the article suggests that previous supports might be disregarded as drive-by or fan support.) My review contains samples only, and consists mostly of what I could easily spot while looking at the article over breakfast. Based on what I found, I suggest the article has not been prepared for FAC, and could benefit from a long and strenuous WP:peer review, involving topic experts, non-topic experts (laypersons, for a jargon check), and MOS/FA-criteria-knowledgeable editors.

Sourcing: The first thing that caught my eye was an odd citation:

• Boise State University 2020, "Cost-effective manufacturing methods breathe new life into black phosphorus research", accessed July 9, 2021. Boise State University with no author listed caused me to look for an author, where I discovered bigger issues.

  The source is a press release (not indicated as such in the citation, but explains why there is no author).

  The press release is used to cite this text: "Black phosphorus is produced only in gram quantities by boutique suppliers—a single crystal produced via chemical vapor transport can cost up to $1,000 per gram (ca. fifteen times the cost of gold); in contrast, red phosphorus costs about 50 cents a gram or $227 a pound.]"

  See WP:NOPRICE: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted." If there is mainstream mention of the cost of red phosphorous (outside of product reviews), those should be the sources used. If there is not mainstream mention of this cost, it does not belong in the article at all.

  But there is a much bigger problem (Copyvio, along with original research):

  Source: black phosphorus is produced only in gram quantities by boutique suppliers – a single crystal of black phosphorus produced using a chemical vapor transport route can cost up to $1,000 per gram; in contrast, red phosphorus costs approximately 50 cents per gram.

  Article: Black phosphorus is produced only in gram quantities by boutique suppliers—a single crystal produced via chemical vapor transport can cost up to $1,000 per gram (ca. fifteen times the cost of gold^{[original research?]}); in contrast, red phosphorus costs about 50 cents a gram or $227 a pound.

  Copyvio insertion at July 9, 2021 (suggests that all hard-print sources should be checked as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Other odd citation issues, eg, "Johnson[37] noted that physical properties can best indicate the metallic or nonmetallic properties of an element, with the proviso that other properties will be needed in a number of ambiguous cases." (If Johnson noted all of this, why isn't the citation at the end of the sentence?)
• This whole passage is cited to a 1966 source: "Fourteen elements effectively always recognized as nonmetals 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. 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, bringing the total up to twenty-three nonmetals.[4]" Why source to something that old? What is the meaning of "effectively", especially in relation to a more than 50-year-old source? 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.

At that point, I looked no further at sourcing; this is serious enough to suggest a solid examination of all sourcing is needed, and a strenuous check for copyvio, too-close-paraphrasing, and source-to-text integrity.

Prose The prose is unnecessarily dense and jargon-filled. Some samples only:

• The distinguishing criteria section has a long-list of red-linked terms that are never defined (anywhere in the article, or anywhere on Wikipedia). This renders the text a mystery to layreaders.
• One sample paragraph for examination:

  The term "nonmetallic" dates from as far back as 1708 when Wilhelm Homberg mentioned "non-metallic sulfur" in his Des Essais de Chimie.[56] He had refuted the five-fold division of matter into sulfur, mercury, salt, water and earth, previously in vogue, as postulated by Étienne de Clave [fr] (1641) in New Philosophical Light of True Principles and Elements of Nature. Homberg's approach represented "an important move toward the modern concept of an element".^{[attribution needed]}[57] Subsequently, the first modern list of chemical elements was given by Lavoisier in his "revolutionary"^{[attribution needed]}[58] 1789 work Traité élémentaire de chimie in which he distinguished between simple metallic and nonmetallic substances. In its first seventeen years, Lavoisier's work was republished in twenty-three editions and six languages, and carried his "new chemistry" across Europe and America.[59]

• There are three uses of the word subsequently (always a tipoff to other prose issues); in this case, they are all either confusing, or point two things that only could have happened afterwards, hence redundant. Looking at one of those:
  • "The discovery of a quasi-spherical allotropic molecule, borospherene (B40), was announced in 2014. Silicon was most recently known only in its crystalline and amorphous forms. The synthesis of an orthorhombic allotrope, Si24, was subsequently reported in 2014." I can't decipher what this text even means, much less the circular reasoning on 2014, most recently, and back to 2014.
  • The other two instances of subsequently (It can lose its single valence electron in aqueous solution, leaving behind a bare proton with tremendous polarizing power.[80] This subsequently attaches itself to the lone electron pair of an oxygen atom in a water molecule,) and (The term "nonmetallic" dates from as far back as 1708 ... Subsequently, the first modern list of chemical elements was given by Lavoisier) are examples of convoluted prose and issues that could not have happened before the first, hence redundant.
• 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?
• There are unattributed quotes throughout.
• The distinction between metals and nonmetals arose, in a convoluted manner,^{[clarification needed]}

These are samples only; similar is spotted wherever the eye falls.

MOS issues

• Incorrect use of "Main" hatnotes. For example, (oddly) the halogen article never mentions nonmetal, so the content in this article cannot be a summary of that article.
• MOS:ELLIPSES
• 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?
• MOS:WAW: The term "nonmetallic" dates from ...
• 2 Concept origin, distinguishing criteria, and use of term as a section heading, followed by the exact same words at 2.1 Origin of the concept, 2.2 Distinguishing criteria, 2.3 Use of the term (don't repeat words at lower levels)

This is not an exhaustive list; these suggest a MOS review has not been done.

Presentation

• One of the first things the reader encounters is a WP:GALLERY (that did nothing to enhance my comprehension of the article).
• The juxtaposition of an indented long list with a quote box in the Distinguishing criteria section is visually awful, and I wonder what our screenreading users might say about it. Why isn't that example algorithm prosified ? Why "example" (as in, which sources disgree and have other examples)?

This is by no means an exhaustive review; it only consists of easily spotted samples. The article's sourcing, writing, organization and presentation seem more akin to a sophomore-year high school term paper than what we would expect from a Featured article. The considerable effort that Sandbh has put into this article is to be commended, but a better way forward may help better prepare the article for FAC, and result in a more pleasant FAC experience for the nominator and reviewers alike. I will put suggestions for how to move forward more productively on the talk page of this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

As this article is, still, clearly not yet ready for FAC - as indicated by the numerous examples from Jo Jo and Sandy above - I am archiving it. The usual two week wait before a new FAC nomination will apply. I strongly suggest that all of the comments from this and all of the previous reviews are taken on board and actioned where felt appropriate. I would also recommend then entering into a dialogue with those who have been critical, perhaps at PR, on the basis that they are experienced and honest reviewers who know what is necessary to get an article promoted and who like contributing - free of charge and obligation - to seeing articles promoted.

Re canvassing, a neutrally phrased message was left on my talk page inviting me to contribute. The message explained the basis on which I received it. So long as all of the editors in these categories received similar messages and no others did, I do not see that there is a canvassing issue. Sandbh, perhaps you could clarify whether this was the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.