Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From at least the 16th century of the modern era, when a distinction was made between metallic and nonmetallic substances, it's been hard going getting a handle on the chemical elements that are not metals. Add "metalloids" into the mix and the result can be somewhat murky.
Since the article was last at FAC in October 2023, it's undergone considerable refinement including with respect to prose, the definition, history, tables and images. Much of this work was discussed at the nonmetal talk page, onwards from the section Outstanding items from FAC7 nomination. I have pinged FAC7 reviewers. Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UC
Driving by, at least for now:
The lead image is a big <citation needed> for me. On whose authority are the judgements based about whether an element is always/generally/maybe considered a nonmetal, or whether its status is or isn't confirmed? Come to think of it, what's the cutoff between "usually" and "sometimes"?
With images in general, the MOS (MOS:COLOR) discourages situations where colour is the only means of discerning information -- many of our users cannot see or make use of it. This is a problem throughout the article.
Why have we got a dubious AI image to illustrate Aristotle when countless well-known human-made depictions of him exist? File:Aristotle Altemps Inv8575.jpg is the most famous, but File:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg is another good option -- both are descended from near-contemporary portraits that could conceivably have been taken from life. The other 'obvious' candidate would be Raphael's depiction in The School of Athens
Per WP:NOTPAPER, the names of elements should be spelled out, even in footnotes.
Thanks. Done. I've added citations to the lead image. I've relied on the 16th edition of Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary; the 5th edition of Steudel's monograph on nonmetals, incorporating the literature up to 2019; and a 2013 survey of 194 lists of metalloids. The "usually" and "sometimes" differentiation arises from the fact that some authors count metalloids as nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colour in images: Done I've either changed the colour schemes in appliable tables to b/w or adjusted relavant headings/text.
I will add notes here gradually as time allows. YBG (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) @Sandbh is a self-taught WP:EXPERT with peer-reviewed articles in this subject who rightly refuses to claim any extra authority based on this. Collaborating with him for many years I have come to greatly appreciate his efforts to improve coverage of WP:ELEM. I have no reason to believe that any of the fifteen or so WP:SELFCITEs fail to comply with WP policies, but it would be good for an editor less involved than I am to evaluate this. YBG (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(2)[resolved] Normally, one expects FAC to improve articles, but so far the article has gotten worse. Please restore the color. Changing to B&W does NOT make it satisfy MOS:COLOR. As written above, it merely discourages situations where colour is the only means of discerning information. The solution is not to remove color, but to ensure that color is not the only means of discerning information. This could mean ensuring that the colors are colorblind safe. It could mean adding additional non-color cues. It could mean adding descriptive text to assist blind readers. It does not require changing color schemes to B&W. YBG (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having inadvertently inspired this change, I'll register my general agreement here. UndercoverClassicistT·C 06:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. YBG (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is better than the previous iteration, but still leaves the original problem, particularly with the lead image. Good alt text, setting out which element is in which list, would help. UndercoverClassicistT·C 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and YBG:Done. Lead image adjusted; D/E table colours reinstated; all images now have alt text. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have expanded the alt text of the lead pic so that it can be grasped even by blind readers. I may work to improve the other alt texts also. YBG (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(3)[resolved] The 1st pic column headers read 1, 2, 3-12, 12, 13, ..., 18. The 3rd column should be labeled "3-11". YBG (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done.Sandbh (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Resolved. YBG (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(4)[withdrawn] The 1st pic could be narrower by combining columns 2 and 3. The header would be 2-12 and the entries (blank), Be/Beryllium, Mg/Magnesium, Ca-Cu, Sr-Ag, Ba-Au, Ra-Rg. If you opt for this, I will make the corresponding change to the alt description. YBG (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I feel it's somewhat more important to retain a semblance of the overall structure of the periodic table. Thus, s-block on the left (2 columns), p-block on the right (6), with d-block in the middle (9+1). --- Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Withdrawn. YBG (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(5)[resolved] I suggest adding this as note to the "sometimes" legend entry:
These six elements, boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium, as the elements commonly recognized as metalloids, are sometimes considered to be a subcategory of nonmetals and sometimes considered to be a category separate from both metals and nonmetals.
If there are no objections, I’ll add it myself. YBG (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Ok, I inserted it. Not sure if after the ref is correct or if it should be before. Please advise. YBG (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It looks good now. After the ref is good, too. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(6) There are instances of this or similar text:
<hr style="color:white;background-color:white">
This is only visible to the reader as extra leading, which seems to be the reason why it is used. But the markup is cryptic markup and confuses other editors. To provide extra separation, better to use the self-explaining padding or margin style the CSS box model provides. This is cleaner and easier to read and makes intent obvious. Plus, the amount of leading can be finely adjusted. YBG (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Indeed YBG, I've used a horizontal rule on five occasions for extra leading. I suspect we are venturing into non-FAC criteria here. The choice of a rule for extra leading v CSS padding or margin style, is surely a personal stylistic difference. For the five occasions I never saw a reason or requirement to use something else. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Would you object to me trying to change it? In addition to improving the clarity of the wiki text, I’d like to fine tune the amount of leading. YBG (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Please feel free to do so. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(7)[resolved] "Colour" is used quoting Elliot 1929 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (obviously a British source), so almost certainly correct. "Colorless" is used quoting Wibaut P 1951 which is published in New York, and so is suspect. YBG (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: "Colourless" is indeed used in the text despite being published by Elvesier, New York. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Interesting. Thanks for checking. I wonder if the author is from outside the US. YBG (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(8)[resolved] I added a wikilink to Proceedings of the Royal Society A; other bibliography entries should be linked also. Even link multiple occurrences; entries are not read consecutively, so this is not over linking. YBG (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some red links - mostly getting brackets and single quotes ordered properly - but also two errors that would it have been caught otherwise. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
… that woulditnothave been caught otherwise. Ain’t autocorrect great. NOT!! YBG (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(9) Note [p]: Should polarized atom be linked to polarizability? Or should it be mentioned at all, since the topic of this note is homopolyatomic ions? YBG (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems ok, although from a quick scan, that article seems to be about polarized molecules, not polarized atoms. YBG (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I’m still wondering about mentioning the capacity to form polarized atoms in the note, since this (1) does not distinguish metals from nonmetals, (2) is not mentioned in the text, (3) is not mentioned elsewhere in the note, and (4) is not obviously related to homopolyatomic ions, the topic of the note. YBG (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: You seem to be missing the context for the note, which is, "Examples of metal-like properties occurring in nonmetallic elements include...just over half of nonmetallic elements can form homopolyatomic cations.[p]" As the note says in part, "This is unusual behavior for nonmetals which are better known for their capacity to form negatively charged anions or polarized atoms, whereas metals are better known for their capacity to form positively charged cations or polarized atoms." The main body of the nonmetal article distinguishes metals from nonmetals in this passage, "In metals, the impact of the nuclear charge is generally weaker compared to nonmetallic elements. As a result, in chemical bonding, metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms, while nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms." The article about polarized molecules is relevant since metals and nonmetals can form what are called polar covalent bonds, when the electronegativiy differences between the atoms being bonded is not large enough to sustain an ionic bond. I have further added links to "ions" and "polarized atoms" to make the distinction clearer. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might finally understand. Consider the phrase "polarized atoms" in the two clauses of the last sentence of the note:
metals tend to lose electrons, leading to the formation of positively charged ions or polarized atoms
nonmetals tend to gain these electrons due to their stronger nuclear charge, resulting in negatively charged ions or polarized atoms
In (1), "polarized atoms" describes H in the polar molecules H2O or HF, and in (2) it describes the O in H2O or the F in HF. That is to say, in (1) the "polarized atom" is an atom which is the locus of a positive charge in polar molecule and in (2) the "polarized atom" is an atom which is the locus of a negative charge in polar molecule.
Have I understood correctly? YBG (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. HF is a good example. The bond has a significant degree of polarity due to the high EN of fluorine (−ve) compared to hydrogen (+ve). --- Sandbh (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: What would you think of changing note [p] to read like this:
A homopolyatomic ion consists of two or more atoms of the same element bonded together and carrying an electric charge. Most homopolyatomic ions of metals are positive ions (cations), but most homopolyatomic ions of nonmetals are negative (anions). However, positive homopolyatomic ions are known for carbon, nitrogen (N+ 5), oxygen(O+ 2), phosphorus, antimony, sulfur, chlorine (Cl+ 4), selenium, tellurium, bromine, iodine and xenon.[101]
Thoughts? ——— YBG (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The suggested change introduces too many unncessary topics, namely homopolyatomic ions of metals and homopolyatomic anions of nonmetals. The paragraph refers to metal-like properties occurring among nonmetals. Cation formation is a metallic property. However, if the positive charge of the cation can be shared by one than one nonmetal atom of the same kind, then cations as in homopolyatomic cations of nonmetals become more feasible. The current footnote says what it needs to say, including that the formation of homopolyatomic cations of nonmetals is unusual, and no more. I have however rearranged the sentences in the footnote so that mention of the unusualness of homopolyatomic nonmetal cations occurs earlier. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think my note introduced new topics not mentioned in the body text. Nevertheless, if this is the standard, please remove the mention of polarized molecules. If it took you multiple paragraphs to get me to understand this, surely it it would be confusing to the average reader. YBG (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: Good; I've removed the mention of polarisation. The footnote reads more straightforwardly now. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I've had a brief look and it seems better, but I want to have a deeper look, trying to figure out if it would have eliminated the confusion I had previouysly. YBG (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(10)[resolved] The pic of buckminsterfullerene is difficult to comprehend. Perhaps it could be cropped? Or replaced with a better better macro picture? Or replaced with another allotrope? Or just deleted? Or use File:Diamond and graphite2.jpg instead? YBG (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've expanded the caption to make it clearer as to what the image of C60 is showing (same for diamond, and graphite). C60 is sufficiently astonishing to warrent inclusion. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I had no idea this was a micrograph. What is the magnification? It is still far from ideal; due to the dark background it really doesn’t fit with the other two images. Maybe file:C60 SEM.jpg??
i agree that C60 is astonishing and worth mentioning, but nothing in the picture or caption really makes it seem astonishing. It is really the spherical structure which makes it astonishing. Maybe you could get include three photos and three models together like the graphite-and-diamond pic referenced above. YBG (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No information is provided as to the magnification. The three images together are remarkable since they show C as 1. an insulator; 2. a semiconductor; and 3. a semimetal. That is a nice gradient. The astonishing thing about C60 is that, of all things, is has a brown appearance (partly influenced by the C60 spheres). Who would have thought? The caption to the image explains well enough what is being shown, including that the image of C60 is a micrograph. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a header and captions to accentuate the remarkable contrast. I’m not super happy about using "blackish" in place of "gray-to-black", but it seemed the best way to avoid the unsightliness of an extra line in either mobile or desktop. If this is unacceptable, then maybe simply "black".
I removed the added verbiage re C60; it didn’t really help understand the picture, The issue, I believe, is the black background. Editing it to whitewash the background seems problematic; cropping it so there is no black background might help. But if that is hard or unacceptable, I’m fine leaving the picture as is. YBG (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: The gallery of the three allotropes, and its caption, now looks very schmick. Thanks. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(←) @Sandbh What would you think about cropping the C60 pic to eliminate most of the black background? YBG (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I'd be interested to see what that would look like. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I've created a cropped image and used it instead. Check it out at § AllotropesYBG (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I didn't spend too much time thinking about how to crop it; feel free to crop it differently if you think you like. YBG (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: It look very nice, thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(11) @Sandbh - Is the chunking really needed in the table at § Suggested distinguishing criteria? Now that I've squeezed out some of the excessive white space, I think it is not needed. I did change it from a single line (from <hr>) to a double line (from an empty row), which I think is slightly better. But I still don't think it is needed. If you still think there is a problem, would you consider using row striping instead? YBG (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I've removeed the chunking. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had also added a divider after the headers and before the footer. I think those are helpful visually. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: I can't see any difference. And the article history has no record of adding a divider after the headers and before the footer, that I can see. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I added them at the same time as I changed your single-line hr to my double-line empty rows. Would you like me to restore them so you can see? YBG (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: No need; I've adjusted the spacing. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by Comments Ajpolino
Just a few things in passing. Can't promise the time to really go through this article, though I applaud your substantial work.
"Sometimes counted as a nonmetal" (lead image caption) references sources from 1844 and 1897. Is there anything more recent that could support that claim? I'm concerned about conflating "this sometimes happens" with "this used to happen". For example I could write "Syphilis is sometimes treated with mercury salts" with an 1896 source, but the world changed and my sentence would be untrue.
@Ajpolino: Many thanks. The "sometimes counted" box has 1844, 1897, 1976, 1993, and 2006 cites. My intent was to show the "sometimes" status has a recurring history. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next line "status as nonmetal or metal unconfirmed" cites six sources. Three are called out as verifying the claim about Cn, Fl, and Og. Are the other three all for At? If so, perhaps two can be cut?
I've adjusted the footnote to make it clear that the first three refer to At. The 2013 cite was the pivotal one, predicting that At would be an fcc metal on relativistic grounds. The two other cites, which can be hard to find in the literature, are there to show that it was earlier expected that At would be a metal. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar question as my first regarding "There is no widely-accepted precise definition" referenced to works from 2020, 1957, and 1892. What do the earlier works do for us here?
Those three were included to show that since Mendeleev published his 1st periodic table in 1869, the lack of a widely-accepted precise definition has been an ongoing phenomenon. Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References 2 and 10 appear to be the same and can be merged.
"Nonmetals closer to the left or bottom ...this occurs in... phosphorus[32]" Are the four sources necessary to support this statement for phosphorus? Also is there a system for when you include quotes in the reference? You do so for just a few scattered throughout.
P is often thought of as being white P whereas the most stable form is black P. The thought of P having some metallic character seems most peculiar, but there it is. The four sources all bring something different to this perspective. I include quotes with references when I feel this would add value to the citation. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: trimmed one redundant cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto iodine in the same list (ref 37). At a glance the quote suggests Steudel 2020 would suffice?
Iodine is another oddity. Who would think that iodine, a halogen, would have some metallic character, yet it does. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Redmer, Hensel & Holst, preface" (ref 41) and "Criswell p. 1140" (ref 222) consider adding the year for consistency with your other refs.
"The number of compounds formed by nonmetals is vast." cited to two different textbooks. Are both necessary to support this relatively simple statement?
Done. Trimmed the older cite. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typo in ref 204 "Baja, Cascella & Borger 2022..." should be Bajaj.
"They have significant roles in biology" referenced to "Crawford 1968, p. 540; Benner, Ricardo & Carrigan 2018, pp. 167–168:[quote]" assuming the quote comes from Benner, that seems to plenty cover the cited text. Is Crawford needed?
Crawford is important in that they refer to the other nonmetals (H, C, N, O, P, S) as biogens, which is impressive for the time. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bertomeu-Sánchez et al. 2002 - you usually spell out three-author refs, but this one gets an "et al." Any particular reason?
Yes, all three authors have double-barreled surnames. I felt that the resulting cite would be clumsily long. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bertomeu-Sánchez et al. 2002, p. 249" is twice, currently as ref 280 and 281.
Done. I checked for redundant refs just before FAC submission, and evidently missed this one. Thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Reinhardt at al. 2015" typo for et al. (I assume)
"the notably reactive halogen nonmetals—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine" is backed up by 9 references. Are these all necessary to support this claim?
There was some controversy among WP:ELEM members as to whether "halogen nonmetals" was a legitimate term rather than "halogens". This was partly fuelled by uncertainty as to whether At was a nonmetal or a metal. The first three references show contempary use of the term. The rest of the cites show alternative terms for the set F, Cl, Br, I. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Csele 2016 - page numbers would be nice. Unless it has examples of each nonmetal sprinkled throughout (I didn't look)?
Are the two Glinka textbooks the same? Is there an edition number to separate them?
Fixed. One textbook was redundant. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graves 2022 - I haven't read his book, but a geneticist's memoir seems an odd source to back up statements on boron and silicon reactivity. Not demanding it be changed, but if you have something from a more established source in the chemistry world, that would be nice.
Graves was referring to the absence of silicon-based life-forms on our planet. The mention of boron was missing its separate cite; now addressed. Thanks for that. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Gregerson 2023" (ref 206) is this supposed to point to Gregersen 2008 "Radon"? I didn't check to see which spelling and year are correct.
"the notably reactive halogen nonmetals—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine;" similar to above, this is supported by three sources, then two alternative names with three sources each. Is this necessary?
I addressed this point earlier. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking that Jones 2010, a book called "Pluto: Sentinel of the Outer Solar System" is indeed what's intended here. Didn't read the book. Just surprised the author has a due opinion on distinguishing nonmetals.
Jones was discussing classification science principles, in general. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Lémery 1699, p. 118;" points to a 1714 paper. Not sure which is correct.
"in his classic[289] and influential[290] textbook" I think classic and influential mean the same thing in this context. I'd just pick one.
I feel that Lavoiser's textbook had so monumental an impact on chemistry that two epithets are deserved. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In table "List of properties suggested for distinguishing metals from nonmetals" Was Martin JW's 1969 book a serious attempt to distinguish metals and nonmetals? A contemporaneous book review suggests the book was targeted at "sixth formers and undergraduates" rather than a work in conversation with the field. Putting my concern another way, is Martin's entry in that table due coverage?
The title of Martin's book is Elementary Science of Metals. It was a part of the Wykeham Science Series of books. The aim was, "To broaden the outlook of the senior grammar school pupil and to introduce the undergraduate to the present state of science as a university study..." For its time it was quite topical. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Arsenic is stable in... semi-noble metal." I think the footnote within a footnote is stretching the bounds of due material. If it can't even be squeezed into a first-level footnote, perhaps it should be trimmed from the article?
The first footnote has one reference to each of the six metalloids. Arsenic merits some closer attention given its susceptibility to react with air. I felt that this would be easier and clearer if it was mentioned in a second-level footnote rather than trying to squeeze it in to the first footnote. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Oderberg's opinion (which I'm sympathetic to) due here? Is he considered an important player in this debate?
There is no ongoing debate as such, there is only a lack of agreement in the literature. Since attempts to distingush between metals and nonmetals deal with classifications science, Oderberg's view is a worthy as any other attempt to shed light onto the question. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford English University 1989" Is there a reason for the ref to say this instead of "Oxford University Press" or "Oxford English Dictionary"?
Fixed.
"Radon shows some cationic behavior" do we need both Pitzer and Stein to support this relatively simple claim?
I felt that the notion of radon, a noble gas, showing some cationic behaviour is so mind boggling that it warrented two cites. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rosenberg 2018, p. 847" I assume refers to the citation "Rosenberg E 2013..." but I'm not sure which year is the typo.
Could be my ignorance talking, but footnote [af]: "Exceptionally, a study... tiny amounts of uranium." seems like an undue factoid. Do others comment on the exceptional nature of the finding?
Yes, I felt that the thought of F, the most reactive element in the periodic table, being found in native form is so extraordinary that it warranted a mention. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mirokado
Full review later (I hope), for now just any points as I notice them.
Chemical properties by element type, current note be: Arsenic trioxide reacts with sulfur trioxide, forming arsenic "sulfate" As2(SO4)3. Any reason for the scare quotes around "sulfate"? They do not appear in the reference provided. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mirokado. Fixed. Arsenic "sufate" is a covalent compound rather than a "true" ionic sulfate comprising a crystal lattice of arsenic cations and sulfate anions. The footnote's been adjusted accordingly. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
