Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Question

Are the noble gases classified with the nonmetals? Periodic table/Metals and Non Metals says yes, but I don't really see why. They break the periodicity pattern of increasing electronegativity; they might as well be placed to the left of the alkali metals as to the right of the halogens. -Smack 20:46 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Non-metal" is a pretty woolly, general term, but noble gasses tick about 90% of its boxes.--feline1 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Abundance of non-metals, how come?

The article says "Only eighteen elements in the periodic table are generally considered nonmetals, compared to over eighty metals, but nonmetals make up most of the crust, atmosphere and oceans of the earth. Bulk tissues of living organisms are composed almost entirely of nonmetals."

First thing I wondered about, if the large majority of elements in the periodic table are metals, how come they are so prevalent on Earth and in (Earth-based) life?

I was reading the article on Metal first, and figured the definition was very inclusive, so I clicked through here to find the properties of non-metal, since they are so common in life, I wondered what makes them special. Does anybody know? And care to write it up in the article?

Infobag (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My periodic table showing the metals and nonmetals

User:Wd930/Periodic table/Metals and nonmetals
Hydrogen is not on top of lithium here because it is a nonmetal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In German Wikipedia selenium is considered a metalloid, but phosphorus and carbon unjustly not

In German Wikipedia selenium is considered metalloid, but carbon and phosphorus are equated to fluorine and oxygen in metallicity (C and P are named as just nonmetals). Selenium is marked as half metalloid and half nonmetal in periodic table template in German Wikipedia. Carbon and phosphorus should be named as metalloids if selenium is named so. All "diagonal carbon group" (C, P, Se, I, even Rn which have some cationic behaviour) exhibits intermediate proprties between typical nonmetals and typical metalloids ("diagonal boron group", especially: B, Si, As and Te). I think it is "unjust" when selenium is named as metalloid and carbon and phosphorus "only" nonmetals. Phosphorus have lower electronegativity than Se and C and should be also named as "weak metalloid". Ionic sodium selenide (similar to oxide of Na, easily reacts with water) and telluride (highly soluble in water). Black phosphorus have much higher melting point (about 600 C) than gray selenium. Very hard to melt, grayish-black lustrous graphite which is better conductor of heat and electricity (often used in electrodes, such as harder glassy carbon) than many metalloids at normal conditions definately does not fit to nonmetals, but to metalloids (semimetals), such as gray selenium and black phosphorus. Naming selenium as (half)metalloid and classifying carbon and phosphorus as only nonmetals is even flawful and should not be used. Even insulating and transparent diamond (less metallic than graphte form of carbon) is not so much like other, typical nonmetallic elements (density compared to atomic mass, heat conductivity, melting point, hardness - they are associated with metals (especially heavy), but diamond is in it better than all examined metals! (paradox)). It is rather like compound of metal and nonmetal like aluminium oxide, which can also be very hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.86.160 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Carbon

Carbon actually has a higher melting and boiling point than any metal, right? Boron is pretty much up there also. I do not think melting and boiling point is much of a guide for determining metals vs nonmetals.

nani na muni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.168.4 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Carbon high melting point and other not-nonmetallic traits in its allotropes does not make it more metallic than "diagonal boron group", but it should not be included in less metallic group than toxic and forming more acidic hydride than sulfur hydride element with atomic number 34. 95.49.86.160 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Phosphorus not less metallic than selenium

Se, P and C are in the same level of metallicity. They can be marked as "half-metalloids" and "half-nonmetals". Phosphorus has even lower electronegativity than some heavy metals (such as gold) and black phosphorus is a metalloid which has higher melting point (about 600 C) than less metallic elements and its hydride is not acidic like hydride of sulfur, ("infamous") selenium and even typically metalloidal tellurium! Black phosphorus is, in addition, the most thermodynamically stable form of element number 15. Not this low-melting whitish waxy poison known as tetraphosphorus. Metalloid arsenic also has highly nonmetallic allotrope (unstable and really light yellow arsenic), but main form of As has even better electrical conductivity in normal conditions than manganese. Phosphides are also often quite metallic, they are similar to arsenides.95.49.86.160 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A metallic allotrope of carbon has been hypothesized to occur at 1.1 THz.

Is it correct to specify THz? I would have thought that pressure (GPa?) rather than frequency (THz) would be determinative. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No it is not correct to specify THz. The reference cited even states TPa. 192.75.48.150 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Even highly nonmetallic oxygen forms metallic form at very high pressure, which can also be a superconductor. Even at lower pressure than more metallic carbon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxygen#Metallic_oxygen

A ζ-phase appears at 96 GPa when ε-phase oxygen is further compressed. This phase was discovered in 1990 by pressurizing oxygen to 132 GPa. The ζ-phase with metallic cluster has been known to exhibit superconductivity at low temperature. 95.49.86.160 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nonmetal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    superb use of images and diagrams
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will review this article over the next few days. I have gone over the images; all are free and used well. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Prose/MoS quibbles

  • I have been doing some minor copyediting; feel free to undo any and all of my edits.
Adabow 07:22, 19 August 2013 ([1] sign added. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
  • "Chemically, the nonmetals have relatively high ionisation energy and high electronegativity;" - should ionisation energy and electronegativity be pluralised?
    •  Not done Since it's referring to ionisation energy and electronegativity values, I don't think it needs to be pluralized. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The overview part of the "Categories" section could do with some more liberal linking
    •  Not done I looked through it. I tried. I really tried. But I really don't see any terms there that aren't already linked elsewhere (well, except metallic bonding, which I have now linked). Could you point me to some terms there that you would like to see linked? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the boldfacing of 'noble gas' warranted? Done
  • "all known in polymeric forms" is ambiguous: it could mean "all potential oxides are known, and are in polymeric forms" or "all known oxides are in polymeric forms" Done Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In 'Abundance and extraction', several elements are mentioned which are not previously mentioned, and should therefore be linked. Done

These are all minor nitpicks; nothing here fails to meet the first criterion. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

  • Excellently referenced, with a large number of sources. Inline citations where appropriate. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Breadth

  • I think that in the 'Polyatomic nonmetals' section the vast discipline of organic chemistry should be mentioned in a sentence. Perhaps after the sentence describing the tendency for polyatomic nonmetals to catenate? Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Done Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

  • No bias or POV statements. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Stability

  • No recent edit warring or talk page disputes. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Media

  • There are some fantastic images here, and there are used and captioned well. All are free. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall

I would like to see a mention of organic chemistry, as it is fundamental to the chemistry of carbon.

A shrewd and fundamental (to life as we know it) observation. Will do. Done Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is an excellent article. I will place the review on hold for now. Adabow (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that Sandbh has added this, I will pass the article. Great work and well done to everyone involved; keep it up! Adabow (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Timely and incisive review. Much appreciated. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Better division

I think that division of nonmetallic elements to semimetalloids, (typical) nonmetals and noble gases (helium group elements, HGE) is better than currenly used division to polyatomic nonmetals, diatomic nonmetals and noble gases.

Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal) is less metallic than iodine (diatomic nonmetal). Iodine belongs to diagonal carbon group, sulfur to diagonal nitrogen group. Sulfur has lower conductivity of electricity and heat than iodine, sulfur looks nonmetallic, but iodine looks greyish and has metal-like luster. It means that iodine has to be named as more metallic than sulfur.

Semimetalloids (C, P, Se, I) are significantly more metallic than nonmetals on the right of then, but less metallic than typical metalloids on the left side of periodic table. Most stable form of semimetalloids appear as greyish(-black) solid with lustre similar to metals (graphite, black phosphorus, grey selenium, crystalline iodine), unlike main forms of nonmetals. They are also better electrical and thermal conductors (it is significantly less marked it the case of iodine). Lighter semimetalloids have higher melting point than heavier (graphite >> black phosphorus > grey selenium > iodine). Carbon has also some similarities to silicon and boron (very high melting point, formation of hard allotropes (glassy carbon (7 Mohs), diamond (10 Mohs), carbides, borides and silicides are often very hard, names of these three elements end at "-on", carbon has less metallic properties, because it lies more to the right (belong to carbon diagonal group, not to boron diagnonal group, such as silicon)).Phosphorus has the lowest electronegativity in Pauling scale from all of them, it is quite similar to metalloid arsenic, maybe even more to nonmetal nitrogen. White phosphorus deforms view on metallicity of phosphorus. In addition, black ("metallic") phosphorus is the most stable allotrope of this element. Phosphorus (gaseous elements: hydrogen and radon also) have lower electronegativity than some heavy metals, especially gold. Phosphorus also have significally lower electronegativity than carbon, selenium and iodine.

Solid bromine does not exhibit metallic luster and is even rather transparent:

http://www.periodictable.ru/035Br/Br_en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.94.63 (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

95.49.94.63 (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A few things:
Hydrogen is not a typical nonmetal. You'll need to come up with a better name than 'typical' nonmetals.
Don't call them semimetalloids, unless you can find some references in the literature supporting the use of that term. There are no sources in the literature that I know of that categorise these elements as semimetalloids. The closest there is is 'near metalloid' for C, P and Se.
S and I are not that clear. By my reckoning, and for the following fifteen properties: first ionization energy; electron affinity; standard reduction potential; melting point; boiling point; liquid range; most stable oxidation state; ductility or malleability; appearance; Goldhammer-Herzfeld metallicity ratio; band gap; conductivity; and cationic chemistry, S is ahead of I on 9 properties, with one (cationic chemistry?) a tie.
If you'd like to propose a revised division of the nonmetals, here are the criteria (they are known as the 'YBG criteria', after the editor who invented them) you'll need to satisfy:
  1. Clear. The criterion for division should be easily explained
  2. Unambiguous. It should be (relatively) obvious which category each element fits into
  3. Meaningful. The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopedia article.
The current division of the nonmetals into polyatomic, diatomic and monatomic meets these criteria.
Feel free to go ahead and do your research and compile a table of the properties of semimetalloids, 'typical' nonmetals, and noble gases, supported by references, and see if you can meet the criteria set out above.
Good luck. Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Metallicity of carbon

Why is carbon a non-metal if it has metallic allotropes?

What do you mean? Graphite conducts electricity but it's not generally considered "metallic". —Keenan Pepper 22:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Graphite is a bit metalloid, perhaps. All these things are shades of grey. It doesn't really matter! They're just useful terms and concepts, not rigid laws.--feline1 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Graphite conducts electricity, but it does it in a different fashion than metals do. It has unbonded electrons which are not part of a metallic bond. This is why it is a better conductor the hotter it gets, whereas metals tend to be poorer conductors when hot. So it is a conductor but not due to metallic properties.

Graphite is defintely not a nonmetallic substance. It has very high melting and boiling point, its electrical and thermal conductivity is far much more similar to metallic than nonmetallic. In ddition it is metal-like looking and grey in pure form. Graphite itself passes better to metalloids, not to nonmetals. The same is true to black phosphorus and grey selenium. Iodine also looks like a metalloid, not like a nonmetal. Carbon exhibits borderline metalloidl and nonmetallic properties, such as phosphorus and selenium. I think that it is better when C, P and Se (not only Se) are marked as "half-nonmetals" and "half-metalloids".

Terms such as "alkaline earth metal", "polyatomic nonmetal", "diatomic nonmetal", "halogen", "noble gas" do not indicate metallic character. Beryllium is a meta-metal (metallic element with some mrked (chemical) metalloidal properties), but not a metalloid (such as aluminium). Sulfur is polyatomic nonmetal, but its level of metallicity is much more similar to iodine, a "diatomic nonmetal", not to other polyatomic nonmetals (C, P and Se). Radon (monoatomic nonmetal) and hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal) are more metallic than fluorine (diatomic nonmetal). I think that division to six metallicity classes could be better:

  • "strong" metals (such as Na, Fe),
  • meta-metals (such as Be, Al, Ga, Sn, Pb, Bi, Po),
  • metalloids (intermediates between (meta-)metals and nonmetals)(such as B, Si, Te),
  • semimetalloids, half-metalloids (intermediates between nonmetals and metalloids) (such as C and Se),
  • "weaker" nonmetals ("half-semimetalloids") (such as H, S, Rn),
  • most typical nonmetals (such as O, F, Cl, Ne, Ar, Kr).

79.191.185.122 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I like it. You'll need to explain how to distinguish between strong metals and meta-metals, and how to distinguish between the weaker nonmetals and the typical nonmetals. You'll also need to supply supporting references. Sandbh (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a division of eight classes would work:

   
Noble gases
He, Ne, At, Kr, Xe, Rn
    
Strong metals
EN < 1.4		 Strong nonmetals
O, F, Cl
Typical metals
most TMs		 Typical nonmetals
N, S, Br
Poor metals
Ga, Bi etc		 Near metalloids
H, C, P, Se, I
Metalloids
B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te

Notes

1. The noble gases and the metalloids are at the opposite ends of the clock. Noble gases have the valence shell configurations that metals and nonmetals aspire to. Metalloids are stuck in the twilight zone.

2. Among the near metalloids, H has the physical properties of a nonmetal but acts chemically like a metal; C, P, Se and I look like metals but act chemically (mostly) like nonmetals.

3. The typical nonmetals comprise a gas, a solid and a liquid.

4. This division is close to the current categories. Alkali metals, alkaline earths, lanthanides and actinides ≈ strong metals; TMs ≈ typical metals; poor metals = poor metals; metalloids = metalloids; polyatomic nonmetals ≈ near metalloids; diatomic metals ≈ typical nonmetals and strong nonmetals; NG = NG. Sandbh (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Division looks quite good! The least typical of "typical nonmetals" is sulfur of course, but has less metalloidal properties than near-metalloids. Can polymeric (non oligomeric, such as octasulfur) sulfur be stable at STP? At higher temperatures sulfur is more "metalloidal" because it polymerizes and changes color to brown-black. Plastic sulfur has low stability and it crystalizes to common, highly nonmetallic form. Hydrogen not always acts like a metal, it can acts like a metal and like a nonmetal. But hydrogen's chemical behavior is clearly strange for a typical nonmetal.
C, P and Se are "polyatomic near-metalloids" and I and H "diatomic near-metalloids". Compounds such as water or HF, HCl have also really relatively high boiling points when we compare their molar masses to their boiling points in Kelvin scale. Near-metalloids can be marked by stripping.
And Au, Pt and (most probably) Cn are also really poor metals.
95.49.248.226 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. If we actually did something like this I wouldn't bother with the categories of polyatomic nonmetal and diatomic metal. There would only be the categories of near metalloid; typical nonmetal; and strong nonmetal. Au and Pt are not poor metals. They are nowhere near that: see here. Au has many nonmetallic properties but is still regarded as 'king of the metals'---there are zero mentions in the literature, as far as I know, of Au being referred to as a poor metal or the like. Same goes for Pt. Sandbh (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Au and Pt are physically good metals, but chemically they are not good metals. (Typical) poor metals are low-melting, soft and have quite high electronegativity. Their chemistry is metalloidal in some way, even at low oxidation states. Group 12 elements also have domination of poor metal characteristics. Pt and Au present some sort of regression of metallic chemical properties. Be is chemically poor metal, but physically is really good. Situation of Al is similar.

95.49.248.226 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ozone half life

In the allotropes section of this page, Ozones half life is claimed to be 30 minutes. On the Ozone wiki page is states:

"It has a varying half-life length, depending upon atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, and air movement). In a sealed chamber with a fan that moves the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature.[15] Some unverified claims imply that ozone can have a half life as short as a half an hour under atmospheric conditions.[16]"

I suggest we change the half life value on this page to 1 day after reading that. I'm not an expert on this so Ill wait for someones judgement. Washyleopard (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Other nonmetal and Other nonmetals listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirects Other nonmetal and Other nonmetals. Watchers of this page might want to participate in the redirect discussion if they have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Replace categories of poly/diatomic nonmetal with less active/active nonmetal

I am seeking comments on a proposal to change the name and composition of two of the colour categories appearing on our periodic table, as follows:

From Polyatomic nonmetal
C, P, S, Se		 Diatomic nonmetal
H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I
To Less active nonmetal
H, C, N, P, S, Se		 Active nonmetal
O, F, Cl, Br, I

The RfC can be found here. Sandbh (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation scheme update

Active members of WikiProject Elements have reached agreement to change the non-metal categorisation scheme from:

  • [polyatomic nonmetal] + [diatomic nonmetal] + [noble gas]
to
  • [reactive nonmetal] + [noble gas].

Why change?
The categorisation of the nonmetals has been a recurring topic of discussion within WikiProject Elements over many years.

The noble gas category is non-controversial.

This has always left the question of how to categorise what Steudel (1977, p. 269) referred to as the "rest of the non-metals."

While the current categories of polyatomic nonmetal (C, P, S, Se) and diatomic nonmetal (H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I) are objective, being based on the structural motifs of the elements involved, the literature does not approach the chemistry of the nonmetals in this way.

Aside from the noble gases, the literature most commonly deals with nonmetals on a group-by-group basis. Thus, there is [H] + [C] + [N and P] + [O, S, and Se] + the non-metallic halogens [F, Cl, Br, I] noting we categorise At as a metalloid, albeit it has been predicted to be a metal.

This is an impractical basis for an element categorisation scheme since it would give us a total of 14 colour categories, including metals, and the metalloids.

It looks to us that the most widely accepted and long-standing categorisation of the nonmetals, at least conceptually, is a division into noble gases (an IUPAC-approved term) and, by default, "the rest of the nonmetals". There is no widely agreed terminology for the latter but there is widespread agreement that they share a common attribute of being "reactive" nonmetals, in comparison to the noble gases. For example, the terms "less reactive", "reactive", "typically reactive", "more reactive", "highly reactive", and "most reactive nonmetals" are all found in the literature in connection with non-noble nonmetals.

We therefore think a division into noble gases, and reactive nonmetals (a complementary and arguably non-controversial term) is a more natural way of categorising the nonmetals. The foundations of nonmetal chemistry rest upon the reactive nonmetals; that some of the noble gases could form compounds was not discovered until 1962, and since then less than 1,000 such compounds have been synthesised.

While the properties of the reactive nonmetals are diverse, the overall contrast with the noble gases is marked. And the reactive nonmetals are regularly distinguished from the elements commonly recognised as metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) despite the predominantly non-metallic chemistry of the metalloids.

The updated nonmetal article sets out the physical and chemical properties of the reactive nonmetals, and the noble gases, and by way of comparison, the metalloids. We think the transition in non-metallic properties, and the distinctiveness of each category, is well borne out.

For reference, the updated article includes a table of alterative nonmetal categorisation schemes found in the literature, none of which have attained widespread use. Wikipedia has used two of these schemes in the past namely (1) other nonmetals, halogens, noble gases; and (2) polyatomic nonmetals, diatomic nonmetals, noble gases, however neither of these have been completely satisfactory or representative of the way the non-noble nonmetals are conceived of in the literature.

Summary
We have concluded that:

  • categorising the nonmetals as either reactive nonmetals or noble gases is more faithful to literature-based conceptions of nonmetals; and
  • within this framework, the updated article makes better sense of the variety and subtlety of the non-metallic elements (Zuckerman and Nachod 1977, preface) against the backdrop of a left to right progression in non-metallic character.

-- Sandbh (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Steudel R 1977, Chemistry of the non-metals: With an introduction to atomic structure and chemical bonding, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Zuckerman JJ and Nachod FC 1977, in Steudel.

Nonmetal categorisation and alternative schemes

Hi @YBG: Re this edit, the author of the cited work uses the electronegative/very electronegative terminology only for what we call the reactive non-metals. Elsewhere he uses the standard "noble gas" nomenclature. Hence "Non-electronegative nonmetal (noble gas)" wouldn't be kosher. That aside, the expression "non-electronegative" would be awkward since at least Kr and Xe have electronegativity values, and it is these values that the distinction is partly based on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 2018-07-15 03:08 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting. When I changed it I was uncertain about its kosherness, but went ahead boldly knowing that more qualified eyes would clean up if it wasn't correct. YBG (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I was looking at this again today, mostly to restore the previous order of listing elements - sorted first by group, then by period. As I did so, I was again bothered by the lack of parallelism in the category labels in scheme (3). Would the label "Less electronegative nonmetal (noble gas)" be accurate? I guess that even so, it may not be kosher as the source did not use the term. Sigh. YBG (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @YBG: You're right about the source. It would nae be kosher. That aside, you would have to use the term "Highly electronegative nonmetal (noble gas)" to be accurate. You could add a note to the category label, and say noble gases have the highest EN values for their period. Sandbh (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
My mind yet seeks after foolish parallelism! YBG (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR

@Sandbh: In this edit, an IP changed from "odourless" to "odorless". I looked and don't see an ENGVAR template, so maybe you can have a look and see if the national variety has been established and if so, place the appropriate template and either sustain or revert this edit. Ta! YBG (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alkali metal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Draft:Other nonmetals" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Other nonmetals. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"The Nonmetels" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Nonmetels. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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[[2]]:
"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)

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)

Pre FAC2 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)

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)

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

Editing record

Note: User:Sandbh added this section in 7 separate edits:

The notes in this subsection made by User:YBG on 27 February 2024.
The following {{unsigned}} comment refers to the other subsections: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 September 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:


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)

Trimmed. Agree about PR v FAC. Sandbh (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer review

FAC5 (27 August 2022)

This article is WP:FAC per 27 August 27, 2022. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nonmetal/archive5. DePiep (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit

Following the FAC which closed without consensus to promote, Sandbh has asked me to take a look at the prose. I am delighted to accept; this is an important article on a subject I am fascinated by and which is dear to me. Could I ask regular editors to watch what I am doing; even though I have read the FAC and this talk page, I might inadvertently change the meaning in a way which leaves it untrue to the sources, which in most cases I will not have read. (I doubt it, but you never know.) I might start in the next day or two. Just keep me right, ok? John (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@John: I'll be happy to keep an eye out for factual accuracy in the background, but I can't promise a solid time commitment at the moment. Complex/Rational 19:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to User:John for your gracious acceptance, and to User:ComplexRational for your offer to maintain a watch on factual accuracy. Sandbh (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • @John: While I am happy to learn (the language) from your edits, I want to note that other longer term issues regarding this article are of encyclopedic nature, and probably cannot be resolved by improving language. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yes, I am getting a feeling for that as I start to trim at it. Is there anything particular that you have in mind? John (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    No nothing particular. I note that after this June 2021 version, the article has undergone a full rewrite, as in: from scratch. Also, there are multiple FAC and similar targeted discussions since. Well, one piece de resistance I know of: while color and state of matter are not defining nor distinguisihing for nonmetals, and not analysed as related to nonmetal-ness in the body, these properties keep appearing in the first sentence. This does not seem like an incident, but a pattern (the property–classification setup). Alas, maybe we'll meet again over this. DePiep (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Interesting. Here is a first sample batch of copyedits. Somewhat of a feeling of déjà vu as I remember copyediting metalloid back in the day, I think, and it had similar problems to this. Is this an article about the concept of nonmetallicity? Or a survey of the various nonmetals and their chemical and physical properties? To what extent should we try to carry along the general reader into tricky ideas like electronegativity? I need to have a long, hard think about this one. Luckily there is no deadline. John (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks John.

It may help to change the article name to Nonmetal (chemical element). This would set out the scope of the article better e.g. plastics, woods and stones, all of which are "nonmetals" in a broad sense, are excluded. This problem doesn't arise with "metalloid" because of the strong association of that word with silicon and germanium etc.

For EN, Jensen (1996, p. 11) asserted that "no concept more thoroughly pervades the fabric of modern chemistry". I'd add, "aside from the periodic table and probably the concepts of acids and bases, and metals and nonmetals". The simple EN rubric is that metals have low EN and nonmetals have high EN. While there is some overlap between the two zones, as tends to be the case for all single criteria, it works well enough for most purposes. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Some comments about the sample batch of copy edits to follow. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sample batch of copy edits

Line 35

Before:
In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties...

After:
A nonmetal is a chemical element that lacks a predominance of metallic properties...

I think that exclusion of In chemistry, a works only if the name of the article becomes "Nonmetal (chemical element)". I included the generally qualifier to indicate that this was a qualitative judgement. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Before:
Nearly all nonmetals have individual uses in medicine and pharmaceuticals; lighting and lasers; and household items.

After:
Nearly all nonmetals have uses in medicine and pharmaceuticals; lighting and lasers; and household items.

I included "individual" as not all nonmetals have uses in all three areas. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Before:
Some elements have a marked mixture of metallic and nonmetallic properties;

After:
Some elements have a mixture of metallic and nonmetallic properties;

Virtually all elements, to varying degrees, have a mixture of metallic and nonmetallic properties. Only a few have such a mixture to a marked extent. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Line 48

Before:
A nonmetal is a chemical element that has, among other properties, a relatively low density and moderate to high electronegativity. More generally, they lack a preponderance of more metallic attributes such as luster, deformability, good thermal and electrical conductivity, and low electronegativity.

After:
A nonmetal is a chemical element that has low density and moderate to high electronegativity. They also lack metallic attributes such as luster, deformability, good thermal and electrical conductivity, and low electronegativity.

Tricky. The "after" version does not quite work, since quite a few nonmetals have luster (e.g. C, black P, Se and I) and C, As, Sb are pretty good electrical and thermal conductors. Sandbh (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Before:
Fourteen effectively always recognized as such are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the corrosive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon (see e.g. Larrañaga et al).

After:
Fourteen almost always recognized are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the reactive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon (see e.g. Larrañaga et al)

Suggest replacing "reactive" with "highly reactive" (in order to distinguish them from H, O, N and S. Sandbh (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Before:
Vernon had earlier reported that these three elements were instead sometimes counted as metalloids.

After:
Vernon had earlier reported that these three elements were counted as metalloids.

Suggest this ce be reverted since the before version is accurate whereas the after version is not. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Line 86

Before:
Outwardly, about half of nonmetallic elements are colored or colorless gases; most of the rest are shiny solids. Bromine, the only liquid, is so volatile that it is usually topped by a layer of its fumes; sulfur is the only colored solid nonmetal.

After:
About half of nonmetallic elements are gases; most of the rest are shiny solids. Bromine, the only liquid, is so volatile that it is usually topped by a layer of its fumes; sulfur is the only colored solid nonmetal.

Suggest this ce be reverted given the reference to S being colored. Sandbh (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Surely this needs some sort of disclaimer about allotropy, given phosphorus. Double sharp (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think a hatnote would address this: "Physical properties apply to elements in their most stable forms in ambient conditions." Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The remaining copy edits are right on target. Sandbh (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits

I propose to change this...

Definition and applicable elements
A nonmetal is a chemical element that has low density and moderate to high electronegativity. They also lack metallic attributes such as luster, deformability, good thermal and electrical conductivity, and low electronegativity.[11] Since there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal,[10][12][13] some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such. The decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character.[14]

...to this:

Definition and applicable elements
A nonmetal is a chemical element deemed to lack a preponderance of metallic properties such as luster, deformability, good thermal and electrical conductivity, and the capacity to form a basic (rather than acidic) oxide.[11] Since there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal,[10][12][13] some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such. The decisions involved depend on which properties are regarded as most indicative of metallic or nonmetallic character.[14]

The "after" version is less prescriptive and more in keeping with the literature, which tends to focus on what nonmetals aren't rather that what they are. It also removes the reference to electronegativity. I cannot see any easy alternative place in the article for the accompanying density v EN image, so it seems like it'll have to go, at least for now.

@John: I suspect this proposal may go a long way to resolving your concerns. How does it look to you? Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

As the lede (including 1st sentence) is based upon/derived from the article body, the bodytext as discussed in § Copyedit (16:52) § Color and state of matter should be resolved first. Otherwise, this is breaking good (encyclopedic) logic; it is not a textual issue. To be clear: as long as lede and abody do not match in this sense, I oppose this incidental edit. Also, it is useless to push this change in as a matter of John's language quest. btw, I think ";" should be ",". DePiep (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lede says:
"A nonmetal is a chemical element that lacks a predominance of metallic properties; they range from colorless gases (like hydrogen) to shiny and high-melting point solids (like boron)."
The latter part, which I wrote with the general reader in mind, is derived from later in the article where it says:
General properties
Physical
About half of nonmetallic elements are gases; most of the rest are shiny solids. Bromine, the only liquid, is so volatile that it is usually topped by a layer of its fumes; sulfur is the only colored solid nonmetal...Nonmetals that form giant structures...(e.g. silicon), have higher melting and boiling points, as it takes more energy to overcome their stronger covalent bonds, so they are all solids.
The accompanying image shows the variety in form and colour of the nonmetals.
John noted that his copyediting needs to remain true to the sources. My proposed incidental edit is designed to facilitate this.
Thanks for the suggestion; I've replaced the ; with commas. Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nonmetal/Archive_1&oldid=1215661593"