Talk:Origin and use of the term metalloid/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) 04:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seeing as it's taking a while for this article to recieve a review, I'll be reviewing it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you StringTheory11

Some preliminary comments:

A somewhat longer lead would be nice; include important moments in the history.

The quotation in pre-1800 needs to be properly cited.

Done

I would change the section name 1800-1950s to 1800-1959.

Has been done. Thank you.

Is there a reference for the last part of the 6th paragraph of 1800-1950s? Same with the tenth paragraph.

For the 6th para., are you referring to this one(?):

By as early as 1866 some authors were instead using the term nonmetal, rather than metalloid, to refer to nonmetallic elements.[26] In 1876, Tilden protested against, 'the [still] too common though illogical practice of giving the name metalloid to such bodies as oxygen, chlorine or fluorine'. He instead divided the elements into ('basigenic') true metals, metalloids ('imperfect metals') and ('oxigenic') nonmetals.[27]

If so, reference 27 is the reference, so to speak

For the tenth para., is that this one(?):

During the 1920s the two meanings of the word metalloid appeared to be undergoing a transition in popularity. Writing in A Dictionary of Chemical Terms, Couch[31] defined 'metalloid' as an old, obsolescent term for 'nonmetal.' [n 3] In contrast, Webster's New International Dictionary noted that use of the term metalloid to refer to nonmetals was the norm. Its application to elements resembling the typical metals in some way only, such as arsenic, antimony and tellurium, was recorded merely on a 'sometimes' basis.[32]

If so, reference 32 is it

I would change the section name 1960- to 1960-present.

Has been done. Thank you.

Get a reference for the last part of the second paragraph in 1960-.

Done Sandbh (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of 1960- needs a ref.

If you are referring to this paragraph...

The most recent IUPAC publications on chemical nomenclature (2005) and terminology (2006–) do not include any recommendations as to the usage or non-usage of the terms metalloid or semimetal.[n 4][43][44]

...then that is fully referenced via note 4 and refs 43 and 44

Notes 3 and 4 need to be properly referenced.

Done Sandbh (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with this reference: Hérold A 2006, 'An arrangement of the chemical elements in several classes inside the periodic table according to their common properties', Comptes Rendus Chimie, vol. 9, pp. 148–153, doi:10.1016/j.crci.2005.10.002

Fixed

More to come later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One or two images of key people in this topic would be nice.

Done Berzelius is probably the most key person, in the sense of this article, by a sizeable margin Sandbh (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has some company now, too (Paracelsus) Sandbh (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not necessary to link "fusible" to wiktionary; it would probably better be linked to the appropriate article on wikipedia, in this case melting.

Done Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the parenthesized expressions in the pre-1800 section citations or not? If so, they should be turned into footnotes. If not, try to insert them into the main text in a more logical way.

Done They aren't citations so I've attempted to tidy them up and order them more logically. Sandbh (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any concept of nonmetals at 360 BCE? If so, what were they defined as?

Hmm. I'll have another look at that one. I almost read your comment as 'metals' rather than 'nonmetals', until I looked again at what I'd written.

Thinking about this some more, I doubt it. The ancients only knew of two things that we recognise as non-metals: sulfur, and carbon (as charcoal). There weren't enough of these---recognisable by their common attributes---to inspire a specialised categorization, unlike the classical metals. I had a quick look at Timaeus and Meteorology and couldn't see anything along these conceptual lines. I suspect that the identification of non-metals as a category had to wait for the establishment of acid-base theory. Probably Lavoisier was the first to identify a category of elements called nonmetals, in his Elementary Treatise on Chemistry, 1789. He called them simples non métalliques oxidables & acidifiables. I'll see if there's another note in this for the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the stuff from the 1950s into the last section, renaming them appropriately. It's simply a nicer number to cut off at. Not required, but would be nice.

I put the cut off point at the end of the 1950s, to fit in with (a) Goldsmith's observation that, 'Consensus as to its application to intermediate or borderline elements did not occur until the ensuing years, between 1940 and 1960' and (b) IUPAC's 1959 recommendation to stop using 'metalloid' to refer to nonmetals, as per the Berzelius practice. The following decade---the 1960s---also saw the appearance of the first of the metalloid monographs, starting with Rochow (1966).

Why is the phrase 'by the best authorities' in quotes?

Done It's a direct quote from the 1864 reference. I've added another superscripted citation. Sandbh (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Possibly) more to come later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am very surprised about the amount of material that can be written on this subject. This definitely gives all the necessary info, and the prose is fine for GA. Pass. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]