Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2022

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2022 [1].

Edict of Torda

[edit]
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early example of religious tolerance in Europe: the edict was the first law to sanction a radical Christian denomination. It was issued in the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom", a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, that emerged after the fall of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. In this realm, religious tolerance developed as a consequence of the long tradition of the coexistence of autonomous communities. The Transylvanian Saxons converted to Lutheranism, most Hungarian nobles preferred Calvinism, the Hungarian and Saxon burghers of the wealthy free royal city of Kolozsvár and some Székely communities were open to Antitrinitarian ideas, but other Székely groups and some powerful noble families (including the Báthory family) insisted on their Catholic faith. The young ruler John Sigismund Zápolya showed curiosity about theological issues and several religious debates were held under his auspices. He was born Catholic, but he converted first to Lutharanism, then to Calvinism, and died as an Antitrinitarian. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The map is challenging to read due to the font/size of the legend, and see MOS:COLOUR

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Thank your for your thorough source review. Linked. Borsoka (talk)
  • I would drop the "www." for the above as well
  • You have some ISBN 10s (the ones that don't start with a 9), I recommend coverting to isbn 13s, unless you are keeping some of them because the publication itself only includes ISBN 10s
  • Should be "Viking Press" (linking not necessary) I believe, should maybe be Brill Publishers (per our article, but I have often see it as just Brill, so up to you
  • Modified and most publishing houses linked. Borsoka (talk)
  • An identifier for Parke would be nice; if no ISBN is available, try an OCLC for worldcat, here for example
  • WorldCat gives the Parke book's first name as "The Epic of Unitarianism: Original Writings From the History of Liberal Religion"
  • The link that the Sugar ref has is rather pointless, considering that the OCLC links to the same page already
Reliability
  • Are we sure a book on Unitarian Universalism has authority to speak on a 500 year old Edict? The source seems particularly random
  • Sources look great otherwise
Verifiability

Funk

[edit]
  • "punish all Lutherans" Better to keep links outside quotes? For example, the earlier "execution of Luther's followers" would maybe be more appropriate?
  • Done.
  • " began teaching the theology of Jan Hus in the 1430s" Maybe briefly present this for context? "proto-Protestant theology"?
  • Alternative solution ([4]).
  • "leading to a civil war that lasted nearly two decades." Link the war, if it has an article?
  • No article exists.
Is it the same civil war that is mentioned throughout the article, or are there more? Was a bit difficult to understand. Could be nice with an article, hint hint... FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He occupied the central region, but he confirmed John Sigismund's rule" Second "he" seems unnecessary.
  • Deleted.
  • Link John Sigismund's name in the first instead of second caption that mentions him?
  • He is linked when he is first mentioned in the main text (for further details see below)
I know, I mean the image captions are independent of the text in this way, so the first image that mentions him should have the first link? FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it! Modified.
  • You should be consistent in whether you refer to him as John Sigismund, John Zápolya, or John Sigismund Zápolya, now it's a random mix.
  • John Zápolya was John Sigismund Zápolya's father. I think the latter is consistently mentioned as John Sigismund with the exception of his first mention in the lead.
Alright. it confused me that you referred to the son both as John Sigismund and John Sigismund Zápolya in at least an image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understand. Modified.
  • " in the eastern Hungarian Kingdom" Is this the same as "especially its eastern territory" mentioned earlier? In that case, the first mention should be the linked one.
  • No, the two territories are not the same. I applied an alternative solution to introduce the "eastern Hungarian Kingdom" ([5]).
  • "between Lutheran and Calvinist clergymen" You haven't mentioned or linked Calvinism until this point, so should be linked here.
  • "He emphasizes that no peasant can receive salvation" Why specifically peasants? What sets them apart theologically?
  • Expanded.
  • Link adoration of Christ?
  • "It was the first law to officially sanction the existence of a radical Christian community in a European state" Which of them? Antitrinitarianism? I think it could help to state this explicitly.
  • Done.
  • "John Sigismund was biased towards the Antitrinitarian preachers, but on 25 October 1569 he states" Why mix of past and present tense?
  • Typo fixed.
  • "of wearing the Star of David or other distinctive sign" Signs?
  • Done.
  • Link Jews? Perhaps to History of the Jews in Romania?
  • The young John Sigismund doesn't seem to be linked in the intro.
  • He is linked in the first sentence with his full name.
  • Calvinism is linked twice in the intro.
  • Fixed.
  • Unitarian is not linked in the article body.
  • Fixed.
  • Perhaps state that the Székelys are a type of Hungarians?

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • " in the "eastern Hungarian Kingdom" of John Sigismund Zápolya". Why the quote marks? Why the lower case e?
  • Thank you for starting a review. I modified, but my concern is that it was not an official name, because John Sigismund regarded himself the lawful king of Hungary just as his opponent, Ferdinand of Habsburg, who ruled "Royal Hungary" (the northern and western regions of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary).
  • "The Catholic and Orthodox Churches had already coexisted in the". Delete "already".
  • Deleted.
  • "persecution of the Lutherans in 1523". Do we need "the"?
  • Deleted.
  • "In the early 1540s the Diets acknowledged the right". Diets plaural? You have only previously mentioned one diet.
  • "Dogma" is derogatory and probably PoV. Suggest change to 'doctrine'.
  • Modified.
  • "the following Diet". Do you mean 'the following session of the Diet"?
  • Link Early modern Europe.
  • Linked.
  • Skimming I note three block quotes, one lengthy. MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  • Recommend deleting the first block quote. I don't see what it adds for a reader.
  • Deleted.
  • "creating an "eastern Hungarian Kingdom"" Why the quote marks? Should it be 'creating the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" '?
  • Modified. See my remarks after your first comment above.
  • Linked.
  • "re-affirmed the agreement that the Hungarian noblemen, Transylvanian Saxons, and Székelys had signed during the Transylvanian peasant revolt in 1437, making this "Union of the Three Nations" a fundamental law". The chronological jumping around jars. Why is this not covered in Background?
  • "Between 1541 and 1545, the Diets (or legislative assemblies)". The link refers to a singular Diet. Elsewhere in this section you refer to a singular Diet. Can we sort out whether there were one or several Diet/s?
  • "The following Diet confirmed". 'The following session of the Diet confirmed'?
  • The second block quote seems to directly contradict the clause immediately before it: "it also outlawed the Sacramentarians in 1558".
  • Linked.
  • I don't see what the paragraph on Erasmus and Servetus adds to the article. Why is it there?
  • Their views influenced Dávid and contributed to the development of Antitrinitarian theories.
  • There seems to be very little information on the actual Edict, or the session of the Diet which passed it or on the debate(s) about it. And most of what there is is a quote from it. (Or is that the entire Edict? If so, could we be told.) This makes me wonder if enough reliable secondary material exists to merit an article higher than stub status.
Well, if a reader went through this without the title and lead, I am not sure that they would realise that. I was expecting to see several things, including how the secondary sources analyse the language of the Edict, possibly sentence by sentence or clause by clause. It may be that I found the large block quote, which seems to be without context, confusing. Is that the whole Edict or an extract from it? I would have hoped for a section, or at least a paragraph, on the make up, background and deliberations of the diet which passed the Edict, rather than a single sentence. Is that really the sum total of what is known of it? And is there any commentary on Sigismund's motivations? He comes across as a compliant cipher pushed around by strong advisors. Did this apply in other policy areas?
Yes, the edict is short and we do not have much information about the debates at the Diet. The article describes the road to the Edict: how religious tolerance was first introduced in the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and how it became the standard. The article explains how texts in the Bible influenced the edict's text. Yes, John Sigismund was driven by new and new waves of the Reformation by strong personalities, but not because he was a puppet, but because he was interested in religious debates - the article describes this process in details. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Báthory urged"; "his demand". Did he urge or did he demand? They are different things.
  • "The co-existence of the four "received" (or officially recognized) denominations". Why the quote marks?

That's it for a first read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, I have expanded a little where you asked, and note that there are several of my comments which you don't seem to have responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding, but I did not understand your remarks. Please see my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning oppose. I don't feel that the information specifically about the article title is comprehensive. Also, the way information is presented I struggled with prose is engaging, eg I was unaware that the full edict is quoted in the article until told it was in this review. However, this may just be me, so I am not going to formally oppose. If other reviewers believe the article to be comprehensive and engaging then I shall not stand in the way of such a consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're past 3 weeks with only one general support. This may be archived if we don't see progress to promotion in the next several days. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. Yes, I have to accept that religious tolerance is not a favorite topic in our community. We prefer soldiers, wars, battles. We represent humankind. :) Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Gog and other potentially interested folks? FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. After nominating the article, I noticed the relevant wikiprojects about the nomination. @Tom (LT): as the reviewer of the article could you also participate in the FAC process? @Gog the Mild: do you have time to continue the review? Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2022 [6].

One Day at HorrorLand

[edit]
Nominator(s): SL93 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the few individually notable Goosebumps books and it was brought to GA status by me in 2013. I have expanded it more and fixed various errors. The article is currently 6,243 characters and 1,038 words, but I feel that it is long enough in comparison to the vast amount of books in the series that are non-notable based on my research (and reading the series since second grade years ago). This book is one of only five original Goosebumps books to have significant coverage out of 62 of them. In relation to all Goosebumps books which total around 150 or so, there is only one extra book that has significant coverage. I'm actually impressed that I managed to find so much coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Kavyansh – Pass

[edit]
Kavyansh.Singh The file uploader added that automatically during the image upload process without my input back in 2013. I have fixed the image issues. As for the image source, I'm not sure if the URL now being a dead link is acceptable. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just boldly added the archived link. I'd say that the image review has been passed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't realize it could be used for image space. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]

Will take a look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will be happy to take another look whenever it comes back to FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. If I do not post comments by this time next week, please ping me as a reminder. I do have one question. The lead describes this as a novella and I was always under the impression that Goosebumps were novels. Yes, these books are short, but that is because they are children's books, and I do not associate children's books with novellas. I find those to be separate categories. What is the rationale behind calling One Day at Horrorland a novella and are there any citations to support this categorization? Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Whatever my 2013 rationale was, I forgot it. I can change it to novel. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I would advise you to change it as I would not consider this to be a novella. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. SL93 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publication date (i.e. February 1994) is only mentioned in the infobox and it is not supported by a citation.
  • I think the prose in the lead would benefit from further revision. For instance, the actual plot of this book is not mentioned.
  • I am uncertain about the "Publications" section since it is one, short paragraph. If further information about the publication process is unknown, I would consider folding this section into the "Adapations" section to avoid having such a short section.
  • I would re-examine this sentence: Despite Jennifer Feigelman, of Kliatt, writing that the adaptation has "frenetic lines and mismatched panel sizing", she said that the graphic novel, in which the adaptation is contained, is "destined to be a hit with the "tween" crowd". I find it to be awkwardly worded and I would suggest that you revise it.
  • The sentence on the Teen Vogue review only mentions its placement on the list when the author actually goes into more detail. They call it the best R. L. Stine book and praise the immersion and writing so I would include this information in the article.
  • While the Ashley Rickards part is a fun story, I am not completely convinced that it is notable enough to be included in this article. If there was a greater discussion on how this book influenced more people, then I would be more convinced, but right now, it does not really fit this article in my opinion.
  • I would encourage you to look through the following citation ("Are you afraid of the dark? Children's horror anthology series in the 1990s") as it has a good deal of discussion on the television adaptation.
  • While this is not required for the FAC, I would encourage you to archive the web citations to avoid link rot and death as that can be a pain to handle in the future. The books and newspapers.com citations do not need to be archived.

I have only done a very brief overview of the article. I will do a deeper dive sometime next week. Here are some comments for the time being. I hope that they are helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a few of the issues and will work on the others soon. I'm glad that I found The Art of Goosebumps on Google Books so that I can add information on the cover art as well - although I'm thinking of buying a physical copy as an almost life-long fan of Goosebumps. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for looking through my review. I understand what you mean. I have bought similar books for things that I love too. I would encourage you to be consistent with how you format the citations for books. The citation for Tje Art of Goosebumps and the one for Viewer Beware! The Goosebumps TV Companion are very different, and they should be consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually recommend that you withdraw this FAC. I am suggesting this because of two factors: 1) the ongoing discussion on the article's notability on the talk page and 2) I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA yet and I think the article would benefit from further copy-editing outside of the FAC space. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 Well, when would I be able to bring it back once the issues are solved? I don't know what the prose issues are if no one tells me. SL93 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you decide to withdraw the nomination, there is the two-week waiting period before you are allowed to nominate any FAC. You could request a copy-edit from the Wikiproject Guild of Copy Editors. If you pursue this route, I would note in your request that this copy-edit is for a FAC and the copy-editor will look through the article with that in mind.
  • The lead is not well-written or organized and lacks key information (i.e. the plot summary). The article itself could use a copy-edit, and while the peer review did not attract any reviewers, I think it would best to try another peer review before opening another FAC. However, the choice to withdraw this FAC or not is ultimately up to you.
  • I would also encourage you to be more mindful of how you interact with other editors and to not take it personally. I know that is difficult and I have certainly been very defensive and responded poorly in the past, but I would try to take time to think things through. Again, I understand how that can be difficult, but I believe it is a very important skill to have on Wikipedia since this is process is based on collaboration and listening and responding to different people. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 27 January 2022 [7].

2014 FA Cup Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 edition of the oldest football cup competition in the world. Should have been a stroll really for the Gooners but the Tigers gave it a good go, and were 2–0 up inside just eight minutes. The London club fought back to level the score before snatching an extra time winner. It was decent. As ever, will happily (real life permitting) spend as much time as I can addressing constructive comments, and appreciate any time and energy expended by everyone throughout this process. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "It is the world's oldest football cup competition" - pedantically, it's the oldest competition of any kind, not just the oldest cup competition
  • "The fixture at the Emirates Stadium in London" - could maybe clarify that this is Arsenal's home ground. I know it says "in London", but not everyone will know that Arsenal play in London.
  • "Arsenal won both of the league matches between the sides" - seems strange to refer to "the two sides" when Hull haven't been mentioned in the body of the article yet. This could be rectified by moving the bit about these two league meetings to the end of the paragraph.
  • "when he struck Serge Gnabry's pass first time past Hugo Lloris, the Tottenham goalkeeper" - wikilink keeper?
  • "With fewer than 10 minutes remaining, Theo Walcott was taken off the pitch" - need to say which team he was playing for
  • "Curtis Davies gave Hull the lead after 14 minutes with a header past Jake Forster-Caskey" - normally this wording would be used when the second player mentioned is a keeper, but Forster-Caskey is not, so how was it a header past him? Did he just happen to be between the ball and the goal?
  • "In the semi-final, Hull's first since 1930, they faced Sheffield United at the KC Stadium." - the game was not played at the KC Stadium
  • "Hull strike partnership Shane Long and Nikica Jelavić were cup-tied" => "Hull strike partners Shane Long and Nikica Jelavić were cup-tied" (avoids a hint of singular/plural disagreement)
    • Changed to "strikers". They weren't always the partnership Steve Bruce went with that season (although they were the most), so we shouldn't imply they were joined at the hip. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aluko, Paul McShane, James Chester and Robbie Brady faced fitness tests for Hull" - did they pass the tests?
  • "Neither side made any substitutions during the interval" - wikilink substitution?
  • "In the 56th minute, the spectators applauded in memory of the 56 victims of the Bradford City stadium fire." - clarify when this happened, as a casual reader may think it was a recent occurrence rather than having happened decades earlier
  • "Podolski was substituted for Sanogo" - ah, here's the wikilink. Move it to the first mention rather than the second
  • "they altered their formation to play with two strikers" - wikilink striker?
  • "Aaron Ramsey (pictured in 2015) scored the winning goals minutes after coming on as a substitute." - pretty sure he only scored one :-)
  • There are two paragraphs in the post-match section which are only one sentence long each. Can these be appended to other paragraphs? The one about the bus parade could certainly easily fit onto the end of the paragraph about the trophy
  • "As Arsenal qualified for the following season's Champions League" - wikilink Champions League in the same way as you do right after with the UEL
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good, although a stray word from the old version of the Ramsey caption appears to have remained, meaning that it doesn't make grammatical sense. Also (this probably should have occurred to me to mention before) in addition to clarifying when the Bradford fire happened, can you add something to clarify exactly why the fans applauded in memory of it at this game? Bradford weren't involved in this game, it didn't take place on the actual anniversary, and it hadn't happened a "major" (for want of a better word) number of years earlier (25/50/etc). Without a few words of additional explanation it comes across as really random that the fans chose to honour an event which had no direct connection to either club and which had occurred 29 years and 6 days earlier. Does that make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Amakuru

[edit]
Arsenal
  • "Midway through the second half, Tottenham's Danny Rose hesitated with the ball, allowing Tomáš Rosický to gain possession and lift the ball over Lloris to double Arsenal's lead" - repetition of "the ball"
  • "With fewer than 10 minutes remaining" - I feel like "less than 10 minutes" would be better here. Time is an uncountable quantity, and it's not like there was some exact integer number of minutes left at the time in question.
  • "... injured on a stretcher: he was later ruled out ..." - perhaps a semicolon rather than a colon? The second half of the sentence is more of a separate clause than something which is immediately introduced by the first part.
  • "There, they were drawn at home again, this time against Coventry City of League One" - minor point, but the "this time" probably isn't necessary here.
  • "Liverpool failed to score" - they had already scored, so probably "failed to score again" or "failed to score an equaliser" or something.
  • "seventh minute, but Everton equalised through Romelu Lukaku from close range in the 32nd" - as comparable quantities, shouldn't "seventh" and "32nd" be either both words or both digits?
  • "Midway through the second half..." - this sentence seems a bit long overall. Maybe split after "conceded a penalty".
  • "his first successful strike" - sounds slightly odd to say "successful" given that it was ruled out!
  • "defending FA Cup holders Wigan Athletic" - MOS:SEAOFBLUE
Hull City
  • "in the third round where" - the same sentence in the Arsenal section had a comma after "round". Probably needs to be consistent, unless this is because the sentence is very slightly shorter in this case!
  • "the winner of the tie" - probably need a link for "tie", particularly as this term is a regular source of confusion for the uninitiated
  • Also, it may be worth clarifying why this match went to a replay while Arsenal's semi-final match mentioned in the previous section did not.
  • "also at Wembley" - personally I would drop the "also", given that it doesn't refer to the match just mentioned, but the Arsenal semi-final which was discussed several paragraphs ago
Pre-match
Summary
  • "3 yards (2.7 m)" - over-precise on the conversion here
  • "Arsenal dominated the early stages of extra time" - according to whom?
  • (picture caption) "Aaron Ramsey scored the winning goal minutes in the second half of extra time" - doesn't quite scan correctly
Post-match
  • "manager Arsène Wenger" - SEAOFBLUE
  • "how to comeback [sic]" - I don't think we need to say "sic", given that it was a spoken interview, and the missing space is simply in the Guardian's reporting not in what Wenger initially said. There are other sources which have it as "come back", in any case so just quote it as that.[8][9]
  • Maybe a line on how the teams fared in the FA Cup the following season?
Broadcasting
  • "52.1% viewing share" - clarify whether this means that ITV's coverage had 52% compared with BT Sport's coverage (which would thus have 48%), or - as I suspect - whether you mean 52% of all TV viewers at that time on any channel.

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 21 January 2022 [10].

2021 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2021 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Mark Selby won his fourth title, in a really good event. For reference, six of the previous seven articles in the series are also at FA; so hopefully there isn't too much work to do. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for an interesting article. As is often the case with these snooker articles, there is a problem with fused participles. They make the prose sound like a BBC commentary or news report (where you hear them everyday). Fortunately on this occasion there are only a few. Here's one example: "with the highest-ranked players being seeded". In spoken English, we can't hear the difference between "with the highest-ranked players' being seeded" (correct) and "with the highest-ranked players being seeded" (incorrect). In prose, it works best to avoid the ambiguity altogether and write "and the highest-ranked players were seeded". The brilliant, late Brian Boulton, never used the construction once in any of his scores of FAs. Graham Beards (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change, although I still don't really understand the issues. I must have read that page you've linked 20 times now, and I still can't put my finger on what they actually look like. I've done some additional reading, but from UK sources, they seem to suggest it isn't that big a deal: The Times, The Guardian for example, although I'm sure there are style guides out there that would ask for this to be done. I'm more than happy to make the changes, I am struggling a bit to recognise where the issues are, even in the example you've given. Is "players' being seeded" right? My grammar isn't fantastic, so I'm likely wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would take issue with the author of the Time's article who writes, "The possessive form is merely more formal, rather than “correct”. And as for writing what sounds "correct to your ear", would lead to "interesting" prose in the Black Country. The problem is that the construction is ugly and not knowing the difference between the accusative case "them" and the possessive case "their" is not an excuse. I would be happy to make the few edits needed to eliminate the issue from the article. Graham Beards (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of making a few edits. [11] I notice the author of The Guardian article doesn't actually address the topic – and my cutting remarks were not directed to the nominator, to whom I wish all the best with this nomination and a happy New Year. Graham Beards (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making these edits. I'm not against it, I'll do my best to get my head around this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

[edit]
Saving my place, I'll be providing comments in the near future. Bear with me as I am not very familiar with snooker. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred and broadcast by the BBC, Eurosport and Matchroom Sport. The event featured a total prize fund of £2,395,000 of which the winner received £500,000." Suggest replacing one of these back to back uses of "the event" to start the sentences with "It" or another alternative, a bit redundant as written in my view.
  • "There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, with a mix of professional and invited amateur players, 16 of whom reached the main stage of the tournament where they played the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings." I'm not sure if "16 of whom" refers to the amateur players, or all 128 participants. Suggest tweaking the wording to prevent this from being confusing to the reader.
  • "This year, O'Sullivan lost in the second round to..." Wouldn't the statement "This year" fall afoul of MOS:TODAY?

Background

  • "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927, with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis." Is this much information on the history of the competition really necessary here? It feels to me like the article is going a bit off topic here. I suggest incorporating the information that the first match took place in 1927 into the first sentence of this paragraph, and deleting the rest. Let me know your thoughts.
  • "The event is organised by World Snooker in partnership with the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA)." Move this before the sentences about the 2020 and 2021 winners, to keep like information together. This could go near the top of the paragraph.
  • "The tournament was the last of 15 ranking events in the 2020–21 season on the World Snooker Tour." Is "on" the correct word here, or should it be "of"?
Coord note

20 days in with no supports. May be archived if there's no progress over the next few days. (t · c) buidhe 04:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 21 January 2022 [12].

Homo antecessor

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. The only great ape FAs are Solo Man and orangutan   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago during the Early Pleistocene". This needs rearranging. The species was not recorded a million years ago.
That's how I normally word it, since it's recorded in the fossil record during this time period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supplanting the popular H. heidelbergensis in this function". popular sounds odd to me. Maybe "widely accepted"?
"more conventional"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "merely an offshoot". This is POV. It is true that we think that fossils matter more if they are of direct ancestors of modern humans, but a Wikipedia article should not says so.
NPOV is for debated subject matter. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is by people for people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they consequently only inhabited Iberia during warm periods". This is confused. Above you say that they have only been found in Iberia, here only in warm periods, below that they went to Iberia during cold periods. Surely they must have been in Iberia all the time as it is unlikely that they could have crossed the sea to refugia in Africa.
This is explained later in the Fire section. They only inhabited Iberia during warm periods and presumably fled southeast towards the Mediterranean during cold periods   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iberia is a southern peninsula of Europe. They could only have fled north by land (not southeast as you say), which they would presumably not have done in a cold period. I only have access to the abstract of the source but it says that they probably lived on the Mediterranean coast during cold spells and recolonized Iberia via the Ebro valley (not river) when the climate warmed (not that they fled via the Ebro when it was cold as you say in the article). The implication seems to be that they died out in Iberia during cold periods and fresh groups migrated there during warm ones. This also seems to rule out the Happisburgh hominids being antecessor as it would be too cold for them there. You appear to be using sources which take different views of how cold adapted antecessor was without pointing out the contradiction.
I don't understand the contradiction with Happisburgh. They inhabited the English coastline during an interglacial as well, albeit a different stage of the interglacial. Sierra de Atapuerca is in northern Spain, if you follow the river to the mouth, you're going southeast towards the Mediterranean, so I'll re-add Mediterranean to make it clearer. I moved "(probably via the Ebro valley)" to the part about migrating in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. The climate in Iberia at the height of the last ice age is described in [13] as 'temperate dry steppe'. Happisburgh is 1000 miles further north and it seems unlikely that the climate there in "the cooler beginning or end of an interglacial" would be better than in Spain during a glacial, so if they could stand Happisburgh they would not have needed to abandon inland Iberia. 2. I see that Atapuerca is at the north west end of the Ebro valley, but I was taking you to mean Iberia in general - presumably there must have been many other populations. I think it would be clearer to say that they migrated from the high inland plateaus to the coast without mentioning Ebro. 3. The Waalian interglacial dates to before antecessor. See [14]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "They may have followed water bodies while migrating, in the case of Sierra de Atapuerca, most likely the Ebro River." The source specifically says Waalian Interglacial. As for Happisburgh, they didn't necessarily have to stay in England all year long as Britain wasn't an island at the time. I can add more about Happisburgh if you'd like using [15], I wasn't sure how in depth I should go since the site is only associated with H. antecessor by chronology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Migration looks fine to me now. The source for the Waalian is 2008 and may be out of date. The table I linked to above produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy dates the Waalian to 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. Happisburgh would have been cold even in summer during the transition to or from a glacial, but I see that you suggest above that antecessor was probably cold adapted, so maybe the high inland plateau was too dry during ice ages, not too cold. I do not think you need any more about Happisburgh as the association is merely based on the lack of any known alternative. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years. The average temperature of Happisburgh today is warmer than what's predicted for Gran Dolina then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say the source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya. Current thinking is a bit earlier but either way it is before the antecessor dates of 1.2 to 0.8 mya. Also all sources say the Waalian is north-west European, so it is not relevant to Iberia. We have to use our judgment what to quote from sources, not use them uncritically. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to do it like that we can't mention any glacial period beyond northern Europe or the Alps, which is unhelpful. Like should we delete mention of the Eemian in Solo Man since it usually refers to northern Europe and not Indonesia?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the source explains why the Iberian Mediterranean coast could not have provided refugia? After all, Gorham's Cave is in Iberia, it is the southern most point in Europe and it was occupied by the Neanderthals. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's because I left out the word "inland". Oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was first explored for fossils by archaeologist Francisco Jordá Cerdá [es] in a short field trip to the region in 1966, who recovered a few animal fossils and stone tools". I think where he recovered would be grammatically better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and found human remains 2 years later". Presumably additional archaic human fossils as you say they had been found two years earlier?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This recovered nearly 100 specimens". Presumably human fossil bones but it would be helpful to says so.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were discovered in Happisburgh". No change needed, but is it known how the temperatures compared during warm periods in England and cold periods in Iberia? If they could survive at any time in northern England then surely they would have no trouble at any time in Iberia?
added to the Fire section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2001, French palaeoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin postulated (without a formal analysis) the Gran Dolina remains and the contemporaneous Tighennif remains from Algeria (usually classified as Homo ergaster or Homo erectus, originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus") represent the same population". I think it should be "postulated...that", but the sentence has too many subclauses for easy reading.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, American palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern." This raises several points. 1. Stringer is British. 2. "echoed this concern" is vague and unclear. I take it you mean that he agreed with Hublin, but you should say so. 3. You only cite the refutation of these views. I do not think this is valid. You should check and cite the original papers to be sure that they have not been misinterpreted.
I did, Stringer didn't say anything in specific, just acknowledged someone said H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stringer just included it in a list of the views on the subject. That is not echoing a concern. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I included Stringer because Castro specifically accredits the usage of "H. mauritanicus" to only Hublin and Stringer, "Some authors have considered the possibility of combining the two samples in the same species: H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus2 (shown in a). Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East". You say "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". It was not a concern but a mention of one theory in a list of theories. Stringer did not echo a concern. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of species names is a concern, so by saying H. antecessor =? H. mauritanicus he is echoing this concern. He could've just ignored Hublin entirely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the type specimen was a child so the supposedly characteristic features could have disappeared with maturity". This is ungrammatical. I would delete "so".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues suggested the modern humanlike face evolved independently several times among Homo." This is uncited.
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stratigraphy and family tree diagrams are uncited.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen" The child not the specimen is 10-11.5 years old.
what's the difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The specimen is about one million years old. I would replace "specimen" with "child". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old specimen ATD6-69 is strikingly similar to modern humans (as well as East Asian Middle Pleistocene archaic humans) as opposed to West Eurasian or African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans or Neanderthals". This is vague. Which archaic humans? Why the distinction between them and Neanderthals? Neanderthals were a species of archaic humans.
We see two sentences down "The most notable traits are a completely flat face and a curved zygomaticoalveolar crest (the bar of bone connecting the cheek to the part of the maxilla which holds the teeth)". Neanderthals are not Middle Pleistocene. Middle Pleistocene Western Eurasian and African specimens are conventionally assigned to H. heidelbergensis, but in Europe some people wanna classify certain populations as late H. erectus, and in Africa rhodesiensis, late ergaster, helmei, and recently bodoensis. This time period is called the "muddle in the middle" because there's no wide agreement on species classification, which I think is better discussed at Homo heidelbergensis. Sometimes I see authors not mentioning species names at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Neanderthals were Middle Pleistocene, which ran from 770 to 126 thousand years ago. However, I accept that it is correct to refer to West Eurasian and African species without specifying since as you say there are several and no agreement. What is the position on East Asian? I only know of erectus. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's like calling H. sapiens Middle Pleistocene, technically true but when you just say the name you generally think of late-sapiens. The Middle Pleistocene of East Asia is even less resolved. I see some people wanting to lump them into heidelbergensis, but opponents don't offer an alternative. We know there were the Denisovans but we don't know what they looked like. Someone recently erected Homo longi and revived "H. daliensis" so now there's more names to argue over. Some fossils have been assigned to H. erectus with little debate, Nanking Man, Solo Man, Peking Man, etc. but certainly there're a lot of fossils that can't be comfortably classified into H. erectus.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though, African Middle Pleistocene humans (the direct ancestors of modern humans) would later evolve this condition." This is ungrammatical.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upper incisors are shovel-shaped (the tongue side is distinctly concave), characteristic of other Eurasian human populations." Maybe "a feature which is characteristic".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An adult radius, ATD6-43, which could be male based on absolute size or female based on gracility, was estimated to have been 172.5 cm (5 ft 8 in) tall " A radius was 5' 8" tall?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the radius is "oddly long and straight for an archaic human" and explain it "as retention of the ancestral long-limbed tropical form". Isn't this a contradiction as retention of ancestral form would not be odd?
It's odd because it wasn't retained in contemporary or later archaic humans beyond Africa and southeast Asia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe clearer if you said unlike other contemporary Eurasian archaic humans? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other archaic humans, the femur features". This is ungrammatical.
how?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A femur is a bone, not a human. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The long trochlea caused a short neck of the talus." This is incomprehensible to a non-expert and the term are not linked.
glossed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010, Castro and colleagues approximated ATD6-112, represented by a permanent upper and lower first molar, died between 5.3 and 6.6 years of age". "estimated that" would be better than "approximated".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "The specimen ATD6-69 has an ectopic M3 (upper left third molar)". What does ectopic mean here. Can it be linked? It does not seem to be Ectopic enamel, which is the only dental use of the term I can find.
As it says in the next clause "where it erupted improperly"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where implies location, not definiton. You need to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly valid use of where, like you could say "he has a disorder where his hip locks up when he stands up"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Acheulean]] [[industry]] is MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Maybe [[Acheulean|Acheulean industry]].
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were butchering humans for nutritional purposes (presumably under dire circumstances)". No change needed, but "under dire circumstances" seems to go against the other comments, and perhaps reflects researchers' unwillingness to accept evidence that any species of humans practised cannibalism as a matter of course for food. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no, there's clear documented evidence of cannibalism. The main issue is ritual cannibalism, that is, if other human species were even capable of this level of thinking   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much in two minds about this article. Dunkleosteus77 is doing excellent work bringing articles on Homo species up to a high standard, but in a few cases I think the use of sources is wrong and as the article is mainly based on ones I do not have access to I can only do very limited checking. There are two statements I am particularly concerned about.
1. A theory of Hublin is described and then it is stated that "Chris Stringer echoed this concern". This struck me as odd on two counts, firstly that Hublin had proposed a theory, not expressed a concern, and secondly that it did not sound like the way that Stringer would have expressed himself. As this is one of the few sources I have access to I checked it and found that Stringer just included Hublin's view in a list of theories without expressing an opinion on it. Dunkleosteus77 replied that "validity of species names is a concern". This is true but I do not think that a reader would take "Chris Stringer echoed this concern" in this sense, and FunkMonk took it as agreement with Hublin's theory. Dunkleosteus77 replied that Stringer had been rebutted, which is wrong. Stringer was not rebutted as he never supported Hublin.
2. A fossil of antecessor was found in layer TE9 and the article says "TE9 similarly indicates a generally warm climate, corresponding to the Waalian interglacial." The article dates antecessor as 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago. Some older sources date the Waalian as overlapping with this period but it is currently dated 1.6 to 1.4 million years ago. I queried the mention of the Waalian and Dunkleosteus77 replied "The source puts the end of the Waalian at 1.3 mya, and it's not like temperature plummets that much even after 100,000 years." I do not agree that it is correct to date a layer with antecessor to a period which ended at least 100,000 years earlier.
These are both relatively minor points, but in view of my limited access to sources I prefer at present to wait and see what other reviewers say. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps requesting a thorough spot-check would clear things up? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's this source from 2017 says, "The earliest evidence of North Sea glaciation is Menapian (c. 1.2 Ma)", and the Menapian is the glacial period following the Waalian. Though it cites much older articles, it looks like even northern Europe didn't really start freezing over for a long time after the Waalian, so it's accurate to ascribe the warm climate to the Waalian. By even including "H. mauritanicus", Stringer is echoing Hublin's concern that antecessor is a junior synonym. Stringer could've just as easily chosen to include "H. cepranesis", but he didn't. Castro 2007 specifically calls out only these 2 publications, "other researchers have preferred to use the denomination H. mauritanicus (Hublin 2001; Stringer 2003). Furthermore, Hublin (2001) and Stringer (2003) have considered that the human fossils recovered from Aurora Stratum of the level TD6 in the Gran Dolina site of the Sierra de Atapuerca (Carbonell et al. 1995) could be also included in H. mauritanicus (considering the priority of the name assigned by Arambourg)."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"North Sea glaciation". Attributing antecessor to the Waalian is not only the wrong period, it is the wrong area. The 2008 source says "This could tentatively correlate with the Waalian", unlike the definite statement in the article. This may have been considered valid by the authors in 2008, but Menapian and Waalian are north-west European stages and changes between warm and cool climates are not necessarily at the same time in diffferent areas. The Italian Mediterranean Marine stages are probably more relevant to Spain and antecessor falls in the Sicilian stage in this series. See [16]. As I have pointed out more than once, Hublin did not express a concern, he put forward a theory. Stringer wrote "Some workers prefer to lump the earlier records together and recognize only one widespread species, H. erectus. Others recognize several species, with H. ergaster and H. antecessor (or H. mauritanicus ) in the West, and H. erectus only in the Far East." He was just citing Hublin as a splitter as opposed to lumpers who see only one species across Eurasia. Castro's mischaracterisation of Stringer's comment is not relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make valid taxonomic opinions on a specimen you didn't see yourself. I removed the Waalian since you feel very strongly about it. The Sierra de Atapuerca is not Mediterranean either, if you have a problem with using northern Europe then you can't use Mediterranean timelines Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of taxa have been named by authors who didn't examine the specimens first-hand, that is certainly not a criterion. It is preferred, yes, but there are no "rules" against it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would you rewrite the paragraph? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could refer to Calabrian as the worldwide stage but it is better just to delete Waalian as you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, about Stringer Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete the sentence about Stringer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Alright, I was waiting for Dudley as to not cover the same ground, but since he's gotten far, I'll begin soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link anatomical terms like maxilla, frontal bone, etc., in article body and image captions.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(to see if the unit warrants further investigation)" Warranted?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sierra de Atapuerca had long been known to be abundant in fossil remains." State this is i Spain and in what region.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described as a new species, Homo antecessor." Explain the meaning of the name in the paragraph about its naming. I see you explain it much further down, but the reader would expect to see it earlier.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2007, a human molar was recovered from the nearby Sima del Elefante ("elephant pit") in layer TE9 ("trinchera elefante"), belonging to a 20–25 year old individual. This was also classified into H. antecessor." Why not just say "In 2007, a H. antecessor molar was recovered"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have not even produced human fossils at all" Why is "even" and "at all" necessary? "have not produced" means the same, and is less wordy.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any code cladogram?
  • "so the original describers (Castro and colleagues)" Why not just keep it simple, "so in their original description, Castro and colleagues classified it as..."?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link words like stratigraphy, H. heielbergensis, and Neanderthal in article body. Words linked in the intro should be linked again in the article body.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supplanting H. heielbergensis" Missing d.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and found the Tighennif remains are much larger than" To be would look more natural.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frido Welker is German or Dutch, not Danish. Seems he moved to Denmark for research purposes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end of the classification section makes the status of the species unclear. Has it been suggested to be a subspecies of H. ergaster?
no, but most all human species are thought to descend from H. ergaster/erectus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues" Missing nationality.
  • You show a 2012 cladogram by Stringer, but you don't elaborate on the study in-text. It seems to contradict the earlier claim that he advocated for synonymy.
Stringer mentioned synonym in 2003 and was rebutted in 2007, so I don't see any contradiction if he supports antecessor in 2012   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that is stated clearly (rebuttal? And Stringer changing opinion?) in the article, so it seems it could benefit from some elaboration for each study. "Rebuttals" rarely lead to rival taxonomic researchers changing opinions, so that is significant in itself. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stringer did not advocate synonym, he just included it in a list of theories without expressing an opinion, so he could not have been rebutted. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, I think the 2012 study should be summarised in-text, and it seems there is something that needs reinterpretation from the earlier studies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn’t describe it as a rival taxonomic opinion, it’s just Hublin and Stringer said “someone should investigate this” and then someone did so that was that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then Stringer's 2012 should still be covered in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's mainly giving a brief summary on archaic human introgression. What exactly are you looking for? The graphic is there because it's easy to understand and I can't really do chronospecies using wikitext cladograms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You now only say "In 2003, British palaeoanthropologist Chris Stringer echoed this concern" What I'm looking for is an in-text sentence that states what his 2012 view was for contrast. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He never mentions H. antecessor in-text, only in the picture. Again, the picture is only there for illustrative reasons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about stating the result of his cladogram in-text here, which is routinely done in articles that summarise classification history. For example "In 2012, Stringer published a cladogram showing antecessor as a distinct lineage" or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Singling random people out in-text seems unnecessary just because a graphic is used, especially since everything from that source relevant to this article is in the caption. Like I also mentioned Hublin, should I try to find a more recent cladogram by him? Or maybe talk about one of Stringer's more recent cladograms instead?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is random about describing a newer study by a researcher you've already discussed? The way you've written the classification is as a chronological dialogue between studies. Therefore, it makes little sense to arbitrarily leave out one such study, especially when it contradicts something stated earlier, such as Stringer having a particular view. Now it looks like an oversight and inconsistency. If there are more studies that have been left out, by all means mention them in the text and their findings. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically every Homo cladogram since description includes antecessor, it would be impractical to discuss every single one of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've removed mention of Stringer from the article body, it looks less jarring. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the holotype? Should be mentioned already where the naming is discussed, now it's only mentioned in passing further down.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Growth rate and pathology isn't really anatomy?
if all you have are bones, yeah they are, because you can only study them by seeing how the anatomy is altered. In the absence of blood cell count and the like, clinical pathology is impossible; all we have here is anatomical pathology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would later evolve this condition." You haven't mentioned any condition. Say "evolve a similar morphology"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old child ATD6-69" As this is the beginning of a new section, I think you could name the subject of the article, like "year old H. antecessor child ATD6-69" for clarity.
this isn't the first time ATD6-69 is being mentioned   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the concern, it is just good to name the subject of the article at the beginning of a new section for context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the alveolar part (adjacent to the teeth) is completely vertical" And is that also modern human like? Doesn't say now.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature characteristic of other Eurasian human populations" Including modern humans?
yup   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
State it clearly, then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tongue side" I wonder if "inwards side" would be more understandable?
I think tongue and lip side make more sense   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and explain derived.
I did "like derived species, but retain... like more archaic species"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a link. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cingulum (towards the base)" This doesn't describe what it is, only where.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bust doesn't make much sense where it is now by the torso section, since it shows a child, perhaps move it to growth rate, which doesn't have images?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on the correlation among modern Indian people" Why Indian people in particular?
that's the data the study had available to use. There's no real specific reason   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as this bone rarely ever fossilises for archaic humans." This is a bit oddly worded, as if the bone itself was not likely to fossilise, rather it is by chance? You could say this is just rarely found?
I assumed it was preservation bias because these bones are small and hollow and so would be too brittle to fossilize. Are you saying it's statistical bias?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what does the source say? If it's ambiguous, we should be too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The research section could have a list of what parts of the skeleton is known. I know they are mentioned here and there under anatomy, but it's not possible to get a brief overview there.
Needs response. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sternum is narrow. The acromion (which extends over the shoulder joint) is small." And is this similar to modern humans or? It is hard to know what these descriptions mean without comparison to anything else.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that the age of first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age" Redundancy, why not just "and that first molar eruption occurred at roughly this age"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is oddly long and straight for someone from so far north" Add "of this time" or similar.
this would include modern populations too   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the possible use of some of these stone tools be explained?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Freezing temperatures could have been hit from November to March" Looks like the "been" is unnecessary.
I don't think so because you would say, "Freezing temperature were hit" so you have to say "could have been"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the wording is a bit confusing, "reached" might be clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a very short part of the "fire" section is about fire, the overall theme of the section (over two thirds) seems to be response to the climate, and it should be renamed accordingly.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sixteen species were recorded" Specify animal species. "Species" can refer to anything.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a mammoth" Which species?
Mammuthus sp.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then add "of undetermined species". FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an issue when I said "a lynx" or "rhinos", etc., why specifically mammoths?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can state it for the others too, why not? Would be more consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in two instances toothmarks overlapping cutmarks" Of what animals?"
unidentified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is stated specifically, mention it so it doesn't read like an omission. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sima del Elefante site" What elephant does this name refer to?
I'm finding Proboscidea indet. from the youngest fossil-bearing unit p. 338  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If these are thought to be distinct from the mammoths, it would be worth listing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is relevant to this article since elephant bones aren't even in the H. antecessor unit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olive and oak are linked at second instead of first mentions.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are no complete skull" Is this plural or singular?
skulls   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where the human bones with cutmarks found along animal bones with cutmarks? Seems important to note if the case.
animal and human bones were all randomly mixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be stated clearly then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where the discovery is discussed, or taphonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any photos of cannibalised specimens? There seem to be photos of two jaw fragments on Commons not used in the article at least.
they were probably all cannibalized   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, show them in the section? You haven't used images of these specimens[17][18], if one of them has specifically been mentioned as having been cannibalised, it could be used in that otherwise empty section. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of them really show the cut marks very well, like the holotype also is cut up but from the available photos it's impossible to see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would just be a good opportunity to show skeletal elements otherwise not shown now we do have available images of them. For example showing the upper jaw or what it is, and saying in the caption that it, like most of the other fossils, are thought to come from cannibalised individuals. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hemimandible photo is already used in Anatomy, and I haven't read anything about cut marks on the Sima del Elefante remains (sorry when I said all I meant just the TD6 ones). I put it in Research history Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca" Add "site".
wouldn't say "in the Atapuerca Mountains site"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just anything to identify what it is. It's article says "Archaeological site of Atapuerca", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave the English translation. I don't understand the issue, like it's mountains   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To explain that it is a archaeological site, like its article does even in the title. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"recorded in the Spanish Sierra de Atapuerca, a productive archaeological site..." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in this function" It isn't really a function, but a position.
done
  • "as merely an offshoot" Very subjective to say "merely".
at the end of the day, Wikipedia is by humans for humans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very loaded word and wouldn't be fit for a biography of a person either. If the source doesn't use it, we shouldn't either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though these elements are known only from a juvenile specimen." The article body should specify this too.
the Skull section already starts off with "The facial anatomy of the 10 to 11.5 year old child ATD6-69"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't say it is the only such element known from the species, which is what I'm asking for. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which later becomes ubiquitous" Better to stay in past tense, like the surrounding text.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this comment is in the wrong section? FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination has now been open for a month and while it has attracted a reasonable amount of attention it is showing little sign of a consensus for promotion forming. Unless this changes significently over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some further responses above, and with some compliance, I should be able to support soon. Perhaps Dudley is at a similar stage. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's finals week for me, I'll try to address the comments over the weekend   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  08:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Should I try to find more reviewers? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dunkleosteus77 and apologies for missing your ping. Yes, this nomination needs further reviews and a source review as soon as possible. I have added it to Urgents and requested a source review, but if you could round up either yourself - in, of course, a neutrally phrased request - that may save the nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • I'm on it, I will try to do both a content and source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homo antecessor (Latin "pioneer") – This may seem obvious to us, but I think we need to be correct nonetheless: "Pioneer" is only the translation of "antecessor", not of "Homo"?
Should I say Latin "pioneer man"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"pioneer man" seems to be the most commonly used. I would personally prefer "human pioneer" or "pioneer of modern humans", but you should choose what the sources say. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the source doesn't include the "man" part in the translation in etymology Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it refers to antecessor and not to Homo antecessor, which is what you are doing. This was my whole point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more conventional H. heidelbergensis – I don't like "conventional" here, what does it add?
the consensus before antecessor was discovered Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
supplanting H. heidelbergensis in this position is more than clear and says everything, why to you need this "conventional"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it wouldn't be clearer to someone who's never seen the name H. heidelbergensis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, but it is a minor point so I can leave it to you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populations may have been present elsewhere in Western Europe – I suggest "Populations of the species" for extra clarity.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a single publication listed under "further reading", in Spanish. Is this really the best text on the topic that exists, or is there something in English we can offer as well?
it's the best layman's summary (up to 2002) I would say since it's written by de Castro. Unfortunately for the English-speaking world, the man (and the discovery) is Spanish Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced Atapuerca with the UNESCO page and removed Smithsonian, but I think keeping Happisburgh is a good idea since it isn't discussed in too great detail in this article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to a wealth of bear fossils, he also recovered archaic human fossils – Unclear: at Gran Dolina or at Sima de los Huesos?
better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Spanish palaeontologist Emiliano Aguirre – sometimes you give nationality and profession, sometimes only the profession, and sometimes nothing at all when new names appear. Could be consistent.
I mean the proceeding names are also Spanish paleontologists, seems like a lot of repetition for something that should be self-evident Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 years later, – why not "two years later"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 25 m (82 ft) of Pleistocene sediments at the Gran Dolina are divided into 11 units, – Might not be clear to everybody that layers are meant, and not spatial units. You could use "layers" instead of "units" to make this clearer, and avoid one technical term?
probably not a good idea because the taphonomy section talks about the layers in the TD6 unit Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then you should define this unit somehow, otherwise this information is somehow useless. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you want here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If these units are not the same as "layers", as you say, what, then, are these units? Obviously, the reader needs to know this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what would you put down? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how "units" are defined here, so I can't make a suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want from me? Unit is just a broad division of rock. It's not an unintelligible word that's impossible to comprehend, and then I go on to say it's divided into subunits and layers so those are already explained enough to understand the sentence. Where exactly are you getting tripped up? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for the criterion used to define the units. This may be vertically (i.e., one unit consists of several layers); horizontally (one unit consists of an particular area); or based on facies (one unit consists of a particular rock type). Which of these? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's divided into 13 layers (vertically) and alternatively 9 facies Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first field season 1994–1996 excavated – either a "team" excavated, or use passive "was excavated".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which may represent at least six individuals – "may" and "at least" are contradicting each other.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Happisburgh fossil trackway with a camera lens cap for scale – I don't think there is a trackway, just isolated tracks?
fixed
  • Might be worth it to explain "facies" in a gloss, since the term appears quite frequently and is difficult.
I can only think of "distinctive unit" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"a body of rock with specified characteristics"? Just that the reader gets an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"bodies of rock distinctive from adjacent bodies" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link debris flow?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a floodplain-related geological process – why not simply "a flooding river"?
"low-energy debris flow" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • , further constrained palaeomagnetically – "and" missing?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mya needs link
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and dentally similar to other African populations – jargon? Can this be reformulated to avoid the "dentally"?
I mean, is "dental features" too jargony too? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that sounds much clearer / is more common, but I'm not a native speaker. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (without a formal analysis), Castro and colleagues formally investigated the matter – How do you decide what is "formal" and what is "informal"?
As in, Hublin looked at the list of published diagnostic features of H. antecessor and the published details on Tighennif. Castro described it as "these authors did not present a formal study to defend their alternative" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since he is commenting on the other paper, he is not really an neutral source in this aspect? I would just remove "formal" and "informal". I don't see why a study would be "informal". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human family tree according to Chris Stringer, 2012, – This hypothesis by Chris Stringer is not even mentioned in the text, why?
it's just there for the easily digestible diagram, his opinion is written a thousand times over, no sense detailing every single one of them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So this is identical to the hypothesis of Richard Klein? That does not become clear; I think the reader needs to know which of the hypotheses discussed in the text this represents. Problematically, the text only mentiones H. ergaster, not H. erectus as seen in the diagram. So, as it currently is, I think it confuses people. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ergaster is sometimes synonymized with erectus, that's why the text reads "usually classified as Homo ergaster or Homo erectus" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but my point remains; this can be made clearer by inserting a sentence to the caption (and maybe mention both erectus and ergaster) to make this clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should I put down, "erectus at the base of the tree is sometimes called ergaster"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably include reference to the hypothesis explained in the main text, to make the connection, and explain what is to be seen; it might be enough to include (=H. ergaster) in brachets while mentioning H. erectus). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(usually classified as Homo ergaster [=? Homo erectus], originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus") Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only asking to make things clearer to the general reader. They were not immediately clear to me, so I think there might be others which are just as stupid. It is easy to fix, and I offered more than one way to do it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what you're saying then. What is meant by "it might be enough to include (=H. ergaster) in brachets while mentioning H. erectus"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have requested several times know, simply include Stringer in the main text, stating that he sees H. antecessor as an offshot of H. erectus (=?H. ergaster, here we have it), and that should also appear in the image caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot, though probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split. – The section "classification" contains no claim that this is accepted as a consensus. What was the source here? Just the two studies from 2017 and 2020?
Well the people who first claimed it's a direct ancestor came back and said it probably wasn't so this seems like an accurate characterization Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that contradicts the Stringer diagram? As said, it is simply confusing, you need to make the connection to the text. Maybe, in the diagram, supplement the caption with "A similar hypothesis was presented by Klein, while two more recent studies instead propose a position close to the modern human/Neanderthal split" or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's not a contradiction, just naming conventions. If the split happened a million years ago, you'd still never classify a million year old skull as H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You write "though probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split", that is surely not what is shown in the diagram? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a really confusing visual representation if there were 3 separate lines a millionish years ago all titled H. heidelbergensis, and then at a random point later down each line gets a new name Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my point. Your article says: In 2009, American palaeoanthropologist Richard Klein stated he was skeptical that H. antecessor was ancestral to H. heidelbergensis, interpreting H. antecessor as "an offshoot of H. ergaster [from Africa] – this means these are two separate hypotheses, and I think the diagram shows the latter. Hence my concern. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think the 2nd hypothesis is? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That H. antecessor was ancestral to H. heidelbergensis, stated in the sentence I just cited. All I'm asking is to expand the image caption, explaining what is to be seen. That hypothesis A is shown and not hypothesis B. Or, even better, just what I had originally suggested: Include a short mention of the Stringer study in the main text (e.g., "which has also been suggested by Stringer in 2012" or something like that would suffice). On what basis are you selecting the studies you cite in any case? Shouldn't we cite all of them when we work with primary sources only? The Stringer paper is a Nature paper, that is not insignificant at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the people who proposed that hypothesis recanted "In 2017, Castro and colleagues conceded that H. antecessor may not be a modern human ancestor". That's why in the lead it reads very definitively "H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stringer family tree does not seem to show the most "probable" hypothesis offered by the article, but seems to be outdated? Because this is the only tree given in the article, that could be misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what is the most probable family tree? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"though probably one branching off just before the modern human/Neanderthal split" – if this isn't the "most probable", then you shouldn't state this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2013, anthropologist Sarah Freidline and colleagues statistically determined that these features would not disappear with maturity, H. antecessor suggests the modern human face evolved and disappeared multiple times in the past, which is not unlikely as facial anatomy is strongly influenced by diet and thus the environment. – extremely long sentence, and interpunctuation seems off.
typo, fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nasal bones are like that of modern humans – those?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • retromolar space (a large gap between the last molar and the end of the mandible). – explanation is wrong (not to the "end of the mandible" but to the front margin of the ascending ramus of the mandible)
"end of the body of the mandible" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • like derived species – derived relative to what? "more derived"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • bearing a lingual cusp (on the tongue side), – You used "tongue side" before without using "lingual". So why not be consistent here and simply say "bearing a cusp on the tongue side"?
it's nice to have the actual term there Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but then you should provide it at first mention of the term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The P3 (the first lower premolar) crowns are strongly asymmetrical and have complex tooth root systems – A tooth crown does not have a root, per definition.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • P3 is smaller than P4 like more derived species, – "in more derived species"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The P3 (the first lower premolar) – Why is P3 the first and not the third?
it'd be pretty confusing for someone not caught up on dental abbreviations if I say the third premolar and they only count 2 in their mouth Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 162.3–186.8 cm (5 ft 4 in–6 ft 2 in), mean of 174.5 cm (5 ft 9 in), – do we really need both? Not sure about the second (the mean of what?), I think it just confuses and would remove.
it's a really wide range though Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something I don't understand it seems. The lead says "Various stature estimates range from 162.3–186.8 cm", so that implies there are separate studies, but later you only cite one (and a range is still a single estimate). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that as in the stature estimates of various specimens, but the clavicle has such a wide range it's both the highest and lowest estimate based on fossils Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Understood. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on metatarsal (toe bone) – metatarsals are not toe bones.
close enough Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But incorrect. Just say "foot bone" or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The incomplete radius, ATD6-43, (a forearm bone) – explanation should appear at first mention of the term, not here.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
modern and archaic Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • lithics – link/explain? Or just replace with "stone tools" to reduce number of technical terms?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lower part of TD6.3 (TD6 subunit 3), 84 lithics were recovered, – As this is the first sentence of the technology paragraph, it reads as if these would be the only lithics. But that is not the case, and this is confusing. I think this section needs one or two introductory sentences for context.
I moved the last paragraph to first Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These early Europeans probably physiologically withstood the cold, such as by eating a high-protein diet or supporting a heightened metabolism. – I think it is important to make the connection to the lack of fire use here, as this is the reason the paper is talking about it. Something like "Instead of fire use, these early Europeans probably withstood the cold by eating a high-protein diet".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eighty adult and child H. antecessor specimens from the Gran Dolina exhibit cut marks, crushing, burning, and other trauma indicative of cannibalism, – How can they show burning when they didn't use fire?
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the opening sentence to "Eighty young adult..." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Source 1: You include quotes at the end of this cite. Never saw such a thing, is it covered by the WP:MOS?
I vaguely remember someone in a past FAC wanted more quotes in the references Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and ok, then. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title case should be consistent (e.g., used in source 2 where it should not be; only use title mode for book titles)
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 3: I think we always need to list all the authors, without using "et al."
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journals should be written out (e.g., "J. Hum. Evol.")
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falguères, Christophe; Bahain, J.; – inconsistent: Sometimes names are abbreviated, sometimes they are not.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 16: I don't understand the "Chris Stringers' hypothesis of the family tree of genus Homo", is this supposed to be a title? What does WP:MOS say?
What the hell?? removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2020-04-01) – Dates could be consistent (I think just the year is enough when it comes to papers).
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dental proteome of Homo antecessor" – the species needs to be in italics.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all concerning reference formatting. I only listed the first instance of each problem I found; most of these issues appear several times in the references list. All sources seem to be of high quality and reliable; spot check will follow soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • Source 28: Almost checks, but: "Ectopia of the wisdom teeth is a common condition in modern humans due to the progressive shortening of the jaws over time, as high as 50% in some populations." – The source says impaction, not ectopia.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 9: "In the lower part of TD6.3 (TD6 subunit 3), 84 lithics were recovered, predominantly small, unmodified quartz pebbles" – Can't find this in the source. The paper says 28 lithic pieces in the lower part of TD6.3? Where does it say that most are quartz?
typo, it's actually quartzite "Complete and fractured pebbles account for 61% of the assemblage (n = 17), which means that most of the Lower-TD6.3 material is percussive. This may explain the dominance of fluvial raw materials in this group, particularly quartzite (c. 65%)." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"84 lithics were recovered" – I still can't find this in the source? Please help me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For stratigraphic reasons, the source breaks up the discussion of TD6.3 into 2 subsections about the upper and lower deposits, the upper with 56 and the lower with 28 lithics, which adds up to 84 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 29: Checks mostly apart from two details: the "well" in "from a fire well outside the cave" does not seem to be supported (the only thing they say is outside the cave, with no information on how far outside). Also: "In other parts of the world" does not seem to be supported as they are talking about Europe only.
The source also discusses African and Asian records Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But where the fact is mentioned, they only refer to Europe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The European signal for fire use aligns well with what we know from other continents [Asia and Africa], where indications for habitual use of fire are present from the second half of the Middle Pleistocene onward. As in Europe, fire seems to have become a maintainable technology between ∼400 and 200 ka" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say "in other words," fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]
  • This seems to have stalled, but I note that the nominator has not edited at all for eleven days. Which is a little concerning. So, fellow coordinators, perhaps we could give it a few more days? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 January 2022 [19].

Nonmetal

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​​​​​​​​This is my third outing at FAC for this vital article. The subject matter is one half of the fundamental distinction made in chemistry between metals and nonmetals.

Following FAC #2:

  • the lede has been trimmed down to four paragraphs;
  • nine images, tables or quote boxes have been removed or integrated into the text; and
  • ca. 150 minor edits have been made to improve the article.

Please note that addressing the nature of nonmetals necessitates a fair amount of descriptive, list-like content. Where feasible I've sought to avoid long, list-like sentences by instead using dot point lists or summary tables.

As suggested at FAC #2, here's my assessment against the FAC criteria.

Assessment
  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
      That's been my aim. Each paragraph in the article addresses one idea, as flagged by its lead sentence. The logical flow of the article can then be grasped by reading only each first sentence. As requested at FAC #2, the article has been subject to a formal copy edit. I did this by starting at its end, and working back up to the start, making adjustments along the way.
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
      That's certainly the case.
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
      I doubt there's a more focused encyclopedic and citation supported survey of nonmetals anywhere.
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
      There's some variability in the literature as to which chemical elements are nonmetals. I've attempted to take a balanced approach to this question, and to make this consideration explicit in the article.
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process;
      It's certainly that.
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
      To the best of my ability that's the case.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
      2. Check. The lead focuses on only the most important ideas.
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings;
      3. Check.
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
      4. Check.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
    An image check was conducted and passed at FAC #2. The article has no new images. All images bar one have succinct captions. The exception is the "Periodic table extract" image which needs an extended caption in order to explain the features it (the image) is encapsulating. I've considered moving the bulk of the content of the caption into the text however I feel that to do so would make it harder to unpack the image.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
The number of endnotes has been criticised in past FAC's. Consistent with Help:Explanatory notes I generally use endnotes to elaborate items which would otherwise seem to make the main body text too detailed for the general reader. At the same time, the footnotes may appeal to the specialist reader. For a technical subject of this kind, I feel this is a good way of addressing FA criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." This is particularly the case for descriptive chemistry in which, unlike the laws of physics, there are always exceptions. Of the 66 endnotes, 40% belong to images or tables.

I thank numerous peer- and FAC-reviewers for previous feedback on the article. Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Something in this nomination is preventing the other nominations at WP:FAC from displaying. Please fix this. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a stray "noinclude": [20]. DanCherek (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Double sharp

[edit]

It looks good to me now, on a first glance through. One thing I noticed in the glance is that there's a wrong symbol in File:PT blocks and 1st rows.png: seaborgium (106) should be Sg, but is written as Sb.

Sandbh comment: Thank you. Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a full read-through later. Today I'm a bit busy, but tomorrow should be okay. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the tables (Biological interaction, human life): toxicity of O and other things is kind of "the dose makes the poison", surely. If we speak about this kind of weird situation, then presumably also nitrogen is toxic, either via nitrogen narcosis, or even more simply because breathing any gas mixture without sufficient oxygen will kill you.

Sandbh comment: The endnote to that entry says:
"Breathing too much oxygen will poison the brain and can lead to death; 'as little as 100mg [of white phosphorus] may be a fatal dose for a human'; a 5mg dose of selenium will produce a highly toxic reaction"
For H, C, N, and S, they're referred to by Emsley as non-toxic. On toxicity, I had in mind chemistry-induced interactions rather than e.g. inert nitrogen dissolved in the blood. The same approach applies to the noble gases. Is that OK? For radon I've now added a comment that high-level exposure can result in lung cancer. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for Rn it is not chemical toxicity either. But Emsley is certainly an RS for taking this line, so I think it's okay then. But I'd suggest for this reason to add a note that says that this is about chemical and radioactive toxicity, to avoid nitpicks like that. Double sharp (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I recall that there's some evidence that arsenic might be an essential trace element, but not sure how well that work has weathered. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comment: For humans I wasn't able to find firm evidence that arsenic is an essential trace element. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, indeed I wasn't sure how well that result had panned out. That said, I think past suspicions about it are noteworthy enough that I'd suggest adding a note that says that while As has sometimes been suspected to be an essential trace element, there is no firm evidence that that is so. Double sharp (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's not often I get to use a ¶ :) Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I was wondering if you're now in a position to support, or otherwise, my nomination. No pressure, no obligation. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder; well, I gave it a full read-through, so indeed, I'm happy to support now. It's an enjoyable read! Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from YBG

[edit]
  1. § Top I have copyedited the lede, shortening it significantly. I don't believe any information has been removed.
  2. § Definition and applicable elements I looked for a list or periodic table here but didn't find one. May I suggest a PT with groups 1 and 13-18 and a jagged line showing the omission of the center of the table. The cells could be colored with a monochrome color scheme and this caption:
    Periodic table extract showing the frequency that authors list elements as nonmetals
    [darker] Included by learly all authors (14)
    [dark] Also included by most authors (3)
    [medium] Also included by some authors (6)
    [pale] Metals never considered "nonmetals"
  3. § Origin and use of the term
    Taxonomy chart This is much too small to be easily read. The earlier chart, which did not include gas/liquid/solid, was more readable, clearer, and to-the-point. And including such a taxonomic key essentially belies the statement that "no standard definition distinguishes nonmetals and metals".
  4. § Honing the concept This section header is very weak. If a better one cannot be found, why not just eliminate it? Or better yet, move this text to between the "Properties" and "Physical" section headers. After all, this is a list of different properties that have been used to distinguish metals from nonmetals.
  5. § Specific properties
  6. § Physical It is curious that metals with larger atomic radii are more closely packed but nonmetals with smaller atomic radii are less closely packed. Is this correct? If so, there is no need to change anything here, it is a detail that belongs in a subsidiary article, not in this one.
    Packing efficiency chart is not very comprehensible. I am not sure this chart is needed, but it would be improved by showing the % sign in every cell to emphasize that the number is a percentage. Right-justifying each cell would allow a proportional font to be used and still retain the number alignment. Even better would be to convert this to a 3D graph of packing inefficiency - ie, 100%-efficiency, so the metals would be low and the inefficient nonmetals would form peaks. In any case, the nonmetal gases can be eliminated.
    Packing efficiency note - this does not belong to group 17, but to the whole chart. It should be moved to a chart title or to the caption.
  7. § Subclasses:
    Subclass chart: This diagram is very complex, trying to show too much information, which must then be explained in an unweildy caption which is way too long despite the content that has been relegated to an explanatory footnote. Further, it displays the periodic table in an unusual form (H over F) buying a little space at the expense of an unnecessary paragraph. If you follow my suggestion of having a PT under § Definition and applicable elements, this chart can be greatly simplified with a very short caption:
    Periodic table extract showing metals, metalloids, and subclasses of nonmetals:
    [color1] Metals
    [color2] Metalloids
    [color3] Unclassified nonmetals
    [color4] Halogen nonmetals
    [color5] Noble gases
    Elements further from the stair-step line through the metalloids are more clearly metallic or nonmetalic; those along it are somewhat ambiguous. Because there is no universally accepted distinction between metals and nonmetals, this "dividing line between metals and nonmetals" is fuzzy at best.
    This makes for two charts, each with a clear purpose. Giving each chart a clear purpose eliminates the need for the offset groups. The only information omitted is that about the "strong" nonmetals, which can be eliminated or relegated to body text somewhere. It really doesn't seem to belong to a section about the four subclasses.
  8. §§ Noble gases, Nonmetal halogens, Unclassified nonmetals, and Metalloids The "in periodic table terms" paragraphs seem IMO to be a well-sourced collection of information not needed in this overview article. The statements that "this subclass forms a bridge between the class to the left and the class to the right" seems to add very little. The statements "This subclass corresponds to the X subclass of metals" seems IMO to be placing unWP:DUE weight, over-emphasizing details beyond what the emphasis found in the literature. I think that all of these paragraphs could be beneficially removed with very little loss.
  9. § Comparison The headers in these sections might benefit with mini-PT graphics showing the PT location of the elements in each category.
    Someone with less familiarity needs to weigh in on the use of element symbols here. On the one hand, using the symbols keeps the charts from having too many line wraps. Putting the symbols with the names in the title would go part way, but to me the best way would be to use {{abbr}} or even better wiki-link all of the abbreviations. I'm not sure how to balance between the overlinking problem and the helping the layman quickly translate from S to sulfur and Se to selenium.

I suggest that responses be included below with references to the numbers above. YBG (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the three periodic table remarks (in #2, #7): see my comments below. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comments (1)

  1. Thank you @YBG: The lead is looking resplendent.
  2. I've now included such a periodic table extract. The caption explains why, in this case, H is located above F. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've added an upright scaling factor to make the image larger and clearer. How does the size look now? I've added a sentence referring to the delineation between metals and nonmetals an example, and a cite.
  4. I've changed the header to "Criteria", so that the section name is now "Origin, use and criteria". The "Properties" section is now called "Specific properties".
  5. NFA required
  6. Yes, that is so. Regardless of radii, metallic bonding is conducive to centrosymmetrical packing whereas the covalent bonding in nonmetals is more directional in nature, resulting in less packing efficiency.
  7. The image has been simplified and the caption trimmed. The note about H has been removed since the location of H is commented on in the earlier image showing the differing frequencies with which elements are classified as nonmetals. The note about "strong" nonmetals is retained to show there is a L-R progression in nonmetallic character across the non-noble nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  
    • The well-sourced "in periodic terms paragraphs" elaborate the traditional contrast between the group 1 metals and the halogens, for example:
      "…we focus mainly on the gross structure – the metals are here, the non-metals are there, and so on. Once they have grasped this, you can start to show that there’s some order to it. We talk about the Group 1 alkali metals and start to see that they’re all similar in some way. Then at the other extreme there are the…halogens. The idea that the table shows us how to group similar elements starts to come together in this way.”
      --- Niki Kaiser (2019), Notre Dame High School, Norwich, UK [21]
    • The article where this comes from is appropriately enough called Unwrapping the periodic table.
    • The statements about bridging subclasses are consistent with the left-to-right transition in metallic to nonmetallic character across the periodic table. For example, in the case of where the post-transition metals meet the metalloids, the associated quote shows that the notional dividing "line" between metals and nonmetals is more like a frontier territory occupied by ca. 15 metals and nonmetals.
  9. The article has previously been criticised by FAC reviewers for having too many tables and images[22], and too much code.[23]

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 from YBG
[edit]
  • 1. Done
  • 2a. The discussion of H's position in the PT might be good in an article about H or an article about the PT, but I don't think it belongs in an overview article about nonmetals. That distracting explanatory paragraph can be excised by using a PT extract with groups 1 and 13-18, with a jagged pinking shear cut-line between groups 1 and 13. This would greatly improve the visual appearance of the pic and eliminate the need for the distracting explanatory paragraph.
  • 2b. There is too little contrast between the metals and metalloids. I suggest darkening the metalloid background color and using gray font color for the metals.
  • 2c. Monochrome doesn't need to mean gray. You could use shades of yellow or green or pink if you wished.
  • 2d. The symbols could be a bit larger, as could the group numbers. There is so much empty space around the symbol that you could easily do this while still reducing the size of the size of each cell and still leaving a respectable padding around the symbol. I suggest reducing the cells by 15-20% and increasing the font size by about 2 points. Doing this would mean that adding group 1 would add very little if any width to the graphic, and you could eliminate the distracting paragraph (see 2a). These ratios are just my guesses; when you try it out you will no doubt find the ideal proportions.
  • 3. The increased size makes the chart legible, but that only makes the unnecessary complexity more obvious. Versions of this file from 7/9/2021 and before were much less cluttered. There is no need in the article to include the details about what specific characteristics for each state-of-matter distinguish metals from nonmetals.
  • 4. Done This satisfies my original concerns. Thank you.
  • 4a. There are a lot of redlinks in these sections. It doesn't sit well with me, but I'm not sure what the FA criteria have to say about this.
  • 5. Done There was nothing to do here; I merely included the section header for context.
  • 6. Done Thank you for the explanation
  • 6a. Packing efficiency chart. Not addressed.
  • 6b. Packing efficiency note. Not addressed.
  • 7. Thank you for simplifying the chart, but there is still much that could be done.
  • 7a. Please use the standard table with pinking shears and move H to its normal position. See comments above.
  • 7b. The thick border and the comment about strong nonmetals makes the graphic too complex to be easily digested. I don't think this information is necessary in this article, but if you really think it is important, you can include it in body text.
  • 7c. I would have kept the metal/nonmetal dividing line and removed the strong metal info, but now that I see the chart, I think that keeping both of these out makes for a much cleaner and clearer chart.
  • 8. This article is primarily about nonmetals and only incidentally about periodic trends. The "in periodic table terms" paragraphs would do well in an article about periodic trends, but this article would be improved if they were removed.
  • 9. I'm fine with keeping the symbols as they are. But before you reject using {{abbr}} (as H) or wikilinking (as H), I'd ask Materialscientist or someone else whether what he thinks about doing that.
  • 10. New § Shared uses. This chart is unwieldy. I'm experimenting with a way of simplifying it and making it more comprehensible.

Thank you. YBG (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh (2)
[edit]

Thanks ​ for your thoroughness, and methodical approach.

  • 2. For H above F, I've followed the example of Jolly (1966), The Chemistry of the Non-metals, and Emsley (1971) The Inorganic Chemistry of the Non-metals, each of whom show H above F, in their lead periodic tables. The latter goes so far as writing, "H is generally placed at the head of group M7" (p. 20). In his best-selling book Nature's Building Blocks (2001, 2003, 2011) Emsley continued the practice of showing H above F.
A chemist would not bat an eyelid about H over F since depictions of that arrangement (as well as H over Li in group 1) have been ongoing for ca. 120 years.
The note is needed for the general reader to avoid confusion when they see the PT later on in the Complications section with H in group 1, not to mention He over Be!
Could you please further bear in mind that the PT in question is not in the lead (where H over F could otherwise raise some controversy).
Each periodic table extract is designed in the context of the accompanying sections.
As the focus of the article is not about the arrangement of the elements in the periodic table, I agree that differences of opinion as to the location of H are not relevant in the article, nor IMO, are they relevant here.
I've reduced the cell size in the image, increased the font size, and applied a new traffic light colour scheme. The font size now looks too big so I've reduced the image size. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. The earlier version of this image was a work in progress. The finished work appears in the Origin, use, and criteria section. The criteria seen in it are contextually congruent. The complexity of the image is such that a child could follow each pathway, albeit they may not understand some of the big words. Its inclusion is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate".
  • 4a. Redlinks are encouraged in articles, in order to encourage the creation of the corresponding new articles.
  • 6. I've replaced the table and its code, with an image.
  • 6a. The chart reflects a contrast between the centrosymmetrical structures of the metals and the directionally-distorted structures of the nonmetals. The difference goes to the heart of the atomic properties (nuclear charge, atomic radius, electronic configuration) that underpin the occurence of metallic or nonmetallic character. This is briefly addressed in the second paragraph of the Physical section. That is why it is needed, given FAC criteria 1B and 1C. The title shows the numbers are %s. I see no need for 21 redundant % signs. I've retained the fixed width font in order to provide some relief from the monotonous nature of the standard wp font. I've retained the nonmetal gases in order to provide context, especially for the general reader.
  • 6b. The note has been merged into the single note occurring in the caption.
  • 7. I've removed the thick line, and used alchemy-like symbols instead. As noted previously, this kind of thing is helpful IMO to break up any impression that the different subclasses are "crisp" in nature. The endnote explains much about this. I feel that this kind of graphic, which provides two perspectives, represents a richer and more nuanced approach to the subject matter. I further presume most people are capable of holding two ideas in their head at the same time. The other thing about nonmetals is that they are by nature mostly oxidizing agents i.e. they "invite" other elements to cough up their electrons, so that the nonmetals involved can get somewhere close to completing their own valence shells. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. The focus of the article is on chemical elements with nonmetallic properties. These properties show periodicity and periodic trends, an understanding of which provides a shorthand way of grasping the nonmetals and their chemistry. Periodic trends go to the heart of chemistry rather then being incidental. Their inclusion is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate".
  • 9. I'll await your advice.
  • 10. Curious. The table has 2 columns, "Field" and "Elements", and 11 rows. This does not strike me as unwieldy. That said, I'll await your advice.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3 from YBG
[edit]
  • Previously Done: 1,4,5,6
  • Done 2b/2c/2d (list freq chart: contrast/colors/symbol size) My preference would have been for shades of the same color, but stoplight colors are perfectly acceptable to me.
  • 2a/7a You have now gained enough extra room to be able to include H in group 1 so that the layman reader only moderately familiar with the PT is not burdened with an unfamiliar PT that requires an explanatory comment.
  • New 2e It might be nice to include a light gray "M" in the metal legend, like you have in the other PT extract
  • 3 (taxonomy chart) If this were a true "basic taxonomy chart ... showing the hierarchical location of nonmetals", metal and nonmetal would only appear once each, directly underneath "element". Instead, what you have presented is an identification key showing how one identify a given substance as (among other things) a metallic element or a nonmetallic element. Yes, it is true that even a child could carefullly read it and understand it. But it is not visually comprehensible and it is clearly cluttered. And to top this all off, the definitiveness of this chart directly contradicts the statements elsewhere that there is no standard definition of "nonmetal" - or in the words of a previous version, no standard algorithm to identify a nonmetal. This chart actually presents such an algorithm. So which is it? Is there a definitive identification algorithm? Or is there no standard definition? If you accept that there is no standard definition, then perhaps this identification key is gives unWP:DUE emphasis on one particular definition.
  • Not done but OK 4a (redlinks) OK by me; I just hope no other reviewers complain about the sea of red.
  • 6a (packing efficiency chart) More comments to follow hopfully.
  • Done 6b (packing efficiency note marker)
  • Partly done but OK 7 Remaining issues are subsumed in 7x points
  • 7b (strong NM) Waiting your change
  • Done 7c (M/NM dividing line)
  • New 7d Enlarge the group numbers like you did in the other chart
  • New 7e Period numbers aren't necessary. If your point is to emphasize the lower periods, that is done quite well enough without the numbers. "lower period numbers" is synonymous with "nearer the top of the PT" which doesn't require a label.
  • 8 (in PT terms) More comments to follow
  • 9 Not done but OK (wikilinking symbols) I'm fine with whatever you've decided
  • 10 (shared uses) To follow

YBG (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sandbh (3)
[edit]
  • 2a/7a. The presentations are those depicted in the three sources cited, the first two of which focus specifically on nonmetals while the third is a trade publication aimed at general readers while also appealing to specialist readers. The note explains what's going on, unlike the three sources, and conveys the factually correct impression to the layperson that the periodic table is not carved in stone. This can be seen in periodic table variations occurring from textbook to textbook. That being so, the layperson is less likely to be discombobulated by the appearance of He over Be in the Complications periodic table.
  • 2e. There is an M in the Subclasses PT extract to distinguish its white box from the other white box in the same legend. In the Definition and applicable elements PT extract there is only one white box hence there is no need for an M.
  • 3. A taxonomy is a classification of something or a particular system of classification. There is no "true" basic taxonomy chart as such. If a child can read it and understand it does not follow that it "is not visually comprehensible" nor is it "cluttered" in the sense of "crowded so as to cause confusion." Nature has decided that the chemistry of the elements will involve numerous exceptions to general rules. Consequently some complexity is intrinsic to the field. The topic of how to write about nonmetals, and what to show in any extracts, given the lack of agreement on the term's precise coverage was previously discussed at some length during the peer review stage. That is why, among other things, there is no PT extract in the lead delineating nonmetals from metals, and why the article specifically refers to the delineation made in the chart as an example. In the end, the example is congruent with the metalloid FA. Flowing on from there, the following Criteria section notes the range of properties that have been used in attempts to refine the distinction between metals and nonmetals, and concludes with some philosophical views about this matter. The non-specificity of the delineation is a theme that runs through the article, as discussed at the peer review stage.Sandbh (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6a. Awaiting your advice (Aya)
  • 7b. Have you cleared the images from your browser's cache? This used to trip me up regularly.
  • 7d. Done.
  • 7e. The general reader may not be familiar with the fact that the rows are referred to as "periods". The following Physical properties table further refers to "Atomic radii (Å), periods 2 to 4 [n 38]"
  • 8. Aya
  • 10. Aya

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4 by YBG
[edit]

I've added a new category Not done but OK to indicate that I won't press the issue any further, though I would be glad to consider promoting these to Done if you make further changes and bring them to my attention.

  • 1a (lede). I think there is still room for improvement; I'm including this here as a reminder to me.
  • 2a/7a. (H/F vs pinking shears) Yes, the illustration is factually correct, yes it reflects literature, yes, the note makes it better than what is seen in the literature, but no, it is still an unnecessary barrier for the lay reader. I see no compelling reason why we should disregard what is best for the lay reader.
  • 2e Not done but OK (M in metal legend in list frequency PT) As you are no longer using a monochrome scale, it is not absolutely necessary.
  • 3 (taxonomy chart) You have not refuted my claim that this is an identification key and not a taxonomy chart. Taxonomy charts have only one path from the top to each term; Id keys may have multiple paths. I still maintain that this is visually cluttered and a distraction to the article and to the section that it intends to illustrate. The section would be better with no chart than with this chart. If you cannot find it in yourself to simplify the chart, I suggest that it should be removed.
  • 7b (strong metals) The daggers look better than I expected. But using two sorts of daggers adds needless complexity. If I understand correctly, the strong metals include all the halogen nonmetals plus three unclassified nonmetals. This being the case, I suggest that you use a solid marker (☀ or ◆) with the same color as the halogen nonmetals, and then add a note like this:
    ☀ The halogen nonmetals and three unclassfied nonmetals (N, O, and S) are known for the high strength as oxidizing agents.
    If you decide to go down this path, you might consider changing the halogen color to optimize the appearance of the marker.
  • 7d Partly done' (enlarged group numbers). It is slightly improved, if you can, a wee bit larger would be nice. But if not, you can consider it ok.
  • 7e Not done but OK Though I'm not convinced, I'll not pursue this further.

Summary status:

  • Done. Previously: 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4, 5, 6, 6b, 7c.
  • Not done / Partly done but OK. Previously: 4a, 7, 9. Newly: 2e, 7d, 7e
  • New discussion; awaiting Sandbh input: 2a/7a, 3, 7b
  • No new discussion; awaiting YBG input: 1a, 6a, 8, 10

— YBG (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please see the instructions here where it says "Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." They also cause problems displaying the nominations lists. Graham Beards (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have replaced those templates. Any concerns about sectionllink? YBG (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sandbh (4)
[edit]
  • 2a/7a. Thank you for the acknowledgements that, “the illustration is factually correct…it reflects literature…the note makes it better than what is seen in the literature.” I don’t accept it is an unnecessary barrier for the lay reader a significant number of whom by definition will have no idea that H above F is anything other than normal but for the explanatory note. These lay readers will come away better informed, which goes to the heart of what wp is about. Sandbh (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. YGB, the article now refers to the image as a schematic. It may, at first blush, seem somewhat complex. That is an outcome of the well-recognised intrinsic complexity of chemistry. To address this, the caption now explains what the upper half and lower half of the schematic each represent. I trust even the general reader could follow this. The image is fully consistent with the accompanying text of the section, the structure of which I rearranged in order to bring the example of properties paragraph closer to the image.
As noted and disregarded, the inclusion of the image is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7b. I’ve adjusted and shortened the caption to make things clearer. I used a dagger and a double dagger given the traditional order of footnote symbols in English, after the asterisk, happens to be †, ‡. Sandbh (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7d. Will soon do.

—Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 5 by YBG
[edit]
  • 2a/7a. I should have said it reflects a minority of the literature. I seem to be able to make no headway. I remain dissatisfied with these two charts.
  • 3. My concern is not what the image is called, but in its clutter, which is not a mere matter of "first blush". This chart is a mess because it tries to cram too much into a single image. Thorough does not mean that one should cram as much information as possible into each graphic. Again, I seem to be unable to make any headway and so remain extremely dissatisfied with this graphic.
  • 6a. I have changed to using a graph which I think illustrates things much better. Somehow the caption has disappeared. I think it would be better to use WP graph templates.
  • 7b. I have further shortened the caption. I remain unconvinced that this chart requires daggers, much less daggers of two varieties.

The FAC criteria that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" does not require that the article include every single tidbit and factoid about a subject, and it certainly does not require every graphic in the article to include every possible detail that could be included. YBG (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh (5)
[edit]

YBG, it saddens me to hear of your extreme dissatisfaction. It seems to me that your priorities are 1. simplicity(?) and 2. knowledge(?) whereas my priority is to achieve both.

  • 2a/7a. As disregarded, H over F appears in the best-selling mass-market book by Emsley, Nature’s Building Blocks. H over F is found in text books although, as noted in the caption, H over Li is more common. And I cited two nonmetal monographs showing H over F. Of course, in our PT article H should appear over Li, and it does, in the lead. Even here, as an FA, the lede PT in our PT article shows the quite rare 32-column form, and the less common arrangement of group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. Evidently there can be other overriding considerations rather than what the majority of the literature says. Later in out PT article there is a discussion on the location of H, including over F; later in the nonmetal article H is indeed shown over Li. Given the focus of the PT article, H over Li is appropriate; given the focus of the nonmetal article, H over F, properly supported with citations, ought to be acceptable.
More generally, it saddens me that despite changes made to the article in an attempt to address the concerns; and attempts to explain my philosophy in this case; your position has remained resolutely focused on your original suggestion of introducing pinking shears. To my mind a pinking shears line would introduce unwarranted complexity for some general readers along the lines of if the nonmetals are shown occupying groups 13 to 18, why is H separated from its comrades by 12 groups? This would require a further annotation, caption note, or explanation which would defeat the purpose of eliminating the small caption note about H over F, and leave some general readers with the erroneous impression that H over Li is carved in stone. More cognitive dissonance would arise when they see He over Be later on in the article.
I’m not seeking to change your mind here only to acknowledge our differing philosophical approaches to the same thing. I don’t believe either of our approaches is better than the other. Indeed, if you had edited the nonmetal article up to FAC standard you would have applied your philosophy to the image. And that could be fine. In either case I expect there would be no inconsistencies so egregiously out of kilter with the FAC standards as to merit reservations.
  • 3. Yes, I agree with you that it’s desirable, sort of, not to pack too much information into one image. I say “sort of” having regard to the 18-column periodic table in our FA PT article, which crams in a comparable amount of information yet is not criticised for being too cluttered.
In any event, streamlining of some of images in the nonmetal article occurred as a direct result of your feedback. That said, and as disregarded, chemistry is a little complicated, and the image reflects this. The image is also fully and congruously explained in the accompanying text, as changed by me in response to your feedback, not to mention the caption explaining the two halves of the image.
It again saddens me that despite changes made to the article in an attempt to address the concerns, and attempts to explain my philosophy, your position has remained resolutely focused on the original concern that the image was unclear, which has now evolved into being “cluttered”. I feel this is another philosophical difference between us, along the lines of one person’s clutter is another person’s treasure.
  • 6a. Thank you for your bold edit! Could we agree to leave this item out of the FAC process and work on it offline, presuming to do so would not impact the FAC process? I have concerns about how much more room it takes; how much harder it is to see the horizontal, vertical, and diagonal trends seen in the previous p-block image; the use of an ampersand in the title; the lack of an explanatory caption; and the needless clutter of twenty-one separate percentage signs. While the article is not about periodic trends these are important aspects of the chemistry of the nonmetals. In the interim could you correct the spelling of gasses to gases?
    @YBG: I've boldly updated the original image, using fewer colours, so as to bring things up to a higher level. Grid-lines have been added to for a more PT feel. The caption is quite short and simply refers to the overall difference between metals and nonmetal. Values for the gaseous nonmetals, in liquid form at their boiling points, have been added, to complete the picture. I hope this works for you now. Feedback always welcome. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7b. Thank you for the shortened caption! Regrettably you removed the reference to the fact that all the moderate to strong agents, apart from iodine, have a lusterless appearance. This is an important aspect of the transition from metallic to nonmetallic character. That is, the set of ten reactive nonmetals collectively closer to the metals are weak oxidising agents and when nonmetals “lose “ their metallic lustre, being closer to the right side of the PT, they become stronger oxidising agents.
If you had brought the article up to FAC standard you would not use daggers. I brought the article up to FAC standard and did use them. Neither option is better than the other. The two approaches represent philosophical differences that, in terms of the FAC criteria, are neither here nor there.

I concur with the sentiment of your closing statement that:

"The FAC criteria that an article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" does not require that the article include every single tidbit and factoid about a subject, and it certainly does not require every graphic in the article to include every possible detail that could be included."

Indeed, the article does not include every single tidbit and factoid about nonmetals, and each graphic in the article certainly does not include every possible detail that could be included. OTOH FAC criteria 1c looks for an article that is well-researched and is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, and that is what I’ve strived to do.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by YBG (6)
[edit]

Comments:

  • 1a: Lede improvement. Still in YBG's court I have now made the edits I had in mind. Done YBG (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10: Shared uses chart. Thank you for removing this. Done
  • Many other changes in response to other reviewers have resulted in great improvement.

@DePiep, YBG, Graham Beards, Double sharp, Dirac66, DanCherek, and Nick-D: Please consider these matters where Sandbh and I have different points of view.

  • 2a/7a: H/F vs H/Li. In §§ Definition and applicable elements​ and Subclasses, Sandbh uses an H/F PT with groups 13-18; I prefer an H/Li PT with a pinking shears cut for groups 2-12.
  • 3: Metal/nonmetal id key. Sandbh believes the § Origin of the concept chart helps; I believe it tries to show too much and prefer it be replaced by the earlier version or removed.
  • 6a: Packing efficiency chart. Sandbh has offered several text-based charts, e.g., the current or previous ones. I prefer an easier-to-read graphical version, but this was reverted.
  • 7b: Oxidizers. In § Subclasses, Sandbh's subclasses chart marks oxidizers with two markers (†‡). I prefer not marking oxidizers, but if they must be marked, I prefer to mark N/O/S with a solid marker the same color as the halogen nonmetals (which are all oxidizers). Of course, the color would need to change from the current pastel yellow. The note could read something like
     Light green  indicates strong oxidizers, including all halogen nonmetals and ♦ three unclassified nonmetals.
  • 8: In PT terms ¶¶. In §§ Noble gases, Nonmetal halogens, Unclassified nonmetals, and Metalloids, the "in periodic table terms" paragraphs seem IMO to be too much detail for an overview article. The statements that "this subclass forms a bridge between the class to the left and the class to the right" seems to add very little. The statements "This subclass corresponds to the X subclass of metals" seems IMO to be placing unWP:DUE weight, over-emphasizing details beyond what the emphasis found in the literature. These well-sourced paragraphs could find a useful home in an article on periodic trends, but they seem too much detail for an overview of the nonmetal elements.

If in any of these issues, a single reviewer gives Sandbh's preference a thumbs up, I will reconsider my point of view. If on any issue no reviewer favors Sandbh's preference, I ask that Sandbh would likewise reconsider his point of view. (If the above brief summary seems insufficient, please re-read the the exchanges above between Sandbh and I. If I have misrepresented Sandbh's point of view, please correct me.)

Summary status:

  • Done. Previously: 1, 2b, 2c, 2d, 4, 5, 6, 6b, 7c. Newly: 10 Newer still: 1a
  • Not/partly done but OK. Previously: 2e, 4a, 7, 7d, 7e, 9.
  • Awaiting input from other reviewers: 2a/7a (H/F), 3 (Id key), 6a (Packing), 7b (Oxidizers †‡), 8 (In PT terms ¶¶)
  • In YBG's court: 1a

YBG (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated status of 1a. YBG (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for inviting (pinging) me. I cannot understand any of this (without doing research ie homework). Maybe later on I can grasp some of the issues. By default, I tend to: "YBG is right". HTH. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: I tried to summarize things in this section so that one can simply read this section and follow the links I've given. If that is sufficient for you to make a decision on any point, say so. If not and you have a little bit more time, read Sandbh's comments in the section just below here; if he then convinces you on any of these points, indicate which ones. If reading those two sections is insufficient to convince you, only proceed to do more research (eg, reading our whole interchange) if you really have time and the inclination to do so. I am not looking for a vote or consensus here. In my mind, one person agreeing with Sandbh on a given point is sufficient for me to withdraw my objection to that point. YBG (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No bad feelings, but to me this talk-flow is chaotic. I tried to fix details, but won't push it any further. I'll do my best. All in all, does not bide "FA" for the article imo. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response to YBG by Sandbh & others (6)
[edit]
Clarification/correction by Sandbh:
@YBG: feel free to move my comments elsewhere if here is not such a good place for you.
Several improvements to the first four items were made by me in an effort to accommodate YBG's concerns. To me the situation now feels like, with no disrespect to YBG who is entitled to call it as he sees it, a case of "my way or the highway", based on subjective preferences rather than merits of the article as an FAC. As far as the images go, these are fully compliant with the FAC media criteria, as supported by accompanying captions, text, or endnotes, in each case.
For images I generally observe the principles set out in Tufte (2001, p. 13), The Visual Display of Quantitive Information:
Graphical displays should
  1. show the data
  2. induce the viewer to think about the substance rather than about methodology, graphic design, the technology of graphic production, or something else
  3. avoid distorting what the data have to say
  4. present many numbers in a small space
  5. make large data sets coherent
  6. encourage the eye to compare different pieces of data
  7. reveal the data at several levels of detail, from a broad overview to the fine structure
  8. serve a reasonably clear purpose: description, exploration, tabulation, or decoration
  9. be closely integrated with the statistical and verbal descriptions of a data set.
In this regard, the FAC Commenting, supporting and opposing instructions say, "References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it."
On item 8 I do understand the basis for YBG's continuing concern. To make things easier, here's what I explained earlier to YBG:
The well-sourced "in periodic terms paragraphs" elaborate the traditional contrast between the group 1 metals and the halogens, for example:
"…we focus mainly on the gross structure – the metals are here, the non-metals are there, and so on. Once they have grasped this, you can start to show that there’s some order to it. We talk about the Group 1 alkali metals and start to see that they’re all similar in some way. Then at the other extreme there are the…halogens. The idea that the table shows us how to group similar elements starts to come together in this way.”
--- Niki Kaiser (2019), Notre Dame High School, Norwich, UK [2]
The article where this comes from is appropriately enough called Unwrapping the periodic table.
The [citation-supported] statements about bridging subclasses are consistent with the left-to-right transition in metallic to nonmetallic character across the periodic table. For example, in the case of where the post-transition metals meet the metalloids, the associated quote shows that the notional dividing "line" between metals and nonmetals is more like a frontier territory occupied by ca. 15 metals and nonmetals.
The focus of the article is on chemical elements with nonmetallic properties. These properties show periodicity and periodic trends, an understanding of which provides a shorthand way of grasping the nonmetals and their chemistry. Periodic trends go to the heart of chemistry rather then being incidental. Their inclusion is consistent with FAC criteria 1B, comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1C, well-researched: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate".
thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I acknowledge my thanks to Sandbh for his responsiveness to my suggestions and I acknowledge that in these final sticking points we are at an impasse; I am not convinced by him and he is not convinced by me. So one could easily say that I am saying "my way or the highway". It is for this reason that I said I would reconsider my position if just one of the other reviewers supported Sandbh's side in these five disputes.
If just one reviewer agrees with Sandbh on issue 2a/7a (H/F vs H/Li), I will reconsider my position on that issue. If just one reviewer (the same or a different one) agrees with Sandbh on issue 3 (M/NM id key), I will reconsider my position on that issue. Likewise for issues 6a (packing % chart), 7b (oxidizers †‡), and issue 8 (In PT terms ¶¶).
I have pinged the other reviewers on this page and I ping them again here. I am even willing to allow Sandbh to canvas these reviewers and ask them directly for their opinion support on these five issues. I don't think I am setting a very high bar here. If just one reviewer supports Sandbh on any one of these points, I will reconsider my position on that point.
@Sandbh, DePiep, YBG, Graham Beards, Double sharp, Dirac66, DanCherek, and Nick-D:
YBG (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2a/7a is okay. Hydrogen over fluorine is not quite "standard", but no position for hydrogen really is. IUPAC puts it over lithium, G&E float it, Clayden et al.'s organic chemistry textbook put it over fluorine (notably, if we restrict to organic chemistry, H-F does make more sense). I think that suffices to show that its position is not really a "settled" question. We are discussing nonmetallic chemistry, so it makes sense to put H-F as primary here. To me it's the same situation as putting H-Li + He-Be for the table specifically illustrating the first-row anomaly. Double sharp (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Double sharp Thank you for your response. Although I would have preferred to see the pinking shears form, I will withdraw my concern for 2a/7a. I await input from other reviewers on items 3 (Id key), 6a (Packing), 7b (Oxidizers †‡), 8 (In PT terms ¶¶).
YBG I've streamlined item 3, so it's now a conventional taxonomy. I hope you'll agree it's an improvement. Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution of YBG's concerns (7)
[edit]
Approximate atomic packing efficiencies
for p-block elements
13 14 15 16 17 18
H
(9%) 		He
(1%)
B
(38%) 		C
(17%) 		N
(6%) 		O
(5%) 		F
(3%) 		Ne
(2%)
Al
(74%) 		Si
(34%) 		P
(28%) 		S
(19%) 		Cl
(12%) 		Ar
(7%)
Ga
(39%) 		Ge
(34%) 		As
(38%) 		Se
(24%) 		Br
(15%) 		Kr
(9%)
In
(68%) 		Sn
(53%) 		Sb
(41%) 		Te
(36%) 		I
(24%) 		Xe
(11%)
Tl
(74%) 		Pb
(74%) 		Bi
(43%) 		Po
(53%) 		At
(74%) 		Rn
(12%)
 
Metals Nonmetals
Solid
  (Avg: 61%)  		Solid/Liquid
  (Avg: 29%)  		Gasseous
  (Avg: 7%) 

Metals tend to be more closely packed than nonmetals.
Values for gasseous nonmetals are for the liquid as it boils.

There has been a lot of slow and steady improvement since I last contributed to this FAC. A good result of the collaborative spirit between Sandbh and the reviewers! Regarding my previous concerns:

  • (7b) Oxidizers -- I am content with the current form. I note that it was surprising to see that note 4 attached to the oxidizers does not mention oxidizing strength first thing..
  • (8) "In PT terms" -- I withdraw my objection to these comments.
  • (3) Id Key -- The chart is now much better. My only remaining concern is that the descriptions at the bottom of the chart are rather small. I think these are not essential and could be eliminated, but I will not press that issue. I would appreciate it if you would thoughtfully consider moving these descriptions into the legend under the graphic (or even in the body paragraphs) If after considering these alternatives you believe it best to leave it as it is, I am content with the current form.
  • (6a) Packing -- I think a graphical table would be a significant improvement over the tabular numbers, but I cant quite figure out a good way of doing that. The chart as it currently exists is IMO not up to FA quality. Using superscripts to represent data values is nonstandard and confusing. I have mocked up an example of what I believe would be an improved format using a more standard way of separating labels (element symbols) from values (packing %), i.e., with new lines. I have intentionally repeated parentheses and percent signs (%) to emphasizes the connection between the values in the table and the averages in the legend. As the table currently exists, with percent signs (%) only in the header and the legend, my first impression after not having seen the table for nearly two months is that the % in the legend is that 61% of the elements in the table are metals, 29% of them are liquid or solid nonmetals, and 7% of them are gaseous nonmetals. Using "Avg" in the legend also helps communicate the meaning of the data and serves to eliminate a few words in the title. I note that the communication value would be almost as good without the parentheses provided the percent signs are repeated throughout the table and legend.

YBG (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comments
Thank you.
  • (7b) Fixed. I've adjusted the endnote.
  • (7b) Thanks.
  • (3) Fixed. This particular image was previously criticised by you for having too much detail. Consequently, I reduced that detail by compressing some of it into those descriptive notes. Before that, the article had been criticised for having too much text in its table and image captions. So I'm damned whichever I go. I have however increased the size of the descriptive notes by 1 point.
  • (6a) Fixed. The blue in the mock-up is too loud, compared to the light grey and white. I couldn't get the cryptic code you were using to behave. The columns are too wide. There was a colour mismatch between the blue in the table and the blue in the legend box. Consequently, I refined the original image to remove the superscripts and adopt your format.
Thank you for your patience. Yes, I suppose after not looking at things for 1.5 months, my impression is somewhat different; making me accept some things I didn't before and not accept some things I did before. Sigh.
  • re (3), I was only hoping that you would try putting the four metal bullets and the three nonmetal ones in the caption and see whether that seems better. If it does, change it; if not, retain the status quo.
  • re (6a), I recognized that the colors I used in the markup were not good; I merely grabbed some quick ones and didn't even try to make them consistent. I should have made it clear that your color scheme was perfectly acceptable. Your pic without the parens in the PT cells is better than my mockup with parens. And it is a nice touch to have "metal" and "nonmetal" aligned with each other, though I don't know if that was intentional. Three ideas about the average percentages: (1) I don't think the brackets are necessary; (2) They would be better with "Average" or "Avg" in front of them (which would allow you to shorten the header); and (3) it would be better for the three numbers to be aligned with each other, left-to-right (either by inserting a newline after the word "Metals" or by putting "Avg 61%" &c inside a slightly wider color box.
Cartographic index locator map
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉▉
Mock-up of a PT "locator map"
Another thing. I really like having the PT extract with the lede. Here are some ideas I offer for your consideration:
  • In maps it is common to use an inset locator map. I wonder if it would be possible to use a very small PT to provide some commonly recognized context for the PT extract. What do you think of including PT "locator map" something like the mock-up shown here? If it were used, I'm not sure if it would be better above the PT extract or below it.
  • Although the current stoplight color scheme is nicely colorful, I wonder if it might be semantically more appropriate to use fewer colors: one bland color for the metals, and three different intensities of the same color for the relative frequency of classification. The different nonmetal colorations, after all, do not signify qualitatively different concepts, but quantitatively different gradations of the same concept. I am torn here between using a color scheme that grab one's attention and one that better represents the information being conveyed. Your call.
Thank you again for your willingness to engage in the give-and-take of this review process, and most especially for your extended effort to improve this article. YBG (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh comments (7)
[edit]
Prompted by your thoughts:
  1. I removed the taxonomy map and replaced it with a much simpler algorithm box.
  2. The packing efficiency chart has been streamlined.
  3. A locator map is now there.
  4. This prompted me to remove the image gallery and merge it into the gallery lower down the article.
  5. That left room to reinstate the sidebar PT directory.

One of your edits removed the locator map that you specifically requested. Did you intend to do that? Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh:. Regarding your bullets, which I changed to numbers to make it easier to see what corresponds to what:
  1. I have mixed but not strong feelings about the algorithm box. NFA.
  2. The improved packing efficiency chart is much better. I still would like to see a newline and either "Average" or "Avg" inserted before the averages at the bottom of the key. Do you object to this?
  3. Your locator map seemed too distant from the original graphic to be helpful as a locator for the PT extract and not just as one for the article's scope. Hence I replaced it with an inset locator map (intentionally, to answer your final question). You reverted what seemed to you as overpowering; in retrospect I agree and realize something toned-down like the mock-up above would have been better. Would you object if I tried to further improve the graphic?
  4. Merging the image galleries is great. NFA.
  5. Reinstating the sidebar is great. NFA.
Sidenote brought up by #2 and #3: One of the difficulties in having so much significant content in images is that collaborative improvement is orders of magnitude more difficult than simply acquiescing or reverting.
YBG (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sandbh.
@YBG: I feel that at this late stage in the FAC process (for this third time round nomination) that further improvements to the packing efficiency chart and locator map could be handled outside of the FAC process, sandbox style. I understand what you are saying about those images. Equally, the amount of code in the article came under criticism. And images reduce the amount of code. And coded tables, which this article includes, can be particularly laborious to work on in some cases. When this happens I find it is easier to whip up an image, where one also has much greater control as to what the final product looks like. OTOH I find that code is fine for simple tables namely, the "Some typical chemistry-based differences between nonmetals and metal" table, and the two property comparison tables. Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I'm not quite sure if my questions above were answered or not by your response. I see two ways forward at this point:
  1. I wait to make improvements until after the FAC is completed, which would speed the FAC process to a close.
  2. I continue to WP:BOLDly try to improve the article, relying on your GF R and D, hoping that we could reach consensus and potentially convert my abstention into enthusiastic support.
Your last response makes me think you are leaning to the 1st option, but I hesitate to put words into your mouth. I think I'd prefer the 2nd option, but don't want to pursue it if you object or if it seems that P(R) ≫ P(D). So, do you object to my tweaking the locator "map" and/or the packing efficiency chart while the FAC is still in process? YBG (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging @Sandbh: in case you missed it before. YBG (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comment: @YBG: Thanks; I prefer the 1st option. You and I have worked together on so many things now that we can work it out or agree to disagree, later on. For context, which has nothing to do with you, a total 37 editors have been involved in either the peer review or one or more of the three nominations, and I've edited the article 1,180 times since it was first nominated for FAC on July 20th, 2021. Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: OK, I will wait until the FAC closes before seeking further improvements in these areas. YBG (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Comments) from DePiep

[edit]
My more recent comments (Jan 2021) start in § Not satisfied. -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this thread, WP:TALK flow is the rule and I will maintain. You're welcome. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Periodic table (PT) illustrations
[edit]
1. Overview PT missing (=nonmetals marked, definingly opposed to metals and possibly metalloids).
With YBG (above), I looked for a list or periodic table in § Definition and applicable elements but didn't find one. The topic is nonmetals, which is in a same class level with metals (and possibly metalloids at this point). More so because this classification shows a trend (periodicity) in the PT (with hydrogen as an outlayer, and the curious staircase border, which of course are expected to be detailed in the body text). This classification being top level for the nonmetals, this image could be the top image. Details like fuzzy borders need not be addressed. Such an image is or should crisp and clear be supported in the text, not mixed up with lower level details.
If the need and location for such an image does not present itself naturally (say, from the article text & structure), this could be an indication that the text may be not well-structured.
2. Single-themed PT images: a PT illustration preferably handles a single theme (think: the legend has a one-dimensional list of keys). Rare if ever there are situations where multiple themse must be mixed — then again, this would require extra care, and space, for the graphic design.
Situation 1: Above, YBG proposes a PT with key set "all/most/some authors / never a nonmetal". This last one is from a different theme (namely, the above class overview PT). Telling is the need to describe the last one as Metals never considered "nonmetals". (Possible solution: leave it out here.)
Situation 2: Above, YBG proposes a PT with keys set "Metals / Metalloids / Unclassified nonmetals / Halogen nonmetals / Noble gases". This is mixing up two classifications: top-level classes (metal-[metalloid-]nonmetals) and subclasses ([metalloids-]unclassified nonmetals-...noble gases). At this point, this issue is irrespective of the classification systems & naming applied. So, two themes are mixed here.
Situation 3: § Subclasses (image XPT extract). The image mixes some four themes: nonmetal-subclasses (4), author-tallying (3), borders (4), plus classname-footnoting (2). The caption(!) uses seven full sentence paragraphs to describe the image; multiple graphic features are keyed verbose only; the extend of certain features is undefined (circled numbers). Possible solution: split over as many images as there are themes to show; maybe some themes do not need an image.
3. Ineffective image design: some PT-images have a poor setup, which makes it difficult to grasp their message. As said, this may be caused by themes chosen too (it might be impossible to do it right when showing multiple themes). Just listing:
- Cropped too small. Loosing location of the detail; why neighbouring columns/rows excluded?: § Properties: first (Physics) table
- Legend missing, unit ("%") moved from graph without obvious reason, § Properties: first (Physics) table.
- Irregular layout. Period numbers to the right in § Subclasses this. Incidentally, its caption requires extra HTML styling in wikitext.
4. Possible useful images missing. Since the topic is about nonmetals, their subclasses and their properties throughout, it might be more illustrative to show common properties graphically in a PT over a table. This might show PT-trends. And the opposite: if there is no trend or what to discover, one can wonder why the property is relevant for the article.
-DePiep (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) (responses below my signing please)[reply]
5.: PT better in 32-column layout. In § Complications, image PT blocks and 1st rows is used. Exactly because of what it purports to illustrate, this is an extremely obvious case to show in 32-column format. It does not help any reader to cut up an original impressive illustration into parts, to be reordered mentally before eh getting the picture. As if an IKEA cupboard is presented in the showroom in its transportation box. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh
[edit]

1. Thanks @DePiep: This was discussed during peer review. Since there is no universally agreed definition of a nonmetal it was decided to not have an overview periodic table in the lead, and to have a gallery instead.
2. The multi-themed PT has now been split into two tables, as per my responses to YBG, with some further theme trimming. While the focus of the article is on nonmetals, rather than metals and nonmetals, the inclusion of "metals" in some images and tables is intended to provide an overall context.
3. Neighboring columns/rows are excluded in order maintain the focus on nonmetals the properties of which are more or less well-known. The % has been moved to the caption in order to not have two dozen redundant % signs. The periods are there to indicate that the unclassified nonmetals mostly occupy the lower numbered periods. This results in some of them having the lowest average atomic radius of the four subclasses which goes some way to explaining their proclivity for forming interstitial compounds. The article says, "When combined with metals they can form hard (interstitial or refractory) compounds,[196] in light of their relatively small atomic radii and sufficiently low ionization energy values.[104]"
4. While that could be done, and as noted in my response to YBG, the article was criticised at FAC #2 for having too many images and tables. To some extent the common properties you refer to can be seen along the rows of the comparative tables.
--- Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Sandbh 1: "there is no universally agreed definition of a nonmetal" -- sure. But there is more between "no definition" and "definitions applied". Otherwise, this whole article is useless. Whathever "definition" (that's classification right?), it is very acceptable to note that the border (-elements) are not hard known. Or that different classification rules are applied (by authors). Because that is what the main bulk of the article actually does. How can one without the slightest treshold list & illustrate say "nonmetal halogens", but not aggregate that to the "nonmetals" (i.e., claim that aggregation is not possible)? BTW, the opposite direction, better: of course the nonmetal halogens is a segregation if the nonmetals.
BTW, wrt the peer review statements: this being an FAC, I can say that this issue affects the article being encyclopedic enough, and "well-written". One of the article's most basic statements is evaded. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC), 11:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh. I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sandbh (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re one more try. You say "no universally agreed definition", and then drop the nonmetal-classification completely. It is not revisited any more. Being not classified as nonmetals makes this article idle, as in: anything could be a nonmetal full stop. Also, elsewhere in the article a (sub-)classification is made—based on the same (absense of) such a definition (eg nonmetal halogens). Omitting the classification grounds makes the class just a bag of elements. Further more, unspecified listings of criteria topics such as in § Distinguishing criteria Note: that is not the criteria themselves. In § Definition and applicable elements there is a three-set author tallying, without assessing by what arguments these authors stated their list of nonmetals. DePiep (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC) -09:26[reply]
  • Yes, there is no universally agreed definition. However, the lead paragraph says that, "In chemistry, a nonmetal is an element that usually [italics added] gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen." Later the article says, "Broadly, any element lacking a preponderance of metallic properties such as luster, deformability, and good electrical conductivity, can be regarded as a nonmetal." And the caption to the various kinds of matter image says, in part, "The lower half is an example delineating between metals and nonmetals based on electrical conductivity, and reactions with nitric acid.[27][28][29]"
  • No, as per the above, the article does not drop the nonmetal classification completely.
  • No, anything cannot be a nonmetal given the existence of ca. 95 metals.
  • Yes the article refers to nonmetal halogens, since F, Cl, Br and I are effectively universally recognised as nonmetals as is the case, for example, with the noble gases.
  • Yes, the distiguishing criteria section lists 22 examples of criteria that have been used in an attempt to distinguish between metals and nonmetals.
  • Yes, in the Definition and applicable elements section image there is a three-set author tallying and neither Steudel 1977; Powell & Tims 1974; nor Emsley 1971 set out their criteria for deciding which elements are nonmetals although they all count C, P, Se as nonmetals. Meanwhile three of these authors count B, Si as nonmetals rather than metalloids; two count Ge as a nonmetal and one counts it as a metalloid; two count As as a nonmetal while the other counts it as a metalloid; Sb is counted by two as a metalloid and by one as a metal; and Te is counted by two as a nonmetal and by one as a metalloid. Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh. There is only one PT in this article. The 18-column form is by far the most common form in the literature. Evidently, whatever requirement there is for mental reordering is not an issue. Nothing will be added to the article by adding a 32-column form. Sandbh (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(this is re 5.: PT better in 32-column layout) It's about conveying the point it purports to illustrate. That is not a question for literature-tallying, but about science communication. No designer would design the meaningful image and then deconstruct it before presenting. The "Everybody is used to it" is probably incorrect, and anyway not a right design principle. No need is mentioned or present to cut up the PT requiriung a extra mental step to grasp it. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh. Thank you DePiep. I agree with you that conveying the point it purports to illustrate is important, as is science communication. Another important principle is being representative of the literature, having regard to the different forms of PT. Nowhere did I say "everybody is used to it". Rather. I said there is only one PT in this article, and this form with its 18-columns is by far the most common.
You're entitled to your opinion and to express it here but saying it "is probably incorrect" without explaining why, carries no weight. As you know, there are other design considerations that come into play which is that the 32-column form is widely regarded as taking up too much space, on account of its width.
Elsewhere in this page I referred to the design principles I've been following as set out in Tufte (2001, p. 13), The Visual Display of Quantitive Information. The relevant display principles in the case are 2. induce the viewer to think about the substance rather than about methodology, graphic design, the technology of graphic production, or something else; 4. present many numbers in a small space; 6. encourage the eye to compare different pieces of data.
I mention Tufte since FAC guidance is that, "References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it." Sandbh (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Properties
[edit]
  • State of matter statements. Today [24], the second and third sentence in the lede say: "At room temperature, around half are colourless or pale yellow to pale green gasses, and one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are solids, either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly; mostly silvery-gray in color."
Consider this. It says: "some are blue, others are solid". -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Some are this sort of gas, one is that sort of liquid. The others are solids, either this type or that type. YBG (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. "Some are liquid, some a gas, some are solid". So actually: "all exist". Or whatever (and there are colors too). Now, why in 2nd sentence? Why at all? -DePiep (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, "some" are not liquid. There is only one liquid. One could say around half are fluid and the other half solids. However not many folks associate fluids with gases, even though this is a technically correct description. Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased the sentences and I believe they read better now. YBG (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh, you completely ignore/don't recognise that what I pointed out and paraphrased is logical nonsense. YBG: "the dark red bromine is ..." still is nonsense. (Unless the connection is clarified in the article—quod non). -DePiep (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear:
1. State of matter of the nonmetals is indifferent, not distinctive (all SoM's are present, apparently, as are almost all in the metals).
2. State of matter does not relate to being nonmetal (not in article text)
3. State of matter does not relate to color (not in article text)
4. State of matter has no use being in the lede (being this irrelevant for nonmetals).
-DePiep (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same: In § General properties it says "Physically, nonmetals in their most stable forms exist as either polyatomic solids (carbon, for example) with open-packed crystalline structures; diatomic molecules such as hydrogen (a gas) and bromine (a liquid); or monatomic gases (such as neon)." So they "exist as ..." but distinction with metals in these regards is not made. It is left to the reader to find out whether metals do not "exist as" such. Again, this is chaotic wrt state of matter, and no relation is established (just coincidences). (btw, section title "Physics" appears twice in the TOC). -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh: The paragraph in question adds, "Metals, in contrast, are nearly all solid and close-packed, and mostly have larger atomic radii." Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(@Sandbh: why do you start replying at this place? What do you expect me to do? -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I replied to you here so my response followed your signature block, as you requested. Since I’ve now addressed your concern there is no need for you to do anything. Sandbh (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's "nearly all", so how is that meaningful? Still no attempt is made to tie SoM to being nonmetal. It is still just a listing of the property. Even worse, thereby ignoring the fact that since "they can be anything, as can be metals" makes it trivial and meaningless. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's meaningful in that while metals are nearly all solid, the situation for nonmetals, in contrast, is quite different. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh
[edit]

Color and state of matter are routine aspects of descriptive chemistry. State of matter is an important distinction between metals and nonmetals. All metals, bar mercury, are solid. The situation for nonmetals, in contrast, is quite different.

To help, here are the successive versions of the passage in question:
1. ​"…about half are gases, one (bromine) is a liquid, and the rest are solids. Most of the latter are silvery-gray in appearance, whereas bromine is dark red, and the remaining gases are colorless or are pale yellow to green. 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."
2. "…most are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, and one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are solids, either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly; mostly silvery-gray in color. In contrast to most metals, nonmetals tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity, with no structural uses."
3. "…around half are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, and one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are solids, either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly; mostly silvery-gray in color. In contrast…"
4. "…about half are gaseous and half solid; the only liquid is the dark red bromine. The gases are colorless or pale yellow to pale green. The solids are mostly silvery-gray and either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly. In contrast…"
I suggest:
5. "…about half are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, while one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are silvery-gray (barring sulfur, which is yellow) solids and either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly. In contrast…"
--- Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On General properties, the next sentence says, "Metals, in contrast, are nearly all solid and close-packed, and mostly have larger atomic radii."
There are two mentions of a Physical title, and these are in different sections, and at different levels, as follows:
 3  General properties
 3.1 Physical
 
 4 Subclasses
 4.1 Noble gases
 4.2 Nonmetal halogens
 4.3 Unclassified nonmetals
 4.4 Metalloids
 4.5 Comparison
 4.5.1 Physical
--- Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three Complications
[edit]
First row anomalies. Unclear, not defined, hard to read & understand, not sure what relation with nonmetals is.
Nowhere is described what these "first row anomalies" are (that is, in top rows/periods for each block we understand). Neither is clear how the first-rows in metals differ/equal/relate-to those of the nonmetals. After this absent description, the paragraph is hard to read & understand. It looks like there are incidental patterns.
Secondary periodicity. Not clear, hard to read & undestand, relation to nonmetals unclear.
I do not understand. Nor the concept, nor its appearance wrt nonmetals is made clear. Should one scribble notes to get the issue, like doing homework excercitions? This may sound childish, but for an FA encyclopedic article, we may expect more readibility. We must assume but cannot find that this is a nonmetal-only issue.
Unusual valence states. Not sure what its relationship is wrt nonmetals. Appears to be about a subset, so relation with nonmetals not obvious.
This might have significance, but the specific sublistings ("the heavier group 15–18 nonmetals" and "other than the lowest for their group (that is ...)") and its principle, make it look incidental/accidental not a generic property typical for nonmetals. That is, as far I can grasp from the problematic (non-crisp) wording.
-DePiep (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh
[edit]
DePiep, these three topics are set out in the lead sentence of the Complication section:
"Complicating the chemistry of the nonmetals are the anomalies seen in the first row of each periodic table block, particularly in hydrogen, (boron), carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and fluorine; secondary periodicity or non-uniform periodic trends going down most of the p-block groups;[106] and unusual valence states in the heavier nonmetals."
The relation with nonmetals is explained in the next sentence:
"In this regard, Zuckerman and Nachod opined that:
"The marvellous variety and infinite subtlety of the nonmetallic elements, their compounds, structures and reactions, is not sufficiently acknowledged in the current teaching of chemistry."[107]
The first row anomaly section discusses the unusual chemistry of H, and explains the cause and consequences of the first row anomaly for boron to neon. The accompanying image shows where it occurs. I haven't discussed the impact on metals as this is too far out of scope of the focus of the article. The article has already been criticised by YBG for having what seems to him as being too much content about metals.
The second paragraph on secondary periodicity explains where and how that comes about, and its effect. An example is shown in the accompanying image. For the same reasons as above I do not discuss the impact of secondary periodicity on metals. That said the accompanying image includes polonium, which is a metal.
The third paragraph on unusual valence states explains why this comes about, and its consequences, and gives examples. It is indeed not a general property of nonmetals; as the paragraph explains, it applies to the "atomic radii of the heavier group 15–18 nonmetals." It is thus another complication that needs to be borne in mind when dealing with the chemistry of the nonmetals.
--- Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(but why, at all, and for ffs really, do you start a new section for a reply? why? What's wrong with indenting &tc? Why do you give me homework to follow & reply to posts, my owen posts? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@DePiep: I believe the reason is that Sandbh got into this bad habit due to the discussion that he and I had in which we used that "new section" style of response. After it went on for several (!!) versions of back-and-forth, I regret that I had started that habit, and wish that I had started with a paragraph on each topic, and placed my signagture after each one, which invites the respondent to respond to each one individually. Because I entered a bulleted string of comments with but a single signature, Sandbh assumed that I wanted his response to follow all of my comments. And that is what I intended at the beginning. Only later did I realize my mistake and wish that I had signed each paragraph separately so that Sandbh would reply by indenting. YBG (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was Sandbh's own-resposible edits. No need for you to excuse whatever, and not for 'introducing habits' at all. Apart from this, one cannot expect me to reply to a post that says 2a/7a: H/F vs H/Li. In §§ ....
My guess is: either this discussion is, like, corrupted, or the article itself is failing (not FA fit). -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh. I used the new section style of response in an attempt to bring some thematic order to the conversation. One idea per section. I find it tiresome to follow multiple indents in a conversation with multiple ideas. Not to mention trying to add new comments to such a conversation and having to find the idea/comments in question in a "massive" thread containing several ideas. YMMY. Sandbh (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re the first row anomalies. So the topic is specified now (in the link). Now, in the clarification and on this page is stated like: "all first row elements have anomalies" (that's 32 then). But no distinction is made to why this would be particular to nonmetals. As is described, the anomalies affect all first row elements equally, nonmetals do not stand out. The Z&N quote invites interest, but not a base. So: not a nonmetal topic. btw, "inner analogues" isa unclear.
re secondary periodicity: obviously not relating to the nonmetals too, as the description says the issue extends to metals (La-Lu, gallium). Yes it's complicated, no it does not relate to being nonmetal.
re unusual valence states: Anyway, another decription and listing, not related to being nonmetal. (But wait. Could it be this is the opposite of complicating, that it is strengthening the nonmetal class? In that case, here an oppotunity is missed to make a case for true nonmetal properties). -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Sandbh Thank you DePiep. Yes, all first row elements have anomalies to some degree, in the approximate order s >> p > d > f. That is, the strongest impact is seen in H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne—80% of which are nonmetals.
In the case of nonmetals, the specific impact of the first row anomaly is made clear in the lead paragraph of the section:
"Complicating the chemistry of the nonmetals are the anomalies seen in the first row of each periodic table block, particularly in hydrogen, (boron), carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and fluorine; secondary periodicity or non-uniform periodic trends going down most of the p-block groups;[77] and unusual valence states in the heavier nonmetals. In this regard, Zuckerman and Nachod opined that:
The marvellous variety and infinite subtlety of the nonmetallic elements, their compounds, structures and reactions, is not sufficiently acknowledged in the current teaching of chemistry.[78]"
Yes, these things are not specific to nonmetals. Do they need to be borne in mind when considering the nature of the nonmetals? Yes.
I've clarified the meaning of "no inner analogues". Sandbh (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Properties (2: colors?)
[edit]
  • @Sandbh: current version, second sentence of the lede(!):
    "At room temperature, about half are colorless or pale yellow to pale green gases, while one (bromine) is a dark red liquid. The rest are silvery-gray (barring sulfur, which is yellow) solids and either hard and brittle or soft and crumbly."
    In other words: "Nonmetals, at room temperature, have colors". Wow. Once more I say, as with state-of-matter which was the 2nd sentence some weeks earlier: not signifying, not based on being nonmetal, not a pattern. With this chaotic lede "defining" description, I won't even care to check what (or even whether) the body article text describes & sources this statment any more. *If it were in the article body, well described & as being related to nonmetal-ness, the lede sentence would be better already. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, unlike metals ca. 95% of which have silvery appearance. No, nonmetals do not all have colours: H, N, O and the noble gases are colourless (ca 40%); F, Cl, Br, S are coloured (18%); the rest have a metallic appearance (ca 56%). Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So it says "some nonmetals have colors" then (do we expect the reader to find this themselves while reading? I did not). Which only strengthens my point: unrelated at all, so more so (ie less relevant) for the ledes 2nd sentence. The opposing metal point is not mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pending. That's a good call DePiep about the opposing metal point not being mentioned. I'll see if I can add this into the lead paragraph of the article. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To generalise this issue: this is another example of properties not related to being nonmetal, properties listed not explained from being nonmetal, and actually a very diffuse set of values that do not push forward a typical nonmetal's feature. So being more or less basesless for the topic (and thus not encyclopedic), it also leads to less-inviting reading. Let me give an illustration: "'It appears that the nonmetals contain almost all single-lettered symbols, only exceptions are ...'": true and not relevant. Any such a property may well be researched, published and sourced here (making the statement by itself being correct), when the relationship with nonmetallness is not established it is still irrelevant for this article. And makes boring reading. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Response by Sandbh: It's standard practice in chemistry to describe the physical properties of chemical elements under consideration including their appearance/colour. In the case of the nonmetals, the metallic appearance of the metalloids, and to a lesser extent, C, black P, Se and I historically resulted in some confusion as to their nature, since it was metals there were supposed to have a metallic appearance rather than nonmetals. A similar thing happened when Na and K were first isolated since they looked metallic yet floated on water. How could this be, since all metals known up to that time were heavier than water? Describing nonmetals in terms of their single-lettered symbols is not helpful. Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Berzelius specifically gave single-lettered symbols to nonmetals in cases where both nonmetals and metals began with the same letter. So, I guess it is useful to note it, but for the Chemical symbol article rather than this one. Double sharp (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion flow
[edit]

About this page's discussion structure issues, re my concerns
-DePiep (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad discussion flow (last call)

Hi Sandbh it looks like you replied to me somewhere somehere. Since I cannot detect any head or tail, I refrain from spending time on trying to understand or reply to you in this. All the best. It follows, for sound FAC reasons, that I cannot strike any of my comments. So, they still stand. For lack of proper replies (by a FAC calling Editing Author no less). -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IGF I tried responding to your comments by factoring them into discrete threads. You objected to this approach with incivil commentary [25]: "stop it. just stop it ffs. do not ever abuse or corrupt a discussion flow ever again."
Subsequently I extracted and relocated my commentary. Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses by Sandbh to DePiep

(point 0)

I've relocated my responses so that they follow your sig blocks. Sandbh (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Canvas
[edit]
That's:
Michael_D._Turnbull
Petergans
Utopes
-DePiep (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatant canvassing and all resultant declarations of support should be ignored. Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not satisfied
[edit]
  • I want to note that my concerns were not solved satisfyingly. Overall, the article still shows listings of properties, instead of description of the classifying principles. For example: as of today, the second and third sentence of the article (i.e., in the very first paragraph), still are about non-defining characteristics as color and state of matter. In the article body too, these properties are not tied to the characterisation.
  • Lack of using rigid & clarifying classifying principles, this diffuses article quality & brightness.
(1) Main classification principle, metal–(metalloid)–nonmetal is underserved. For example § Concept origin, distinguishing criteria, and use of term, no less, spends some sentences on this but easily expands into property distinctions (that is: by appearance, rarely by research or theoretical base principles).
(2) On and off, metalloids are considerred a subclass (in the nobel gases .. unclassified nonmetals set), or as a separate top-level class in metal–metalloid–nonmetal (§ General properties opening with hatnote "{{Main}}: Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals". This too is diffusing throughout.
(3) The subclassification Noble gases–Nonmetal halogens––Unclassified nonmetals–Metalloids is still problematic (while presented as the major subclassification). Apart from metalloids bing added to the p[ot (while elsewhere, on enwiki and in RL, metalloids are a different class; with reason. See note (2) above). Especially in this subclassification tyhe class-identifiers are scarce. As said before, none of the three have an undeniable case of being in that class. For example, "nonmetal halogens" is a gropuping, but it is not convincingly brought they these are and internally connected strong and externally distant—fofrom both the (other) halogens and the (other) nonmetals. And as the naming issue re "other nonmetals" says: leftpovers, but by what criteria?
  • From a more personal view (but only a bit more), I find it strange that lots of elemetn lists are present, obviously not without reason, but there is no (opening) periodic table which shows the nonmetals standing out as opposed to metals (and, one might expect, metalloids in some form).
  • This omission too can be seen as an (inverted) illustration for the lack of sound classification to present. Adding, the huge number of edits since this articles first presentation, and since opening this FAC, may be a strong sign of and a cause for the "written-by-compromise, improve-per-sentence" experience. All in all such omissions and such diffusing prose and lines of reasoning, reduce the article's encyclopedic presence. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Let me expand on (2), the Metalloids classifications. Another angle here to describe the problematic approach of classifactions (plural) in the article.
Two classifications & their classes are presented:
metals–metalloids–nonmetals (say "topclasses")
Noble gases–Nonmetal halogens–Unclassified nonmetals–Metalloids ("subclasses" by TOC)
So: the class metalloids appears in both classifications. "metalloids class" is singular in the article, no distinction is made between top and sub except, possibly, by descriptive wording.
First of all, metalloids being a subclass too is not made clear at all. Actually, I think this is the first time & place on this wiki that metalloids are considered undisputed undiscussed a subclass at all. How strong is this case in RL science, are we meeting a fringe? Metalloid class's only issue is which elements to include—in the Nonmetal class.
But while side-arguing about this inclusion issue as a border issue for nonmetals, the topclass effects of the claims and statements made in here are ignored. Blanket-adding "metalloids (whichever elements included)" to the nonmetals as a subclass, removes (denies, ignores) the metalloids class from the top-classification. Indirectly and implicitly the topclass is reduced to metal–nonmetal. This fog is also effectuated by evading plain claims in the article openings (and a more than obvious periodic table illustration with it). Actually, with current claims re metalloids, the article needs to describe two main claims: "1. Considering metalloids a nonmetal is arbitrary [in literature]; 2. Questions whether certain elements are nonmetal or not a nonmetal is arbitrary [in literature]". But now, the metalloids class keeps jumping between top and subclass, without proper differentiation.
This touches a different classification issue: the subclassification into Noble gases–Nonmetal halogens–Unclassified nonmetals. The touching point is: metalloids being a topclass, the scheme & grounds for the subclassification (say, to define the nonmetal-halogens class) are shifting while being applied. Like, "nonmetal halogens are a nonmetal subclass because X, metalloids are a subclass because, ehm, they have arrived from the outside"? This needs a separate bullet/thread (the horizontal subclassifcation, i.e. within the nonmetals).
Now whether metalloids should be added as a subclass to this article at all I am not sure about (I assume that as a topclass, its presence is undisputed). As discribed, I am missing the convincing description in the article that such a claim is fine. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by Sandbh

  • I’ve moved the periodic table extract up to the lede.
  • There is no mention of any classification “principles” since what is a nonmetal is generally defined in the topic sentence of the opening paragraph. The subsection on distinguishing criteria does however list the many criteria different authors have used in their attempts to distinguish between metals and nonmetals. As far as the classification principles used to discern what is a noble gas, halogen, or metalloid, there is no consistent approach set out in the literature (aside from the fact the noble gases are in group 18 and noble and that the halogens are in group 17 and like to form salts). These classes evolved historically in the same way as such other classes of things as tigers, galaxies, and pianolas. Among the nonmetallic elements this has resulted in some "leftover" nonmetals that do not have a widely recognised collective name.
  • I’ve removed, modified or endnoted mentions of metalloids as a separate class, in order to reduce any confusion within the article as to different taxonomies. The article elsewhere mentions that ontologically speaking, anything that is not a metal is a nonmetal and that this includes nonmetals; and that depending on the author, metalloids may or may not be recognized as a distinct class or subclass of elements.
  • Your other concerns were raised previously and responded to by me at that time. Since nothing new has been raised I intend to take NFA. Sandbh (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh:
So, the opening paragraph still mentions state as a defining property. I repeat: it is not. It is not even distinguishing, one cannot tell nonmetals apart from metals by their state, save one out of six(? or nine) situations. Indeed, I have made these objections before [26]. I still have not learned why an article about "X" does not open with "an X is ...". Instead, it keeps saying "X looks like non-X". In the opening paragraph. (btw, what is NFA?).
Now the top image is a periodic table cutout that is secondary to the topic, and is being described in the second half only. The subclassification is *not* essential for describing "what is a nonmetal". Quite simple: an article on X can present "X" in top. That is: full periodic table, because nonmetals are defined as opposed to metals. No need to throw in "halogen nonmetals" in opening image. (I add: the second image finally does show ththese two classes, but the two ?-exceptions are not needed here at introductionary level). Months and hundreds of edits on end, the article does not aim to make clear what nonmetals are. Instead, diffusing criteria are spread all over (that is, mentioned not qualiofied often, or even referred to a source only).
I am surprised that the metalloids have disappeared nigh completely from the top classification ie, metal-metalloid-nonmetal ("removed, modified or endnoted mentions of metalloids as a separate class"). Mayby good to simplify article setup (not mixing the two classifications), but any reasoning on why/whynot metalloids are nonmetals is buried & hidden. Their discussion on metalloids as distinct top class is missing. Even worse: they are talked out of the top here above, in a reply to me, and by word-replay only. To me, this write-out omission touches OR/UNDUE/FRINGE issues.
-DePiep (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance of the metalloid-hiding pattern in this article:
§ Definition and applicable elements (h2-section #1, ie top in TOC) says:

"Nevertheless some variation may be encountered among authors as to which elements are regarded as nonmetals, especially where the metals meet the nonmetals in periodic table terms.

I can't believe this degrading of this class into TEFKAM (The Elements Formerly Known As Metalloids) is mainstream in RL chemistry/physics science. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (inc. Support) by Dirac66

[edit]

I would like to see more details on which elements are nonmetals and why. The section "Definition and applicable elements" has a partial periodic table showing 14 elements "included by nearly all authors", 3 "included by most authors", and 6 "included by some authors". We really should have a source for these qualitative estimates. Also it would nice to know WHY some authors consider a given element metallic and others authors consider the same element nonmetallic. For carbon as an example, my unsourced guess is that most authors consider it nonmetallic because it forms so many covalent bonds, but that some would call it metallic because graphite is an electrical conductor. It would be better to have a sourced summary of the arguments on both sides (metallic and nonmetallic) for all 9 elements listed as controversial. Dirac66 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dirac66: There are 0 literature sources treating the gases or Br or I as metals, consistent w/the specialist sources in the monographs section. There are however single sources in the literature counting, H, N, I and Rn as metalloids. These 14 elements are thus “nearly all”. The variable treatment of metalloids is discussed in the article, with citations. On this basis they’re coloured sometimes counted. C, P, and Se are routinely counted as nonmetals in the literature, consistent w/the monographs section. That said there are 16, 10, and 40 citations recognising them as metalloids in lists of metalloids as cited in doi:10.1021/ed3008457 itself cited 42 times in the academic literature. On that basis these elements are coloured as usually counted.
I could add the single citations for HNIRn, and add a further cite of doi:10.1021/ed3008457 to support the CPSe situation. Arguments for 8 of the 9 are set out in Metalloid. I could copy those to this article, and add pro’s and con’s for P. Does that seem reasonable? Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For B, C, Si, P, Ge, As, Se, Sb, Te your solution does seem reasonable. For H, N, I, Rn if they are only cited as nonmetals once each in the literature, I would be inclined to leave them out of the nonmetal article. If we do add any of them a source is required by Wikipedia rules, but a simpler solution is to just decide not to add them. Dirac66 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will implement 1st suggestion as soon as. There may be a short delay until I get to my desktop, in two days, as doing it on my iPad may be painful.
To clarify, H, N, I, Rn are effectively always classified as nonmetals, aside from isolated peer-reviewed literature references counting them as metalloids. Subject to your thoughts, I’ll change the 14 to “effectively always” and seek to add a brief endnote to clarify what is meant by “effectively”. Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OP asked "... more details on which elements are nonmetals and why". This not an answer. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC=

Comment. @Dirac66: Rather than transcluding a lot of text, endnotes, citations and reference, I've copyedited, and added further citations to, the lead paragraph in the Definition and applicable elements section to address your WHY question. The caption notes for the accompanying image now have either endnotes pointing to supporting citations, or a specific citation. Does this address your concerns? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks mostly ok, except that I have made 2 small changes. 1. I changed "can be counted as nonmetals" to "are sometimes or usually considered as nonmetals", and 2. I added a link to the article "Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals" for more information. I agree however that there is no need to transclude a lot of text etc. from this article - just tell the interested reader that there is more information there." Dirac66 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirac66: I am wondering if you may now be in a position to support, or otherwise, my nomination. No pressure, no obligation. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that on the whole that is a well-written article on an important aspect of chemistry, so I support its appearance as a Featured article. Is this comment here sufficient or am I supposed to add it on some administrative page for FA candidates? I don't know the procedure. Dirac66 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just put support in bold and with an uppercase S. It will be picked up. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica definition: nonzero band gap
[edit]

I notice that the Encyclopedia Britannica at [27] defines a nonmetal as a substance having a "finite" (i.e. nonzero) band gap for electron conduction. I realize that not all authors accept this definition as complete, but it does have the advantage of being a clearcut criterion to decide whether any given substance is a nonmetal or a metal. Dirac66 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dirac66. Band gap is included in the Distinguishing criteria section as one the properties used in an attempt to delineate between metals and nonmetals.
As you allude, such a definition experiences issues with the most stable forms of C, As and Sb.
C as graphite, which is commonly recognised as a nonmetal, has a tiny band overlap of ca. 41 meV.[28] As and Sb are counted as either nonmetals or metalloids, or both, by a significant number of authors, yet both are semimetals with small band overlaps, and both are metallic conductors. On this basis, some count As and more often Sb as metals, even though the chemistry involved in each case is predominately nonmetallic in character.
In an effort to avoid these difficulties, classes in classification science are usually defined by more than two attributes. A kind of triangulation, if you will.
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

An commendable effort has clearly been made here and without wanting to come across as overly critical I have some concerns:

  • Images - are they all necessary or just decorations? The circuit-breaker, the 747, the fire extinguishers and the portrait of the alchemist for example:?
    Done. No; not necessary; more like eye candy designed to catch or relieve the eye. I've removed them. That said, if another editor subsequently wanted to add them back later on, I'd find it hard to object. Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables - the "Physical", "Chemical" and "Shared Uses" tables are information overloads; there's too much detail for an encyclopaedia in my view.
    Done. I've reduced the tables down to one small table, consistent with the example in the metalloid article, here. The shared uses table has been deleted. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes - way too many.
    In progress. Do you have an indicative number or range of endnotes you have in mind or would be comfortable with? The endnotes tend to arise due to the complexity of chemistry, there being many exceptions to general observations. A fair number of endnotes belong to images, where the same consideration arises. Rather than overly long captions, the nuances get assigned to the endnotes. Is it acceptable to incorporate some of the too many endnotes into the main body of the article? Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The # of footnotes has fallen from 63 to 48 25. Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Graham Beards (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do 5,6 and 7 have to be so long? Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. They're now 4, 5, 6. Note 4 is only as long as it takes to outline why N, S and I are rather hobbled as oxidising agents. I've halved the length of note 5, thank you. I trimmed note 6 down to about a third of its original size, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Graham Beards: that's very gracious of you. Comments above. I'll have some further housekeeping to do in checking for orphaned references given my trimming. Sandbh (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations 10, 11 and 12 are broken.
    Fixed. That was a result of me removing the shared uses table. They were repaired shortly after your post, by User:Nucleus hydro elemon thank you! As noted, I have still to check for any other broken citations (or orphaned refs), as a result of recent trimming. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't use et a. in cite#114 see Help:CS1_errors#explicit_et_al Graham Beards (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Response by Sandbh: The article doesn't use the optional cite style templates which would cause such errors. Sandbh (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The error was fixed by JohnB123 on 12 November ! See [29]- Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Broken citations and orphaned refs checked/corrected/removed. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the relevance of "otherwise" in this figure legend, "A partially filled ampoule of liquefied xenon, set inside an acrylic cube. Xenon is otherwise a colorless gas at room temperature."
    I intended it to mean that outside of the confines of its room temperature ampoule, xenon is a colorless gas rather than a liquid. Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the footnotes, how many of these "nuances" are needed in an encyclopaedia article? This should not emulate a monograph; it should give a general overview of the subject, written in summary style.--Graham Beards (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, I hope. The number of notes has been reduced from 63 to 25. Of the remaining notes, 14 belong to images or tables. The remaining 11 are attached to text. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations. Some of these are very old and are primary studies from the previous century. Aren't there any recent secondary sources that can used instead? --Graham Beards (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On very old sources, Bond (2005, p. vii), in Metal-Catalysed Reactions of Hydrocarbons writes:
    "I started research in 1948. I can…remember papers that are becoming lost in the mists of time, and I shall refer to some of them, as they still have value. Age does not automatically disqualify scientific work; the earliest paper I cite is dated 1858."
    Older sources, once a reader knows where to look, tend to be easier to look up via e.g. the internet archive. Primary sources are allowed within the scope of WP:PSTS which says articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mistaken. Our readers expect our articles to be up-to-date and based on recent sources. Graham Beards (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example for the citation "Dupasquier A 1844, Traité élémentaire de chimie industrielle, Charles Savy Juene, Lyon." from 1844, you could use this source, "Looking for an Order of Things: Textbooks and Chemical Classifications in Nineteenth Century France from 2002. Graham Beards (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I partly agree with you. Our articles should be up to date which is the case for the nonmetal article having worked it on and off for the past eight years. At the same time: (i) I don't believe it is a wp policy requirement for editors to effectively tear their hair out asking themselves if they've found the most recent reliable source, rather than a reliable source; (ii) per the Bond quote, age does not disqualify a source; (iii) it is a myth that the more recent a source the more pertinent it must be; (iv) in the case of descriptive chemistry, which this article is substantially concerned with, many of the facts have been known from before the 1950s, and don't change; (v) modern textbooks don't focus so much on descriptive chemistry since these facts can be looked up in older texts.
    I'm familiar with Looking for an Order of Things article. In that case I choose to cite the primary source, given its historical significance. The same happened where I cited Mendeleev twice. I've now added the Looking for an Order of Things citation to the Dupasquier citation. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a guideline on this at WP:AGE MATTERS. I would prefer to see these ancient sources replaced by modern secondary ones. Graham Beards (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment re older refs: Thanks for that policy reference Graham. It says:
    "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine."
    The older references are accurate, and have not been superseded. While I prefer to use relatively modern established sources such as Greenwood & Earnshaw; Wiberg; or Emsley, simply because that is less work, I sometimes have to fall back to more recent or older sources. In my experience it is easier to find superseded or dubious literature than it is to find RS.
    Out of the 236 sources, I checked the oldest 23, spanning 1651 to 1949. Broadly they are either historical examples; historical facts known to still be accurate; or backed up by later cites; or luminaries such as Mendeleev, Herzfeld, and Deming whose views are still current.
    Alternatively, I welcome any good-spirited disputation on the accuracy of any of the citations.
    As this is not a medical article the general preference for newer sources is n/a.
    I acknowledge your preference for secondary sources, noting primary sources are allowed within the scope of WP:PSTS which says articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We await the source review, which is an integral part of the FAC process. My advice in the interim is to replace the sources from before this century. If the facts can only be sourced to books such as "A Companion to Physical and Inorganic Chemistry (R.W. Stott - 1956)" , they are probably not worth mentioning. Graham Beards (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandbh response. Graham, as explained per WP:AGE MATTERS, there is no basis for your advice in the context of WP policy. Stott's rather good book, which I have a copy of, is mentioned once in a section of the article that has a chronological listing of suggested criteria for distinguishing between metals and nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monographs. What is the purpose of this section? Are any of the works cited? Graham Beards (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per MOS:FURTHER, the purpose is to provide a chronological, consolidated list of nonmetal monographs, which could enable the interested reader to further trace classification approaches in this area. A few of them are cited in the article, as permitted by MOS:FURTHER. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They have little value and are not worth bloating the article with. Graham Beards (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved. See below. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. I think you have to decide if you want this to be like a chapter in a textbook cum monograph or a Featured Article in an encyclopaedia. They are not compatible. WRT MOS:FURTHER, just because something is allowed (and you are bending the rules here) does not mean it is needed or it improves an article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved. I've moved Monographs into its own article, List of nonmetal monographs and added a See also link. Sandbh (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations: I can't see the point of these in an general encyclopaedia article. What purpose are they serving that cannot be achieved by paraphrasing? The article is not called History of nonmetal classification. They come across as an attempt at some sort of pretentious philosophical aside. Graham Beards (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Response by Sandbh: Sometimes an author captures an idea so beautifully that paraphrasing would do it an injustice. Such quotes serve to add mental variety, in the same way that images can do. In any event, there are just 153 words set out in quotes = 2.5% of the article (excl. TOC, the two property tables, and end matter). The focus of the article is on the concept of a nonmetal, their properties, and chemistry. Given the lack of a universal definition of a nonmetal, some discussion of the history of the concept sheds light on the current day situation. Sandbh (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on Criteria 1c (citations) and 4 (Summary style). I'm sorry I don't agree with you on these points. - Graham Beards (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go with the consensus, which is on this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Coordinator: The article has improved as a result of Graham’s feedback for which I thank him. More broadly, I’ve either fully addressed Graham’s comments, or attempted to accomodate them, or explained my position on the basis of WP policy or FAC criteria, including having regard to the complex nature of the subject matter. Acknowledging and respecting Graham’s entitlement to express his opinion, I consider Graham’s Criteria 1c has no basis, as I’ve explained. As to 4, I’ve reduced the word count of the article by 25% since it was nominated, and it’s size has fallen from 185K to 123K. In the context of the literature, the current word count of this vital article (ca. 7,000) is equivalent to ca. 1.8% of Stuedel’s 2020 book, The Chemistry of the Nonmetals. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (comments) from Doncram

[edit]
"Oppose" struck out by me, to indicate I see that much progress was made, although I haven't completely sorted it out, and upon further review I would likely "support" or at least "not oppose". I have meant to come back and respond substantially. Now I see this FAC is closing soon or is already closed. I am sorry if my delay has been problematic. --Doncram (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfamiliar topic area for me, but someone suggested i participate, and i may try.

  • First note: Sentence "Fourteen elements are nearly universally included, with nine more sometimes also added, making the number of nonmetals typically range between fourteen and twenty-three." seems really awkward to me. And after thinking about some big random range being implied, then deciphering for a while, it seems to me the sentence doesn't say much. Given that min is 14 and max is 14+9, then any estimate must _always_ be between 14 and 23. And is there in fact a range of estimates, or is it only the 14 camp vs. the 23 camp? --Doncram (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Doncram. It's good to have someone unfamiliar have a look. Specific comments to follow. Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The challenge is that there is no standard defintion of a nonmetal. It's a bit like attempting to define what room temperature is, there being many possibilities. Therefore, the number of elements recognised as nonmetals varies from author to author. 14 is a typical minimum; 23 is a typical maximum, with 15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22 all being conceivable. For now, I've adjusted the passage in question as follows:
    No standard definition distinguishes nonmetals and metals. Consequently the number of elements recognised as nonmetals depends on the classification criteria used by each author. Fourteen elements are nearly always included. Up to about nine more nonmetals are sometimes added. The number of nonmetals therefore typically ranges from fourteen to twenty-three.
    --- Sandbh (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further thought, and considering the introduction in the metalloid article, I am wishing this nonmetal article would more positively attempt to define what nonmetals are, up front, than it currently does, for the naive reader such as myself. And I also wish that the intro should acknowledge the existence of metalloid classification, which is currently (deliberately) left out of the intro, but introduced later in the article. The current first sentences are:

In chemistry, a nonmetal (from Old Latin noenum "not one"; from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is an element that usually gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen. Nonmetals display more variety in color and state than do metals. About half are colored or colorless gases whereas nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids. They tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no load-bearing uses, in contrast to most metals.[1]

  • Sandbh comments: Doncram, I don’t know how the intro could more positively attempt to define what nonmetals are than it already does. Metalloids are not acknowledged in the intro since the article is primarily not about them as such and while metalloids are mentioned by a fair number of authors it is not clear they are mentioned by the majority of authors.
    Please further bear in mind that I've attempted to write the article in the manner that nonmetals are discussed in the literature rather than the way you feel they ought to be discussed. As well, it's a characteristic feature of chemistry that non-precise concepts and models are extremely successful in explaining chemical findings, which can be sometimes difficult to get comfortable with, especially for non-chemists. While I try to limit the fuzziness there's only so much I can do.
    Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, that narration is too self-confident that it has defined what a nonmetal is, and the narration goes on too soon into backtracking ("No standard definition exists..." ) and into empirical details, like reporting numbers of percentages of authors (out of some undefined set of authors) who say there are 14 or 23 or whatever, when I am not yet ready for that. I would prefer that the term "chemical element" be used rather than just "element", to help clarify what is being talked about, as is done in the intro of the metalloid article, and for the context to be defined as being about dividing between metals vs. nonmetals, or between metals vs. metalloids vs. nonmetals. At first usage, for me, an "element" could mean a classical element or any kind of component of something else, but you mean chemical element so that should be said. And I feel there is need to assert some importance of this term, e.g. to assert that the term nonmetal is in fact commonly used despite its difficulties, or there is need to explain this is a historic term that is no longer used and no longer important which would be very plausible (especially as we are about to be told of many deficiencies of the term).
    Sandbh comments: The narration uses three qualifiers namely “usually”, “tend to”, and “most" hence it is not self-confident as you may feel.
    I see what you mean about backtracking in the second para of the intro. That needs to be addressed.
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The figure of 14 nonmetals nearly always recognised as such is based on citations mentioned later in the article, recalling that the intro is a key point summary of the main body of the article.
    Done. I’ve added “chemical” to element, as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The metalloid article currently starts:

A metalloid is a type of chemical element which has a preponderance of properties in between, or that are a mixture of, those of metals and nonmetals. There is no standard definition of a metalloid and no complete agreement on which elements are metalloids. Despite the lack of specificity, the term remains in use in the literature of chemistry.

  • How about, to start:

A nonmetal is a type of chemical element which has a preponderance of properties that are opposite to those of metals. There is no standard definition of a nonmetal and no agreement on which elements are which, although the periodic table of the 118 so-far-observed elements is usually presented with a zigzag line dividing them. Also, a number of elements who have properties in between are commonly termed metalloids. Despite some lack of clarity for the term, it remains in use in the literature of chemistry.

  • Sandbh comments: No, the opening sentence should seek to define what a nonmetal is, rather than define it in terms of what it is not. Defining it in terms of having a preponderance of properties opposite to metals says nothing unless you spell out what the properties of metals are, which is a rather clumsy and inefficient way of going about things. As well, not all nonmetals have a preponderance of properties opposite to metals; some have a mixtures of metallic and nonmetallic properties including intermediate properties.
    I understand you would like to define nonmetals directly in terms of their properties, but while the current first paragraph discusses properties, that seems like a discussion of the properties of nonmetals if you knew what nonmetals were. It does not seem to me to define what nonmetals are. I gather my attempt is also inadequate (including because they don't in fact have a preponderance), but I am trying to help provide a definition. If it is impossible to define nonmetals positively in terms of their properties, then one may have to go back to saying they are a group of chemical elements that are not metals. Okay, more specifically about the current first sentence, that a nonmetal "is a chemical element that usually gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen." Do you see what I mean that it is nondefining? "An element that usually gains electrons" is an odd idea; it is suggesting that there is a substance which sometimes gains electrons and sometimes does not. While I think you mean that most nonmetals gain electrons while some nonmetals do not. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the nobel gasses do not react with metals and gain electrons, and I also believe that they do not combine with O and H to form acids. So gaining electrons is not a defining characteristic. I get that you want to talk early on about properties, but that is not the same as providing a definition to the reader for this concept, i believe. I do suppose I may be completely wrong, and that "An element that usually gains electrons" may in fact be really clear as a definition for persons who are more knowledgeable about chemistry than I am. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandbh comments: Well, the opening paragraph says a nonmetal is a chemical element. If you don't know what a chemical element you can check the wikilink. Having done that I hope things would begin to fall into place. No, the definition does not imply that a nonmetal is a substance that sometimes gains an electron when reacting with a metal and sometimes does not. It says nonmetals "usually" gain electrons when they react with nonmetals. The "usually" is what characterises nonmetals. Of the noble gases none react directly with metals AFAIK although xenon can be found in compounds bonded with metals. While xenon does not gain electrons from metals neither does the definition say all nonmetals gain electrons from metals. It only says they usually do. Xe forms an acid when combined with H and O, in the form of xenic acid. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While a fair number of periodic tables have a zig zag line there is no evidence that they usually have such a line. The lack of clarity is more about which elements are counted as metalloids; there is no lack of clarity, in the same sense, about the term nonmetal. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thot my wording was a decent shot at introducing important concept of metalloids (things that are between) which also fully communicates that there are no fixed definitions, that there are disagreements, obviating need to state that. It seems to me that there is indeed a lack of clarity about what are nonmetals, because 6 of the 23 are termed metalloids in contrast to being nonmetals. The category of metalloids does not just steal from the metals, it also steals from the nonmetals. I think you simply have clear knowledge in your mind what nonmetals are, so you can handle various statements that distress me because they undermine my belief that the concept of nonmetals has yet been defined, as I read forward in the intro.
  • The 14 commonly recognized nonmetals are Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorine, Neon, Sulfur, Chlorine, Argon, Bromine, Krypton, Iodine, Xenon, and Radon. In most [textbooks?/historic literature/modern literature?] Carbon, Phosphorus, and Selenium are also included. Sometimes included are Boron, Silicon, Germanium, Arsenic, Antimony, and Tellurium, although these six are the elements most commonly called metalloids, instead.
    Sandbh comments:Yes, your wording was a decent shot, and gave me pause for thought. Recall we are talking about the intro, which is supposed to be a high-level summary for the general reader. In my view metalloids are not so important in an article about nonmetals that they need to be included in the intro, and thereby risk confusing the general reader further. Of course, the metalloids are discussed in the main body of the article, and that is appropriate. Bear in mind, too, that not all authors recognise the concept of metalloids and that there is no evidence AFIK that the majority do, in comparison the two "great" classes of metals and nonmetals.
    It's been known for over a century that metalloids behave chemically predominately like nonmetals. The reasons why they're less frequently regarded as in-between elements is too complicated to, IMO, go into here.
    About statements causing you distress I'm not sure what gain there is from becoming distressed apart from, I suppose, prompting you to post here. But that can be done without getting distressed in the first place. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Sandbh comments: No, those 14 are effectively always recognised as such, rather than commonly recognised as such. It is not helpful to encumber the general reader with a long recounting of the names of 14 items, followed by further mentions of 3 and six such items. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a list is indeed "encumbering" in a way, but stating this is actually positively saying nonmetals are something. They are these items. And there should be a full or partial periodic table right next to this paragraph, with the nonmetals color-coded. As a reader I am more willing to temporarily accept that nonmetals are defined as this list of items, and be "encumbered" with wanting to know why they are named nonmetals, why it useful to discuss them as a group, etc. I will then want the rest of the article to explain. I am less willing to accept that there exists a definition already in the current first paragraph, in which any idea of nonmetal is slippery, it seems to me. The elements are in fact listed in the next(?) section of the current article, so it is not useless to list them, it does have to be done. And doing it here would provide me something that I may accept as a definition, at least for now. But again, maybe this article should not be aimed at serving me as a reader, maybe I am just too needy about wanting a definition, and it is better to serve readers who are not anxious (because they already know what nonmetals are, or for other reasons). --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonmetals make up more than 99% of the observable universe by mass,[2] and [more than half / about 60% or whatever is true] of the Earth's crust, oceans, and atmosphere.[3] This despite the fact that the 14 or 17 or 23 nonmetals are far outnumbered by the 104 or 101 or 95 elements remainder of the 118 so-far-observed elements, which are termed metals or metalloids.
Sandbh comments: The intro explains that nonmetals are chemical elements. The image gallery at the top right givens four examples of what they look like. As I believe I have explained, there used to be periodic table right at the top of the article showing the elements regarded as nonmetals. This was criticised by other reviewers for implying a level of precision that is not present in the literature. So I moved it further down into the article, where it becomes less controversial. I regret that I cannot provide you with a level of certainty that is beyond that which is provided for in the literature.
Yes, I agree the elements involved are listed in the next section of the articles along with explanatory comments appropriate for the main body of the article, rather than its intro,
As with becoming distressed, I'm not sure what is gained by becoming need or anxious. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Sandbh comment: Yes, I agree with you that the current paragraph could be better expressed. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to introduce numbers 104, 101, and 95, but that can be avoided as here done by strikeout and new wording, i.e. just stating that the rest are metals or metalloids, out of 118 total number of elements. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It'll take me a little longer to add a new supporting cite. Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic roles or uses. Living organisms are composed almost entirely of the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.

Physical properties and chemical properties of nonmetals (from Old Latin noenum "not one"; from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") include that they usually gain electrons when reacting with a metal, and they usually form an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen. Nonmetals display more variety in color and state than do metals. About half are colored or colorless gases whereas nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids. They tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no load-bearing uses, in contrast to most metals.[4]

Sandbh comment: No, in descriptive chemistry (which this article is mainly about) one starts with describing the subject/s in terms of their properties, rather than leaving this to last. That is why the picture in the intro shows four different kinds of nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again I understand what you want, but I don't see that the description defines what nonmetals are. "They tend to be poor conductors" means some or most of them are poor conductors, so that is not defining. That is why I suggested changing the order. I do see that the properties are important, so maybe the description of properties should be longer. I also see that my views are not going to change yours, which is okay. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh comments:The definition does not say they are poor conductors. It says they "tend to be" poor conductors of "heat and electricity". This is an overall defining characteristic of nonmetals. Your views count as seen in the refinements I made to the article. In any aspect in which I didn't agree with you I attempted to explain my reasoning. I've also needed to attempt to accommodate the views of about 16 other reviewers, over the course of (so far for this article) two unsuccessful FAC nominations; one peer review process; and this still open FAC nomination. Thanks very much for your interest and tolerance. Sandbh (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This approach feels to me as more positive. --Doncram (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Johnson 1966, pp. 3–6, 13–15, 113
  2. ^ MacKay, MacKay & Henderson 2002, p. 200
  3. ^ Bettelheim et al. 2016, p. 33.
  4. ^ Johnson 1966, pp. 3–6, 13–15, 113
  • Note 2: about etymology of term, in the lede I wanted to see something in the intro + definitions sections explaining where the term nonmetal comes from, how the term derives. I do see there is some/much of that later. Perhaps something from that could be summarized in the lede? Where on earth are we coming from, to arrive at this term? Perhaps if we are starting as scientists figuring out the periodic table of the elements, it would make sense to consider some "metallic" vs. others not being metallic (which I think is the context suggested later). If we are, say, construction workers though, I would be thinking some fasteners/screws were metallic while others were plastic and could not be found by running a magnet along a wall. Maybe some composite materials have metal included and are seen by metal detector, in which case they are clearly metallic. I really was at a loss through the intro. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The scope of the article is chemistry, and what is a nonmetal in that context, rather than materials science, hence plastic fasteners don't come into play. I could change the name of the article to Nonmetal (chemistry) if you feel that could help.
    I've added an etymology to the topic sentence of the lead. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you did add that the parenthetical (from Old Latin noenum "not one"; from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") but actually I personally don't think that is useful enough in the very beginning, before the term nonmetal has been well enough defined for my taste; it comes across to me as extra/unwanted detail at that point. What I actually was looking for was not this etymology, but rather a statement like "The term nonmetal came into use in the late 1600s within the literature among alchemists who were attempting to identify and characterize fundamental substances...." (example text made up by me). That gets at the type of context I am looking for as a naive reader. And something like that might pair up nicely with a statement about usefulness or prevalence of the term nonmetal in modern times. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Etymology removed. Historical lead-in added to intro. Looks better now, thank you Doncram. Sandbh (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3: I assumed that there were some small number of non-metals, perhaps about as many as elements known as metals, and that there were other elements which were neither. The intro does not contradict that. I thought it was suggesting that nonmetals were things that are close to metals somehow, or react with them to make rust or similar, while there would exist other elements that were not paired to metals. You state that "Although five times more elements are metals than nonmetals, ..." without having defined what metals are. Okay, somehow there are 5 times 14-23 metals, but I do suppose there are many more elements that are neither. When I guess you mean metals are all non-nonmetals? But later in the article it turns out you mean most elements are termed metals, while only a few are not, and these are called non-metals. Perhaps you are strenuously avoiding defining what a metal is, while I look for that, want to know, am surprised there is no link (at least not in intro) to an opposite article on metals. Not sure if metal would be that link, because it is not just about elements that are termed metals; it is also about alloys and more. (From metal article: "A metal (from Greek μέταλλον métallon, "mine, quarry, metal") is a material that, when freshly prepared, polished, or fractured, shows a lustrous appearance, and conducts electricity and heat relatively well. Metals are typically malleable (they can be hammered into thin sheets) or ductile (can be drawn into wires). A metal may be a chemical element such as iron; an alloy such as stainless steel; or a molecular compound such as polymeric sulfur nitride.") Aside: is it fair to consider all molecules that are not termed metals, to be non-metals? I bet not, i bet you mean "non-metals" to be only the elements that are not termed metallic. I think it would be a good complementary approach for you to define or describe what you mean by metals in the intro, and state that non-metals are all the other elements (presumably the elements that don't conduct electricity and heat very well). --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncam, could you please bear in mind there are only so many things I can fit into the intro, and that earlier iterations of it were criticised for being too long.
    Since the intro is a summary of the main body of the article this explains why it's not until paragraph 3 of the intro that it's noted there are ca. 5 times as many metals as nonmetals. Correspondingly, the main body of the article first discusses the question of what is a nonmetal and then mentions ca. how many there are.
    Some authors refer to some elements as being neither metals or nonmetals, calling these elements metalloids. This is not mentioned in the intro for space saving reasons and given that metalloids behave predominately like chemically weak nonmetals. The existence of metalloids is linked in the Definition and applicable elements section. The taxonomy chart in the Origin of the concept section further notes that:
    "Some authors divide the elements into metals, metalloids, and nonmetals although, on ontological grounds, anything not a metal is a nonmetal.[30]"
    In light of the above, and in my opinion, acknowledging YMMV, I feel there is no need to mention metalloids in the intro.
    As the intro reads to me it does not imply that nonmetals are close to metals. Paragraph 1 notes that nonmetals, "tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no structural uses, in contrast to most metals."
    As noted above, para 1 of the intro broadly covers off what metals are.
    Per your good suggestion, I've added a w/link to "metal" in the lede to the chemical properties section of the metal article.
    On your aside, molecules tend not to be referred to as metals or nonmetals. Rather, where applicable, they can be referred to as having a metallic appearance (galena), or as being metallic conductors (polythiazyl). Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 4 (point related to note 3): Refocus to metals vs. nonmetals. If there is not an article about "metal" as you mean it, then should this article be focused upon "metals vs. non-metals", covering both. Should this be reworked to be titled something like "Nonmetals vs. metals in the Periodic Table of Elements"? --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, each article can focus on its own topic. Per my suggestion it may be better to rename this article as "Nonmetal (Chemistry)." The metal article may benefit from being separate into at least "Metal (chemistry)" and Metal (materials science). And perhaps Metal (astronomy). It's tricky. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 5: About number of elements which exist. This does not make sense. If there are up to 23 nonmetals, then there are up to 115 metals 23 x 5 = 115 metals. I know for a fact there are at least 239 elements, because isn't there Uranium 239? So there are in fact a very large number of elements that are neither metals nor non-metals. And you must mean non-metals to be some particular category of elements that do react with metals or something. How do you rule all those others out? Are you only considering a narrow context of, say, elements that exist at room temperature in a pure state? The context/scope we are to be thinking about is not at all defined. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Note 5: you are confusing elements and isotopes. Uranium-239 is one of several isotopes of the element uranium. The number of elements observed to date is 118, but the number of isotopes is much higher. In this article we are talking about elements, not isotopes. Dirac66 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, duh on me, sort of. I was in trying-to-make-sense-of-this mode. (But, by the way, then what about different isotopes, are all the isotopes of a given element always either metal or nonmetal (because I wouldn't rule out idea that reactivity would vary, right? It would maybe be good to say this is about elements, i.e. about nuclei having different number of protons, while different numbers of neutrons given a fixed number of protons does not make a difference in metalness which might not be about reactivity after all). And okay maybe U-238 is U's biggest isotope, anyhow? But don't completely dismiss me for being stupid. This article is nowhere near the quality of, say, the Periodic table article, which seems really clear, defines terms, builds understanding for a broad audience i think. It has tables where you can click on "period" to get reminded those are the number of electron shells, etc. That article is fairly clear there are 118 elements; there has been steady progress discovering more, but so far no 8th period elements have been found. This article states flatly there are five times more metals than non-metals, which is not true (assuming that we're talking about metals vs. nonmetals, among 118 known elements). If there is a range of number of nonmetals out of a fixed total number, there has to be a range of ratios. 118 divided by 14 = 8.43; 118 divided by 23 = 5.13. It is not stupid of me, as a reader, to see contradictions which rule out many possibilities that the article could be supposed to be about. If there are about five times as many metals, then this cannot be saying there are only metals and nonmetals; there has to be another category. You might think the intro is clear enough, say, but cognitive dissonance up front requires me, and other readers in sense-making mode, to reject your (perhaps) assumption or tacit knowledge that this is about the elements being divided into two groups. And then later there are just more problems; the major divisions are said to be metals vs. metalloids vs. noble gasses vs. other things. So obviously the intro was stating other false things, was an over-simplification, so I cannot be understanding what this article is about. And the sense-making reader is getting frustrated that evidently the intro was sloppy or careless not attempting to be precise(?), so why should I be investing more into trying to understand WTF this is about. A lot would be clarified if there was, upfront, a perhaps-very-small simple graphic showing 95 light vs. 14 dark vs. 9 inbetween, out of 118 elements (and statement that context is about 118 elements, will change when another element is discovered). That would allow me as reader to interpret that "there are 5 times as many metals" is a simplification, an over-simplification, not meant to be a literally true statement. And then allowing me to maintain other hypotheses of what is this article about, what I am to take literally vs. not. And for a later section, use a same-size matching simple graphic making further distinction of metal vs. metalloid vs. nobel gas vs. whatever. --Doncram (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram, that is a good point about the 5 times as many passage. I have changed this to say:
    "Although several times as many elements are metals than nonmetals…"
    Early on in the process of bringing the article up to FAC standard I thought about and experimented with having a PT in the intro showing the metals and nonmetals. I decided not to since the topic of which elements are metals and which are nonmetals turned out to be controversial among some editors, especially to show in the lede. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doncram: Thanks for your kind words about the periodic table article, since much of the current version is my writing! :) I wonder if the section Periodic table#Metallicity is clear enough for you? It's an overview of the metals vs nonmetals dichotomy; if you think it's easier to understand, then maybe something like it could be put here, naturally with more of an accent in the nonmetallic side.
    I am sorry if it is a bit vague at times about which elements are metals vs nonmetals, but really it's because there is not a consensus among chemists as to what criteria define an element as one way or the other, which is what this article too is trying to get across. Rather, it's more that there's two clusters of properties among elements. You have those which are shiny, dense, melt and boil at high temperatures, conduct heat and electricity well, and can be stretched and shaped; their atoms tend to give up their electrons, and their oxides (think about that as "rust") behave as alkalis. (There are more chemical properties, but I think these are probably the easier ones to understand). Those are usually called metals. And then you have those that are dull, not dense, melt and boil at low temperatures (some so low that they're already gases), are poor conductors of heat and electricity, and smash into pieces if you try to shape them; their atoms tend to grab electrons, and their oxides behave as acids. Those, being pretty much the reverse, are usually called nonmetals. And there is quite some basis for the dichotomy, since each type of element tends to be reactive towards the other type. Unfortunately, the dichotomy is not perfect because there's a trend from one to the other. So you can have weirdos that are shiny, dense, melt and boil at high temperatures, conduct heat and electricity fairly well, but smash if you try to shape them, are not sure whether or not they want to give up their electrons, and have oxides that can act both as alkalis and acids depending on the situation. (For example, antimony.) The existence of these things is why (a) people talk about "semimetals" or "metalloids", (b) nobody actually agrees what criteria define "metal" vs "nonmetal" [because pretty much any criterion, applied on its own, will be "gamed" by some borderline element that meets that one criterion for being a metal while failing at most of the others, or the other way round], and (c) therefore nobody actually agrees how many elements are metals vs nonmetals. Also (a) sort of leads into why the categories are then subdivided further, like "noble gases" which are a type of nonmetal. So it's a vague "I know it when I see it" kind of thing, but people generally agree at the core, even if not so much at the edges, and it really is useful for chemistry. Please understand that presenting something like that presents challenges. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 6: Non-veg. Okay, suppose I am understanding everything is either metal or nonmetal. True story: i flew on an Indian airline across India just once in my life (going to a friend's wedding, after flying the long Heathrow to Mumbai route on British Air or similar), and was presented with surprising meal choice: you could have "veg" or "non-veg", that was it. I was amused, would non-veg be some kind of paste of fish, meat, chicken, whatever? Or would it be just chicken, say, and if so then how bizarre is that, you would not know what you were going to get. This topic of nonmetal seems funny that way, too, to me; I have simply not heard of "nonmetal" before, and I would like to learn what it really _is_ in a positive way, and/or what "metal" really _is_. I don't exactly remember, but I think I chose "non-veg", and found that it was something unidentifiable but that Tastes like chicken. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I’ve tried to adopt a positive approach to saying what a metal is rather than what it isn’t. You can see this in the first paragraph of the intro. That said, metals have been around for millenia whereas the concept of a nonmetal really only got going about two centuries ago. So, in the literature, nonmetals described in terms of what they aren’t compared to metals, is nothing unusual. And there is a flavour of that here and there in the article. Sandbh (talk)
  • Note 7: Prerequisites? Sorry if my abjectly ignorant state coming in is not helpful. You don't necessarily want the article to be addressed to me. There are definitely topics in math, statistics, other subject areas, where it has to be understood that readers have a certain level of knowledge. Like you could not explain what differential equations are to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of calculus. Can you state up front what is required, as prerequisite to appreciating this topic? --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The intro is all that is needed for an overall appreciation of nonmetals. The main body of the article provides more detail. Sandbh (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 8: Simple big graphic needed. Near the top I see a graphic showing a small part of table of elements, in which nonmetals vs. metals are distinguished. It is perfectly possible that another part of the table of elements would also show some of each. I really want to see a whole picture, of the whole table, showing which are which clearly. Then you can zoom in on one interesting area. Later, there is a graphic of the whole table with various colors not defined, but explaining the colored elements are in first rows. It is currently captioned "Periodic table highlighting the first row of each block. Helium (He), as a noble gas, is normally shown over neon with the rest of the noble gases." The colors need to be defined, or all colors should be changed to just one color. And, I am not close to understanding what is the relevance of this graphic. How does it relate to nonmetals vs. metals. Or to nonmetals vs. metals vs. other. It would be very helpful for you to give a simple graphic that shows the whole table (if that is the context), and to convey if we are talking about metals vs. non-metals, or if we are talking about 3 groups. Actually there should be 4 groups: always/usually metals (light color) vs. sometimes not-metals (darker shade) vs. always/usually non-metals (darkest shade) vs. other. Or if this is not just about elements in the periodic table, then give me a big Venn diagram of circles with examples listed, in words, in each defined area. --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram could you please bear in mind that the article is about nonmetals rather than metals v nonmetals.
    There's a periodic table extract in the first section of the main body of the article, showing all the nonmetals and how often they’re regarded as nonmetals. Nearby metals are shown too. The rest of the periodic table is all metals.
    The graphic that colours the first row of each block does no more than that. The different colours distinguish each block; the block names are shown at the top of the graphic. The relevance of the graphic is explained in the immediately accompanying text. Sandbh (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doncram: The graphic that colours the first row of each block now shows which elements are within the scope of the article. Good idea, that. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 9: Apology in advance for harshing on the rest of the article. It seems to me like the rest of the article is random facts, largely unrelated to the topic of nonmetals or to nometals vs. metals. E.g. 4 photos at top right show two pure solids, a composite container of some liquid, and an envelope. If i'm to understand those represent 4 elements, and it is not about containers, then so what? There is no indication which, if any, of these are nonmetals. E.g. there is a section randomly called "Abundance", consisting of "Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up approximately 99% of all ordinary matter in the universe and over 99.9% of its atoms.[7] Oxygen is thought to the next most abundant element, at ca. 0.1%.[235] Less than five percent of the universe is believed to be made of ordinary matter, represented by stars, planets and living beings. The balance is made of dark energy and dark matter, both of which are currently poorly understood." So what, I don't understand what "ordinary matter" has to do with nonmetals, or what Hydrogen and Helium are, or anything. Etc. This just unrelated nonsense. Sorry, I think i have whipped myself up into some angry, frustrated state, and I oughta be sent away to a corner to sulk. --Doncram (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the article is about nonmetals I suppose it’d be reasonable to presume the 4 photos at the top right are of nonmetals.
    In the Abundance section the references to ordinary matter and dark matter clarify that while H and He seem to pervade the universe, in fact only 5% of the universe is made up e.g. what you and I and the Earth and our sun, and all the nonmetals and metals are made of i.e. what is referred to as ordinary matter.
    After the intro, I guess about 99% of the article is about nonmetals, their properties, occurrence, abundance, discovery etc. Sandbh (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A featured article cannot start with falsehoods. The current first paragraph is as follows (except I omit a reference):

In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that usually gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen. Nonmetals display more variety in color and state than do metals. About half are colored or colorless gases whereas nearly all metals are silvery-gray solids. They tend to be poor conductors of heat and electricity with no structural uses, in contrast to most metals.

This is false. It falsely defines nonmetals as chemical elements that react with metals, when, for example, nonmetals in fact include noble gasses which I am pretty sure do not. The term "nonmetal" must be defined first, apparently as a somewhat arbitrary set of the chemical elements, before descriptive generalizations can be given. What the main author here wants to do is provide descriptive info, which is okay in section(s) after definition. The properties are non-defining though. The definition needs to be along the lines of "A group of chemical elements have, since the 1700s (or whenever) customarily been termed 'nonmetals', and the term, despite ambiguities, has persisted." And some assertion of importance of the term is needed. The definition must be illustrated at the top of the article by a full copy of the periodic table with the 3 or 4 categories. Currently, the article unnecessarily includes falsehoods and this is unacceptable IMHO. If you want to make descriptive generalizations which are imperfect, you can, but only if it is clearly explained that they are such. --Doncram (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comments
1. The periodic table extract has been moved into the lede. I expect you would welcome this.
2. Double Sharp and I have previously explained that there is no agreement among chemists, nor in the literature, as to a precise definition of nonmetal. The definition you suggest is circular in nature since it is saying nonmetals are elements called nonmetals.
3. I have nevertheless copy edited and refined the lede in order to better encompass the noble gases. Sandbh (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
YBG comments
@Doncram and Sandbh: I have further tweaked the lede, mostly rearranging things between ¶1 & ¶2 and between ¶3 & ¶4.
This resolves the "opening falsehood" issue and IMO provides a better solution to the noble gas issue.
I attempted to give each paragraph a distinct theme:
  • ¶1 definition of NM (such as it is)
  • ¶2 description of NM (in generalities)
  • ¶3 predominance of NM (over metals)
  • ¶4 uses of NM.
YBG (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comments. Thank you @YBG: I feel that a definition that defines a thing in terms of what it is not is a non-definition. That's funny in a way given the result is a non-definition of a nonmetal :)

More specifically, the term "nonmetal" already conveys a notion of something that is not a metal, therefore there is no need to define a nonmetal as a chemical element that is not a metal.

In this context, and as I responded to Doncram, there was no "opening falsehood", and no need for any further action.

Reading only the original four topic sentences reveals the logical flow:

  1. In chemistry, a nonmetal is a chemical element that usually gains electrons when reacting with a metal, and which forms an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen, or which is a poor conductor of heat and electricity.
  2. While the term dates from at least 1708, it has no widely-agreed precise definition.
  3. Two nonmetals, hydrogen and helium, make up about 99% of baryonic (ordinary) matter in the observable universe by mass.
  4. Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic roles or uses.

This gives me an appreciation of what a nonmetal is; how hard it must be to corral them in presumably classification science terms; that much of the entire flipping universe is composed of just two of them–far out(!); and that they apparently have many uses.

Whereas the flow is now:

  1. In chemistry, nonmetals form a set (or subset) of the chemical elements that are not metals.
  2. Nonmetals usually gain electrons when reacting with a metal, usually form an acid if combined with oxygen and hydrogen, and are usually poor conductors of heat and electricity.
  3. Even though there are many times more metallic elements, nonmetallic elements are far more common.
  4. Many nonmetals have biological roles; almost all are used in medicine and pharmaceuticals, in lasers and lighting, and in household items.

The first sentence tells me basically naught. The second sentence is better. The third lacks context: "far more common" where? The last sentence makes up a 1-sentence paragraph, which is too emphatic as a result. Cf. the original three-sentence paragraph:

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

Consequently I have reverted your well intentioned edits to the lede. Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support / comments from Mike Turnbull

[edit]

A large amount of work has clearly gone into this article thanks to Sandbh and others. I have been following these developments and as this comes to a conclusion I support the candidacy. Articles like this, which are trying to define something in terms of what it is not (i.e. not a metal) have a particularly difficult task. The approach has been to focus on the properties of nonmetals as elements and less on their use as building-blocks within compounds. That seems a reasonable limitation of scope. Nevertheless, I think it would be worth emphasising that human efforts to make new compounds has, in the past century, led almost exclusively to novel combinations of these elements alone (as an organic chemist, I would express this by saying that the numbers of new well-characterised organometallic compounds and inorganic compounds containing a metal are dwarfed by the number of new organic compounds, perhaps by a ratio of 1:100 although I have no firm source for that assertion). The reason for this is that we seek what are generally referred to as effect chemicals — drugs, agrochemicals and dyestuffs for example. The current draft mentions medicines and pharmaceuticals but not the latter two, which I think should be added with an appropriate recent review reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michael D. Turnbull. You've got to the nub of the matter, which is to write about a concept seemingly defined in terms of what it is not.
Pending. I'll see if I can add citation-supported content about the building-block aspects of the nonmetals, and the number of new organic compounds compared to the rest. I hadn't heard of the expression effect chemicals. I'll see what that turns up.
Michael D. Turnbull, the General properties, chemical section currently reads:
The number of compounds formed by nonmetals is vast.[74] The first ten places in a "top 20" table of elements most frequently encountered in 895,501,834 compounds, as listed in the Chemical Abstracts Service register for November 2nd, 2021, were occupied by nonmetals. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen were found in the majority (80%) of compounds. Silicon, a metalloid, was in 11th place. The highest rated metal, with an occurrence frequency of 0.14%, was iron, in 12th place.[75]
Is that close to what you had in mind? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very much so, although "vast" seems odd. Is that the word used in the source? Is the Chem Abs data something that can be updated, or did you have to generate it in some special way? An comment like this would be useful in other articles but I can't determine how you obtained it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The refs attached to the "vast" cite are not so familiar to me, so may have been there for quite a while. Cite [74, now 75] is to King & Caldwell 1954, p. 17, who refer to the vast number of possible salts that occur naturally or can be made where a salt is a compound of a metal with one or more nonmetals. That was then. Brady & Senese 2009, p. 69 look like a more recent clarification of the situation applying to nonmetals but I can't access them to check. A source not included in the article, Jespersen & Hyslop 2021, Chemistry: The Molecular Nature of Matter, p. 99, refers to the vast number of nonmetal-nonmetal compounds. So "vast" looks OK.
I tried to look up the data myself on the CAS but it seemed like one cannot do this. I then asked the CAS for the data, as the most recent data I could find in the literature was from July 1987. The details of the 2021 data are in cite 76, "Chemical Abstracts Service 2021, CAS REGISTRY database as of November 2nd, Case #01271182". I posted the report to the nonmetal talk page. There is this source, which says "The number of organic compounds far exceeds the number of inorganic compounds" but it provides no further details and does not separate out organometallics. Sandbh (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The article now mentions the use of nonmetals (aside from the noble gases) in (i) agrochemicals and (ii) dyestuffs. Emsley covers off on these two uses for all bar (i) Si, Ge, Sb and Te; and (ii) B, Si, Ge, Te and F. I've changed the wording so that it now sees that aside from the noble gases, most of the rest of the nonmetals have used in these two areas. Sandbh (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the uses, is there some other way to say "Near universal uses for nonmetals are for household items; lasers and lighting; and medicine and pharmaceuticals", which appears in the article. I literally do not understand what that means. Is it meant to mean something like "Nonmetals are included in almost all new compounds created for many areas, including in household items; in lasers and lighting; and in medicine and pharmaceuticals; on the other hand metals are hardly ever used in those areas."? And adding "One or two of germanium, arsenic, and or radon will be absent", which I am also unsure about, does that mean "All nonmetals, with the exception of germanium, arsenic, and radon, are used widely in many areas, including in household items; in lasers and lighting; and in medicine and pharmaceuticals; on the other hand metals are hardly ever used in those areas." --Doncram (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Recall the article is about nonmetals. So when I list uses of nonmetals that's all I do. There's no need for, or expectation of, inferring anything about metals. For example, water (H, O) is an ingredient in some cakes. That does not mean we have to say metals are not used in ingredients of cakes. Saying "One or two of germanium, arsenic, and or radon will be absent" is shorthand for the fact that one or more of Ge, As or Rn will not have a use in household items; lasers and lighting; or medicine or pharmaceuticals". I'll see if I can refine this. Sandbh (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I thought you were in fact making an indirect statement about metals. I was trying to make sense of what "Near universal uses for nonmetals" could mean, and was thinking it might mean nearly 100 percent of materials in these areas are nonmetals, i.e. nearly zero percent of materials in these areas are metals. Did you mean that nonmetals appear nearly everywhere, without regard to presence of metals or not? I just didn't understand. --Doncram (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I’ve adjusted the wording. Hope it works for you. Sandbh (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support / comments from Peter Gans

[edit]

This article does a good job at covering the chemistry of the non-metallic elements. It deals comprehensively with the fact that there is no unique way to distinguish between metallic and non-metallic elements.

Perhaps a little more emphasis could be placed on the importance of oxidation state; the tendency to form covalent compounds, a typically non-metallic trait, increases with oxidation state; for example, elemental tin is a metal, compounds of tin(II) are typically ionic while tin(iV) typically forms covalent compounds. Petergans (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter. I've added a row to the table in the Nonmetal#Chemical properties section saying metals seldom form covalent bonds whereas nonmetals form many covalent bonds. I believe this covers off on your suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado (Support)

[edit]

"Support" added to header based on last comment in section YBG (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Based on my no-doubt-outdated memories of studying chemistry at university, this article does well presenting a topic which cannot be described in terms of black and white. The explanations for why something is changing from element to element are clear (in other articles, I often find myself asking "OK, I understand that, but why is it so?") Here are some comments, I will continue later.[reply]

  • Distinguishing criteria
    • No quotation marks around blockquotes, since they are already in blockquote format (here and also later)
      Done
    • Here the reference for the blockquote appears before the quote itself, rather than embedded in the blockquote as in §Complications. I think the placement before the blockquote is preferable since the callout is not part of the quotation itself
      All good
  • Complications
    • "... triple or double bonds." The normal idiom would be "double or triple bonds" and I see nothing in the source to suggest a different usage
      Done
  • Historical
    • why is "nonmetals" in quotes (the only quoted term in the list)?
      A category name of “nonmetals” implies that only these elements are nonmetals whereas e.g. the stable halogens wouldn’t be regarded as nonmetals.
    • more generally, the terms introduced in this list are variously in italics or plain text, is a distinction intended?
      Fixed
      Looks clear now, with the italics for current terms. --Mirokado (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclassified nonmetals
    • wl semimetal on first occurrence (decide whether or not to retain the later wl)
      Done
    • end of last paragraph: there are three double quote chars in the quotation, please clarify if this is one quotation or two with linking text
      Fixed

--Mirokado (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mirokado. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have now read through the article for the first time, I will have another look a bit later.

  • Metalloids
    • "with each having a metallic appearance. They are called metalloids mainly in light of their appearance." Repetition of "appearance", at the ends of successive sentences. How about: "with each having a metallic appearance, which is the main reason for the name metalloids."
      Done. 2nd sentence removed since although Rochow discusses the appearance of the metalloids he falls short of saying that is why they're called as such, aside from a few words on the meaning of the "-oid" suffix. Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abundance
    • difficult to parse the second paragraph: in particular the figures of 0.5% and 0.2% seem contradictory.
      Done. It was contradictory. Now streamlined. It may change a little more as I recheck the sources. Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use of the term
  • Chemical
    • "Here, and in general, the higher an element's ionization energy, electron affinity, electronegativity, or standard reduction potentials, the more nonmetallic that element is." This list repeats exactly the list in the previous sentence. To avoid the reader having to check whether or not it really is the same, we should rephrase: "Here, and in general, the higher these values, the more nonmetallic is that element." or similar.
      Done. Nice. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In metals, the nuclear charge is generally weaker than that of nonmetallic elements." It is the effect or influence of the nuclear charge that is weaker, not necessarily the charge itself, so rephrase: "In metals, the effect of the nuclear charge is generally weaker than for nonmetallic elements." or similar.
      Done. Ditto. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complications
    • "The alternation is further compounded by the appearance of fourteen f-block metals between barium and lutetium." This could be stated more clearly, I think: "A similar effect accompanies the appearance of ..."
      Done. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alternation arises from the appearance of each new shell type (d, f), so it would be clearer to mention the net result after describing the effects of the new shells. Thus swap the final two sentences of the Secondary periodicity paragraph.
      Done. Very nice. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical
  • Comparison

Perhaps more to come... --Mirokado (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shared uses: perhaps the following quotes represent disagreement among the sources, if so this could be more clearly expressed
    • "Only one or two of either germanium, arsenic, and radon do not have uses across all three of these fields." Another sentence I am unable to understand.
      Fixed. This part now reads:
      Nearly all nonmetals have varying uses in household items; lasers and lighting; and medicine and pharmaceuticals. Nitrogen, for example, is found in some garden treatments; lasers; and diabetes medicines. Germanium, arsenic, and radon each have uses in one or two of these areas but not all three.
      Clear now, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"and either tellurium or germanium": why the uncertainty?
Done. Removed. Upon reflection, mentioning Ge or Te is redundant. Sandbh (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through completed. --Mirokado (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mirokado (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notes from Sandbh

[edit]

Note 1: Since the lead paragraph has been the subject of so much interest, I draw attention to the fact that I'm going to attempt to add something there about the appearance of metals in contrast to that of nonmetals, as per DePiep's suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to seek to refine. The lead paragraph and the rest of the lead are certainly looking trim these days. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: I’ve restored a slightly reduced image of the alchemist discovering P, since the image has been lightened to bring out more detail, and it’s appropriate for its section. Sandbh (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3: DePiep: no bad feelings; please do not refactor the page in the way you did by dividing it into 1. Nonmetal; and 2. Discussion environment. If you wish to comment about the discussion environment please add it to your own comments section, rather than dividing the page. I've reverted that part of your edit that divided the page into two sections. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

This was completed at FAC#2.[30] Since that time the number of images proper has reduced. The only new images are those drawn by me and released by me. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'll add one anyway:

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (ComplexRational)

[edit]

ComplexRational, who participated in FAC#1, has offered to do this subject to study obligations. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Thanks for the ping. I should have additional time this week (holidays) to take this up, though should I slack off or otherwise become unresponsive by next Monday, anyone else feel free to take over. ComplexRational (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: I have started reviewing the sources. I intend to do this review in two parts: formatting and functionality of citations (2c) and verifiability of the article text (1c). Along the way, I'll take it upon myself to perform small and straightforward fixes, but more open or sophisticated things, I'll comment here much as I have done in the peer review.
  • For starters, I already see a mostly consistent citation style (details and "exceptions" to follow).
  • All citations with URLs are working, though I have yet to investigate whether any other sources are available online. Sandbh, I encourage you to do this as well if you haven't already; if any other web versions exist, please add them for easy access for readers and reviewers.
    • Comment: Most online sources I can find are via Google Books, or Google Scholar, or behind paywalls I can access via e.g. Society memberships, or I have them on my Google Play bookshelf. Aside from adding doi's I don't add GB links since these aren't stable; what one can access at one time can become unavailable at another time. When I don't have a book at hand, I've accessed a few sources via the Internet Archive, and will add these in due course. Since there are about 168 book sources this will take a while. I'll start by setting aside the ones I have at hand either in hard copy form or via GP like Wiberg, G&E etc. Sandbh (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some statements lack (or have incomplete) inline citations. As I read through the article, I'll tag them.
  • More to come... ComplexRational (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing to note: perhaps my university has access to some subscription or offline sources, so if possible, I'll gladly help with verifiability spot-checks in those cases. ComplexRational (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Just a heads-up that the pace of my review might slow down for the next two weeks. I'll try to continue giving timely responses and definitely will add things as I check and notice them, but my free time at the moment is somewhat limited, so I can't promise substantial, continuous progress until then. ComplexRational (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations (footnotes)
[edit]
@Sandbh: Thank you for your prompt action. I think you may not have noticed this addition (Atkins). ComplexRational (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(And the following two) Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Imbertierti 2020 (note 11) – page needed, if possible. I think there's also a misspelling in the author's name – should be Imberti. Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Csele 2016; Winstel 2000 (note 12) – pages needed, if possible, though I expect that passim will suffice because this sources a general statement to chapters about the subject within Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Additionally, seeing as they are from the same encyclopedia but are 16 years apart, are they from different editions? If so, please include the editions for each. Not yet addressed 02:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed. The sources have general relevance so I’ve added passims. As electronic sources there are no editions per se, only dates for each entry. Sandbh (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Passims look good. Do you mean that each entry is individually dated and all of them are compiled to form and continually update Ullmann's Encyclopedia (whose publication date might then be irrelevant)? I'm curious how this works. ComplexRational (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
[edit]
  • A consistent style is in place, even though it does not utilize citation templates. In accordance with WP:CITEVAR, this style should not be changed without consensus.
  • All ISBNs and dois that are present are correctly formatted. They link to sources that (at first glance) are pertinent and of high quality.
  • As the ISBN was introduced in 1970, and Sandbh has justified using some older sources where appropriate, it follows that the ISBN is not always available. Almost all books published since 1970 have their ISBNs included, with the following exceptions (please add the ISBN – or other identifier – if available):
    • Powell P & Timms P 1974, The Chemistry of the Non-Metals, Chapman and Hall, London
    • Rudolph J 1974, Chemistry for the Modern Mind, Macmillan, New York
      Done. ISBN added for the first one; there is no ISBN for the second but I added a link to the Internet Archive. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berzelius JJ & Bache AD 1832, "An essay on chemical nomenclature, prefixed to the treatise on chemistry" – is there any additional info available besides the volume?
    Done. Not so much; I've added the place of publication and the month it appeared. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cao et al. 2021, "Understanding periodic and non-periodic chemistry in periodic tables" – I see in the article that "article 813" is used as an identifier. However, I suggest changing this to "no. 813" for consistency with similar sources – the identifier is the same, whether it be called issue, number, article, etc. Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: most of the references having multiple authors abbreviated with et al. do not include first and middle initials of the lead author(s). To match the established style for sources with 1–3 authors, initials should be included even in these cases, and there are several instances (e.g., Edwards PP et al. 2010) where they are included. I won't mention every example (there are at least a dozen), but some of the first alphabetically are Atkins et al. 2006, Bailar et al. 1989, Brown et al. 2014, etc.
    Checked. Fixed where applicable. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cox PA 1997, The Elements: Their Origins, Abundance, and Distribution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Oxford – guessing from the other sources, is "Oxford, Oxford" a typo?
    Fixed. Indeed a typo. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cressey 2010, "Chemists re-define hydrogen bond" – add the first initial (Cressey D)
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting of translators is inconsistent among these three and (sometimes) with that of authors and editors elsewhere in the bibliography. There should be something standard for these; I'd strongly recommend the latter example (in the Remy ref – Anderson JS (trans.)), as this one consistently orders last name, first initials and has a parenthesized abbreviation.
    • Glinka N 1965, General Chemistry, trans. D Sobolev, Gordon & Breach, New York
    • Mendeléeff DI 1897, The principles of chemistry, vol. 1, 5th ed., trans. G Kamensky, AJ Greenaway (ed.), Longmans, Green & Co., London
    • Remy H 1956, Treatise on Inorganic Chemistry, Anderson JS (trans.), Kleinberg J (ed), vol. II, Elsevier, Amsterdam
    Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology 2013, SRM 4972 – Radon-222 Emanation Standard, retrieved from the Internet Archive, August 1, 2021 – minor thing, but I feel it should say "accessed" rather than "retrieved" in line with the presentation of access dates.
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piro NA, Figueroa JS, McKellar JT & Troiani CC 2006 – this is the sole source for which exactly four authors are listed. Is this the only source with exactly four authors, or are there others for which et al. is used instead? In the latter case, I suggest editing this to Piro NA et al. to keep a consistent threshold at three authors (who are all listed out for several sources) before abbreviating with et al. It's also worth noting that footnote 225 references "Piro et al." instead of listing out all four authors. Conversely, if necessary, make sure every source with exactly three authors lists out all three in the form "Last1 F1, Last2 F2 & Last3 F3".

ComplexRational (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I checked all the et al's to see that there were > 3 authors and that was the case. Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good to know that this is indeed standard across all the sources. ComplexRational (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability and spot-checks
[edit]

Placeholder Slowly working through this... please note that I will probably update this on a rolling basis as I go through the list. ComplexRational (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I've read through some of your replies, though probably won't be able to respond to them or continue reviewing until midweek (Tuesday/Wednesday). Perhaps I'll also be able to find some print sources this week. ComplexRational (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update @Sandbh: Getting back to it now. Expect more comments to trickle in during the coming days. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: Good to see you're back. Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the remainder is composed of sodium, magnesium, aluminium, calcium and iron. (8) – I checked source 8 (Nelson 1987), and am curious why you group H, O, Si, and the rest as you do. 85% appears to be a very rough aggregate estimate from all four lists in the source, rather than an exact reflection of it. On the other hand, Nelson clearly groups H, C, N, O, Al, and Si as the most important elements in all different settings described. To better reflect the source, I suggest following the grouping, unless source 9 (Brooks 1992, which I cannot currently access) treats them differently. ComplexRational (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I listed H, O, Si in order of Z. Brooks gives the abundances in the biosphere. To get the 85% requires some more aggregating on the basis of the weights of each of the four spheres (bio-, atomos-, hydros- and lithos). The weight of the lithosphere dwarfs the weights of the others by ca. 4 orders of magnitude. I've added a cite for the weight of the lithosphere. Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still unsure about this one. I'd like to think WP:CALC would apply here, though I'd need info on the weights if the figure of ~85% is a weighted average, i.e. cites for all the "-spheres". ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we could start with the whole paragraph:
    The nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen and silicon constitute about 85% by weight of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, crust, and biosphere. The bulk of the remainder is composed of sodium, magnesium, aluminium, calcium and iron.[8][9][239]
    Looking through my handwritten notes, the approximate weights involved are crust 2.77 × 1022 kg; oceans 1.32 × 1021 kg; atmosphere 5.5 × 1015 kg; biosphere 1013 kg. While the figures vary between sources these look as good as any. Now, the biosphere and atmosphere can be set aside for these purposes. From there it's a matter of looking up the estimated proportions by weight. In the crust, these are oxygen 0.466 and Si 0.27. For the oceans, they are H 0.662 and oxygen 0.332. In multiplying these figures by the weights of the crust and the oceans I get H + O + Si = 76.7%. This is not the same as the 85% figure as I misread the units on one of the figures. So, It's a good thing you checked. I've changed the figures accordingly and have added a cite for the weight of the oceans. Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust that your calculations are correct and one would be able to do the math to verify. However, I still don't feel this is enough; I'm finding that most authors don't aggregate abundances in different environments but rather list all the "-spheres" separately. Because of that, I strongly suggest you list the different abundances separately to eliminate ambiguity and better reflect the literature – for instance, closely following Nelson 1987 (or others). ComplexRational (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to make a few corrections – both in the values and in the presentation (checked against Nelson 1987) – but it should be okay now. ComplexRational (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • bare proton with tremendous polarizing power (81) – Greenwood & Earnshaw, p. 43 does not say anything about polarizing power. The parts about H+ forming in aqueous solution and this forming the basis of acid-base chemistry are well-cited, though another source (or page, if appropriate) is needed to cite the polarizing power of H+.
    Comment/Done (I hope). The G&E citation instead belongs to the sentence following the sentence in which reference is made to the polarising power. This raises the question as to whether a citation is needed for every sentence in an FAC? In any event, the Lee citation just before the polarising power sentence refers to the proton having a "very high polarizing power" so I've moved that citation along by one sentence. I've seen another reference to the polarising power of the proton being "enormous". Sandbh (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done well enough. I was able to cross-check the veracity of this statement, though it was needing of a direct inline citation, which is now present. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternation is further compounded by the appearance of fourteen f-block metals between barium and lutetium (86) – verified. It may also be helpful to mention the lanthanide contraction (as described in the source) and wikilink it, as this better explains the behavior of 5d transition elements.
    Done. Good, I've expanded sentence and added a w/link to the contraction. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greenwood & Earnshaw, p. 804 (129) – looks good for the whole paragraph, though to avoid confusion as to what is cited, perhaps also include the footnote before (or next to) Vernon 2013.
    Comment. There are no cites for the colours of the halogens since this is common knowledge. Vernon applies only to I looking metallic under white light; G&E applies only to its sentence. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable enough. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electrically, graphitic carbon is a semimetal along its planes and a semiconductor in a direction perpendicular to its planes (138) – OK, also from reading the values in the table on p. 278, which I had to consult because the semiconductor bit wasn't obvious from the text alone. Accordingly, I would change the reference to pp. 277–278. Also, later in the paragraph (deviating slightly from the source review), I suggest mentioning that diamond is an insulator (alongside H, N, O, and S) and citing it to the same source.
    Comment. Ah, I see. G&E say graphite is a semimetal along it planes but that its resistivity increases by a factor of [a whopping] ~ 5,000 along the c-axis. They don't elaborate. I've added an existing citation, but with a different page number, to Atkins et al. who're explicit on this point. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still need to check the citation or cross-check if I can't access Atkins. And, as I mentioned, do you think it's worth mentioning diamond among the insulators? ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not worth mentioning diamond since the focus of the article is on the most stable forms of the nonmetals. Diamond does, however, get a mention in the allotropes section. Sandbh (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • phosphorus and selenium are semiconductors (139) – I only checked Greenwood & Earnshaw so far in (139), but some other sources and the WP article for phosphorous only describe black phosphorous as a conductor. If black phosphorus is indeed the only conducting allotrope, the article text should reflect this.
    NFA. G&E say black P is a semiconductor. This is confirmed by the accompanying cite of Berger. You may have heard black P referred to as "metallic" P. This is a reference to its metallic appearance rather than its metallic conductivity. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, I see. I should have clarified, is black P the only non-insulating allotrope? ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition: the article later specifically states that white P is an insulator and red P is also a semiconductor. Might this also be worth mentioning here? ComplexRational (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not worth mentioning. Same thing applies here as is the case for diamond. Black P is the most stable form. It is not the only non-insulating allotrope, as explained in the allotropes section. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • semi-lustrous: C, P, Se (table) (171) – Emsley p. 397 does not mention a semi-lustrous appearance. Is this to be inferred or does another source in note (171) describe this (inaccessible via Google Books preview, though p. 480 and Wiberg p. 780 are respectively about Se and C)? If not, better source needed.
    Done. Emsley (p. 397) says black P looks like graphite, while Wiberg says graphite has a metallic appearance, and then adds that natural graphite has a "dull" metallic lustre. Emsley refers to a metallic semiconducting form of selenium (p. 478) and then to one of its forms as a silvery "metal", which must be a typo. To make things easier I've removed the "semi-" from semi-meta‖llic, trimmed the second page number from Emsley, and replaced this with a cite to Rochow. It is probably the case that the semimetals C==, As, Sb have a lustrous appearance, whereas the semiconductors B, C ‖, Si, black P, Ge, Se, Sb, Te, and I== have a semi-lustrous appearance, but I need to do more research, and that is a level of nuance which can wait for now. Sandbh (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely agreed that greater detail is not necessary here and now. The wording is better now, though I may still want to do a cross-check before striking this. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greenwood & Earnshaw and Emsley are otherwise reliable and verifiable for all the citations I could check specifically. Still more to come. ComplexRational (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation from 16 December (+ support)
[edit]
  • Periodic table extract showing the frequency with which authors class elements as nonmetals: (15) (caption) – Vernon 2013 groups the six commonly grouped metalloids as such, but aside from a brief mention of Sn as possibly "a chemically weak nonmetal", does not say anything about them being grouped among the nonmetals. However, another source later in the article (Dingle 2017; ref 170) seems to make this distinction, as evidenced by the quotation. I would suggest adding the Dingle ref to the caption.
    Vernon 2013 surveyed the literature as to which elements were regarded as metalloids. The implication being that metalloids were not always regarded as such, meaning that they could only be regarded as either nonmetals or metals, depending on the metalloid in question. In any event, I've replaced this cite with three more explicit examples. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldhammer-Herzfeld metallicity criterion ratio (40) – you might want to cross-check the exact wording of this, as I can't match this exactly to the cited source or anything else; it seems to more commonly be called "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion (for metallization)", among other names.
    Done. Changed to Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for metallization. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemical Abstracts Service 2021, CAS REGISTRY database as of November 2nd, Case #01271182 (75) – could you add a URL?
    More specifically, is there a link to "Case #01271182" or similar? ComplexRational (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of. The report was requested by me from the CAS. They assigned the case number. There’s a copy of the resulting report from CAS on the nonmetal talk page. I’ve added a wiki link to it. Anyone could confirm the report by emailing CAS and quoting the case #. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know. ComplexRational (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 21st amino acid of life;[76] – not sure what [76] (Cao 2021) is citing here, as the source does not include any of the given examples. I'm not disputing the statement itself, as it is cited also to [77] (which I checked) and borders on common knowledge, but I can't figure out what [76] cites exactly. Other occurrences of [76] are well done, and this source would even (partially) address my earlier comment re metalloids.
    Fixed. The source should be Cockell rather than Cao. Now fixed. Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good, I was able to verify. Could you add an ISBN for Cockell? ComplexRational (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zhao, Z, Zhang H, Kim D. et al. 2017, "Properties of the exotic metastable ST12 germanium allotrope", Nature Communications, vol. 8, doi:10.1038/ncomms13909, PMID 28045027, PMC 5216117 (note 233) – source is good, though in the citation, 13909 should be the article number, not the page number.
    Fixed. The citation provided by the journal itself makes it look like a page number. I’ve removed the number since the title of the article, the volume number, and the doi provide sufficient information to locate it. Sandbh (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation is correct now, though the page linked through the doi gives "Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 13909 (2017)", so I think it can be added as the article number to keep consistency with other citations to journal articles. ComplexRational (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More still to come. I checked everything I could access up to note [84]; aside from the specific points I raised here, the sources are reliable (legitimate and cross-checked) and the content is verified. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stellman 1998, p. 104-211 – just for clarification, I'm guessing the hyphen is supposed to be part of the page number?
    Kind of. It turns out to actually be a chapter number, which I've now Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nonmetals";[108] – I can't verify this source, so asking directly to clarify: are the quotes part of the name?
    Fixed. They aren't part of the source so I've added a footnote explaining why they appear here. Sandbh (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Royal Society of Chemistry periodic table shows the nonmetallic elements as occupying seven groups. – source is good and clear, though I find this wording a bit ambiguous. The nonmetallic elements are shown to occupy both seven subclasses and seven groups, though neither contains exclusively nonmetals. Could you perhaps reword this in some way to make the intended meaning clearer? ComplexRational (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • Up to [113] now, verified everything I have access to. ComplexRational (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks you. Sandbh (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science 1864, "Notices of books: Manual of the Metalloids", Jan 9 – need a publisher, as well as clarification on "Jan 9" (access date?)
    Fixed. The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science was a weekly journal. As Journal, no publisher is needed. In any event, I've fixed the precision of this entry and the other Chemical News entry. Jan 9 was the date of the weekly issue in question.
  • Luchinskii GP & Trifonov DN 1981, "Some problems of chemical elements classification and the structure of the periodic system", in Uchenie o Periodichnosti. Istoriya i Sovremennoct, (Russian) Nauka, Moscow – if possible, need authors/editors for the Russian source.
    NFA. It's a book by Luchinskii & Trifonov. Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several {{citation needed}} tags still lingering, many of which I added last month. Please add inline citations there.
    Done/NFA. P and S done. A cite for chemistry- or physics-based techniques used in the isolation of nonmetals, and a few nonmetals occurring naturally, is not required, since all of the cites involved are found in the ensuing list. Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also noticed that the ionization energies in the table are uncited, so I added a {{citation needed}} there. The data page has several suitable sources. WebElements appears to be the main one (also for the infoboxes) and should be adequate, as it references the literature, though it may be slightly better to cite the literature directly in the article.
      Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electronegativity, in the table:
    • Electronegativity (Allred-Rochow) – there's no Allred-Rochow citation listed in the bibliography. Did you mean to include one?
      Fixed. No, I didn't intend to. There are a few EN scales around and I wanted to make it clear which one I was using. I've added a cite for consistency. Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Values for the noble gases are from Allen and Huheey.[200] – do you have a more recent source for these than Allen and Huheey (1980)?
      NFA. Their values are still as good as any, and are still cited. Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it also exists as ozone (O3), an unstable nonmetallic allotrope with a half-life of around half an hour. – different sources give different values, indeed because the half-life of ozone depends on various factors such as temperature. I can't access [228] (Koziel 2002), so please check under what conditions Koziel says the half-life is half an hour and clarify that. I also suggest adding a brief footnote with another source stating that ozone decomposition is environment-dependent.
    Fixed. The half-life is in ambient conditions, which is a widely accepted standard unless otherwise stated. Koziel uses the expression "indoors". I've clarified and expanded the details. Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: I only have still to check the sources and cross-check some values for the data table. Everything else that I reviewed seems up to par. Most of the book sources are inaccessible to me, but the majority of them are chemistry textbooks from reputable publishers and I cross-checked some of the information cited to them (in reputable journal articles or accessible books, such as through Google Books), so I feel comfortable enough assuming good faith on these. Once I review the table, and should I not find any major issues, I'm happy to support the FAC on its sources. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onto the table:

  • I know I already mentioned ionization energy in an earlier comment, though might I suggest standardizing the values to match the ones on the WP data page? I used those to check the minima/averages/maxima listed in the table; here are my results (rounded to the nearest whole number; feel free to cross-check yourself), roughly equivalent though with a few discrepancies:
Category Minimum Average Maximum
Metals 376 643 1007
Metalloids 762 833 947
Unclassified 941 1152 1402
Halogens 1008 1270 1681
Noble gases 1037 1589 2372
If, instead, the source lists the minima/averages/maxima, feel free to disregard this comment, though I would still strongly suggest using the same values throughout WP if possible.
Done. I have added the WP values. Since the ionization energy row marker is w/linked to the page including all the sources I have removed the former cite. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The values in the data table look good now. I think YBG retargeted the links, so I'll add separate links to the aforementioned data pages. ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (slightly OT from the source review) Is there a reason why the symbol Sb is given in the column headers? As it's the only symbol there, it feels out of place.
    Comment. @YBG: added it since the symbol for antimony is not congruous with its name. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you consider introducing all the symbols in the headings – for consistency and to eliminate any (unlikely) confusion? ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed: I've added element names to the PT extract in the Definition and applicable elements section. Just showing the Sb symbol in the headings to the properties tables I think is fine, just in case an unfamiliar reader forgets that Sb = antimony. The rest of the symbols are easy enough to work out. Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a major inconsistency in electronegativity that needs to be resolved. It is stated that the Allred-Rochow scale is used, though the values in the table do not match sources for this scale, instead following the Pauling scale:
    • As an example, the range for metals (0.79–2.54) exactly matches the Pauling scale, but the Allred-Rochow scale has a minimum 0.86 for Cs and 1.9 for At.
    • I calculated (in Excel) the following values (rounded to two decimal places); again, feel free to cross-check with your source. A small roundoff error is acceptable if your source is more up-to-date or complete than mine ([31]).
Category Minimum Average Maximum
Metals 0.86 1.29 1.90
Metalloids 1.74 2.02 2.50
Unclassified 2.06 2.63 3.50
Halogens 2.21 3.09 4.10
Noble gases 2.06 3.32 5.50
  • I must ask that you choose one scale and stick to it. Per my previous comment, I would recommend using the one most widely used throughout WP.

ComplexRational (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you settled on Pauling. I'll make sure this is clearly indicated. ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you ComplexRational. I believe this brings the source review, and therefore the FAC nomination to a successful conclusion. Praise be. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. This is indeed nearly everything; just see the last round of replies I left for some things not strictly related to sources. If I notice anything else, I'll leave a comment here, but I can give my support now. ComplexRational (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

[edit]

I have some concerns about criterion 2b here, as the paragraph spacing is uneven. I also want to see the notes get incorperated to the article, as the nerdy facts should not get left out of the party. Another criterion that I am concerned about is 1b, comprehensiveness. While the sectioning is really good, I want to see more content, particularly at the section "Abundance, occurrence, extraction and cost". I want to see more about noble gas scarcity and economics, as well as the "detailed information" bit that you mentioned at the top. Overall, sorry, but I feels uncomfortable passing the nomination, as the article does not fulfill prehaps the most important aspect of a Wikipedia article: comprehensiveness. There is just too much effort being pour to make the article "looks good", without much focus on the details. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: Could you give an example or two of uneven paragraph spacing? I looked through the article and it appeared to me that the vertical space between two paragraphs was the same everywhere, though it was different than the spacing between paragraphs and headings. YBG (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the same result using my normal wide screen and when viewing it in a narrow browser window. I did not check out any alternatives to my normal legacy vector skin with FireFox on Windows 10. YBG (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what I meant here is that some paragraphs are really short ("The nonmetal halogens are found in ... inclusions to radiation from the presence of tiny amounts of uranium."), while some are real long ("All the elements most commonly recognized as metalloids form allotropes. ... Tellurium is known in its crystalline and amorphous forms.") I want to see the paragraphs to be more evenly distributed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'll have another look in a day or so with that in mind.
With regard to your suggestion about incorporating the nerdy notes into the body, that may tend to exacerbate the problem of uneven paragraph sizes.
I've always thought that such notes, judiciously used, are helpful in articles of interest to the general reader as well as readers with various levels of technical expertise, helping to make the article user friendly to many different types of readers. Then, I'm the sort of nerdy person who scans the end-notes in books to find the interesting factoids, rejoicing that they're not hidden in the main body of the text. That probably puts me on the skinny end of the bell curve. YBG (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get it lol, but if properly placed these notes can be engaging to casual readers as well. I strongly recommend to do so, or else TRAPPIST-1 is a good example of what NOT to do. In practice, notes are only used when the information is tangent but essential to clarify things, such as why the date is off by one day. (UTC and timezones) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I do understand that the nominator want to make the article accessible to the masses, they must do so without sacrificing details in the process. However, a silver lining here is that this version is just perfect for inclusion to Simple English Wikipedia version of the article. With some tuning and adaptations, it is perfect for simple:Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles, a similar place for promoting article here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandbh
I intend to take NFA.

Turning now to your specific concerns, and the positive feedback.

Concern 1: Paragraph spacing, citing FAC criterion 2b.

This criterion says, "Appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings."

Paragraph spacing is not within scope here.

I use paragraphs to present single idea units, in a logical sequence. If the idea needs to be elaborated using more sentences, I do so. If the idea can stand by itself in one or two sentences, and nothing more needs to be said—in an encyclopedic summary style context—I stop there.

Concern 2: "I also want [sic] to see the notes get incorperated [sic] to the article…".

This article went through peer review before being listed at FAC. The review ran for 2 months, attracted comments from 8 reviewers, and ran to 250 kb.

This FAC has run for 2 months, attracted comments from 17 editors, 6 supports and one oppose, now two, and runs to 230 kb.

During PR and FAC, I've edited the article about 1,000 times. None of this includes the effort that went into the two previous unsuccessful FACs. Nor the other 500 or so edits I’ve made to the article in the previous several years.

Since the article has been criticised for being too detailed, I’m not inclined to merge the endnotes into the main body of the article.

Concern 3 "1b, comprehensiveness. While the sectioning is really good, I want [sic] to see more content, particularly at the section "Abundance, occurrence, extraction and cost"

Thanks for your comment re the sectioning being really good.

On FAC criterion 1b, this says, "It neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context”.

YMMV but my interpretation of this criterion, based on feedback over the last four months, is that “details” refers to major details, rather than the fine detail you have in mind. That is why the article includes seven wiki links to articles providing more details. And that is why the Occurrence section has a hatnote saying, “ For more detailed information, see the main article for each element.”

Thanks for your feedback that the article is clear enough to be suitable for the Simple English Wikipedia.

Sandbh (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you good luck, but I don't have high hope that the article would pass. I have a feeling that the article is really rushed and unprepared. Feel free to prove me wrong though! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh, my advice here is to take some time to prepare the article, so that you cannot find any errors in it. WP:Peer review may be helpful as well. (I learnt this the hard way at SpaceX Starship, look at its milestone history.) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple last-minute tips:
  • Multiple failed nominations in a row would make editors more unwilling to review in the future
  • FAC and PR length does not mean that the article is super good. Rather, it is the amount of improvements that is made, and the result of that can fall short. Same with edit count. I have 2.3k on SpaceX Starship, and I'm not even ready yet.
  • Graphics are really bad for accessibility, a criterion for featured articles.
  • Prose should be engaging and of high standard, again, a criterion for featured articles. Look at recently promoted articles to see what it feels like.
  • For broad topic articles, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is key. Summarize while not omitting any major detail. It's an art.
Good luck on this and next FAC of the article, I really do hope you learned something from so many people that review the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of commenting on this review here [32]. Graham Beards (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to promote

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: This nomination has six supports and two opposes. There are no outstanding items among the supports, and for the first oppose most items were addressed. For the second oppose, I intend to take NFA, for the reasons listed above.

Could Nonmetal now be promoted? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused from this but I believe after looking it up that by "NFA" Sandbh means "no further action". (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog and Ian - I'm going to be going on Wikibreak very soon and am fairly busy in RL until then (mainly just trying to get through the St. Charles FAC and a GAN before then); I don't think I'll have the time to read through the whole large discussion above to weigh everything. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updates by Sandbh, in chronological order
[edit]
I cannot even keep track of my own FAC; here’s another go:

1. Graham Beards graciously withdrew his oppose, saying “I'm happy to go with the consensus, which is on this.” The tally then stood at 6 support and 1 oppose.

2. Reviewer DePiep, who had not indicated his position either way, has now returned to the fold after a 46-day absence, and lodged an oppose. The tally thus became 6 supports and 2 opposes. I had previously responded to DePiep’s comments. I will review his post-pause comments shortly. YBG has added some further comments and I will likewise review these.

3. Subsequently, the oppose lodged by CactiStaccingCrane has been withdrawn. The details may be discerned here [33] and at the talk page of CactiStaccingCrane. The tally became 6 supports and 1 oppose.

4. After an absence of 49 days, reviewer Doncram has lodged an Oppose. In the meantime I have responded to DePiep’s concerns, including making some changes to the article. I intend to take no further action with regard to DePiep’s comments. The tally is now 6 support and 2 oppose. I have yet to respond to YBG’s proposal to resolve his remaining concerns, and will also shortly address Doncram’s concern/s. Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. The tally stands at six support (Double sharp; Dirac66; Mike Turnbull; Peter Gans; Mirokado; and ComplexRational); and two oppose (Doncram; DePiep). All comments have now been addressed including those recently posted by DePiep, Doncram, and YBG. I thank all assessors and commentators—pro, con, and abstinendi—since your contributions have resulted in article improvements. Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment
[edit]
  • Just to note that I am keeping an eye on the ongoing discussion with YBG, and watching to see if there will be further comment from DePiep or Doncram. As a meaningful exchange of views leading to improvements in the article is ongoing I am in no rush to close this one way or the other.
  • Re comments above about the number of opposes and supports, note the comment at the head of the FAC page

    It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

    Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh comment: I’m mildly confused.

In the FAC page, para. 3, sentences 2 and 3 say:

For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus.

Noting consensus does not require unanimity I presumed that keeping track of supports and opposes is one way of informing the consensus climate.

Para. 3, sentence 4 then goes on over the course of four bullet points, to explicitly list the circumstances in which a nomination will be removed.

Only then, in para. 4, is it written (as you noted), “It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.”

The two aspects of promotion policy are seemingly divorced from one another by a relatively large slice of removal policy text. Sandbh (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in posting the "tally" as it's meaningless and gives the impression that you think promotion is based on voting. You are just cluttering this, already oversized, page. Graham Beards (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sandbh, I would be grateful if you could respond to YBG. DePiep and Doncram, I anticipate this closing in the near future. Just checking to see if there are any last comments you wish to add, or if changes or comments since you opposed have swayed you at all. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Responded to YBG. Thanks. Sandbh (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Non-reviewer comment) Look, I appreciate the amount of work that goes into large articles such as this one—probably too much!—but this is getting silly. The article is slightly over 4,000 words. This page is not far short of 40,000 words. We normally pull FACs when it becomes apparent that they're getting peer-reviewed rather than FAC reviewed, but frankly, this has gone beyond even that. It's stopped being a review altogether—and some time ago. Now, with canvassing, multiple unaddresssed opposes and an increasingly acerbic atmosphere, I think it's pretty p[lain that anything worthwhile that was to be had from this process has by now been extracted. Any work that needs to be done—and it seems pretty clear that there's a fair amount of it—should surely take place away from the straitened constraints (not to mention the time-pressure atmosphere) of FAC, via our alternative processes. A shame, but I don't think anything is being achieved now except the possible fermenting of bad blood. SN54129 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. This FAC should be archived now. It's so long I doubt if a decision on whether a consensus has been reached can be made. It might have been allowed to drag on because the nominator has complained at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates at length about not getting what they considered to be a fair assessment, but this does not justify allowing FAC to become Peer Review. For what it is worth, I don't think it is ready to be promoted. Graham Beards (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that this FAC is probably too long to get to a consensus, especially if there are unretracted opposes with actionable concerns (e.g Doncram's) and people are getting tetchy. Plus, I don't think a lot of people will want to weigh in on something this long. In fact, if I may I'll ask @FAC coordinators: to archive this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for chipping in and for the forthright comments. It is clear that there is substantial opinion against promotion and so, sadly, and after 12 weeks, I am going to archive this to allow further work to be carried out off-FAC. The usual two week rule will apply, but I hope that we will be seeing it back here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 January 2022 [34].

Seagram Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a landmark International-style skyscraper in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1950s. As the name suggests, the building was erected for the Seagram Company and designed by several architects, most notably Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. This building's development was influenced by Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Seagram's CEO at the time, who pushed for the building to be a New York City landmark in the 1970s and 1980s, and who even today maintains a connection with the building, over 60 years after its completion. It's been called one of "New York's most copied buildings" and, even before it became an official New York City landmark in 1989, had a large influence on other International style buildings.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago after a thorough GA review by GeneralPoxter and was recently copyedited through the GOCE. I am very grateful to Twofingered Typist of the GOCE, though he unfortunately passed away not long after he copyedited this page. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from GeneralPoxter

[edit]

I am happy to support this nomination per the diligent improvements made during my GA review (that was over-scrupulous for a GA in hindsight). I have been watching this article since its promotion, and haven't caught any changes that could have significantly compromised the article's quality. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]


Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has only picked up a single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2022 [35].

Cedar Hill Yard

[edit]
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cedar Hill Yard, a railroad yard located in my home state of Connecticut, in the cities of New Haven, North Haven, and Hamden. From 1920 into the 1960s, it was one one of the largest railroad yards on the planet with over 2,000 acres of facilities, and handled 3,000 or more railroad cars each day. It has declined in importance and size with the rise of trucking and the general departure of most industry from New England, but today it is still by far the largest railroad yard in the state of Connecticut. Cedar Hill Yard was my first successful GAN, and an article I have overseen from its creation to this point. I will also note this is my first FAC nomination, though I have participated in a few FAC reviews previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Hirtle stuff is awful, but images are all correctly licensed and verified to be public domain or own work. No NFCC images in the article so no need to worry about checking against the criteria. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GhostRiver

[edit]

Watch this space — GhostRiver 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(still working)

@GhostRiver: Are you planning on continuing your review soon? I don't mean to pester you, but it has been more than a week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings Apologies. Grading papers, etc. has made my desire to critique other people's things very low. The rest of my review follows. — GhostRiver 04:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver:I believe I've responded to all your comments now; there's a few that need some clarification, when you get a chance. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Article looks pretty good. Can't remember seeing a FAC about a railway yard before. Some comments:

Lead
[edit]
Location
[edit]

Suggest using the {{as of}} template.

Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like the table not to be in the middle of the prose; but I'm happy to support the rest. I do think a section on the facilities might be needed for a WP:BROAD summary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-checks not done. The widespread use of contemporary newspapers jumps out to me - granted, this is an antique topic but are we certain that they are reliable enough and that there is no more recent scholarship or literature? I see some formatting inconsistencies - most newspaper sources are referred to by name but some with websites by website name (e.g Courant) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done extensive searching for sources for this topic. The vast majority of what I could find was in newspapers, though you'll notice there are a number from Trains Magazine, which is a respected industry publication, along with older industry publications such as Railway Electrical Engineer and Freight Terminals and Trains. The only recent books I were able to find were North American Railyards (ref 17), which is from 2014, and The Rail Lines of Southern New England (ref 63), which is from 2017. Both generally corroborate the key points which are also cited to newspapers. The two newspapers most extensively cited here, The Day and the Record-Journal, are long standing publications which are active to this day, and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. Railroad yards are a niche topic (this is the only GA, let alone potential FA, within the topic area on Wikipedia) so there is relatively limited modern literature on them. However, the yard was (and is) very important to Connecticut, and to New England more broadly, which is why it had significant coverage in newspapers. For what it's worth, a search on Google Scholar [36] pretty much only finds sources from the 1920s, when the yard was rebuilt. I've changed the ref to the Courant to cite newspaper instead of cite website, and I'll look for any others that are inconsistent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have gone through every single reference individually to ensure they are all consistent. I did not find any more newspapers which used the cite website template. I've added access dates to all newspaper references that were missing them. I do not see any further issues, but it's possible I missed something. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else jumps out to me as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

[edit]

version checked

Ref Text cited Probable ref text Comments/Fixes
26 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated at over $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" Cite 25 was also used. Came from AP wire service. The agency should be added to the cite. Nothing in the sentence quoted looks like it came from this article. The citation should be moved to where it was used from the last sentence in the paragraph.
13 "After several years of construction, the new Cedar Hill Yard opened in 1920. At the time of its completion, Cedar Hill was the largest railyard east of the Mississippi River in the entire United States" "Its Cedar Hill Yard, opened in 1925 in New Haven, was the largest rail classification yard east of the Mississippi River." Year mismatch. The paraphrasing feels a bit close here
9a "The expansion project was initially budgeted at $10 million (equivalent to $172,000,000 in 2020), but upon the United States Railroad Administration's takeover of all U.S. railroads in December 1917 following U.S. entry into World War I, the federal government doubled the project's budget to $20 million and allocated government engineers to assist in construction." "It is said that since the federal government assumed control of the New Haven road the construction of the Cedar Hill or Montowese freight terminal have been greatly extended, so that the total expenditure for the terminal will be $20,000,000 instead of the $10,000,000 originally contemplated." Good
9b "This greatly increased the scope of the project, with the terminal and facilities estimated to take up more than 2,000 acres (810 ha) of land in total upon completion." "The terminal will over[sic] 2,000 acres and will be located..." Good
47 "Illegal dumping of toxic mercury was discovered in an abandoned portion of the yard in 1988, resulting in an investigation involving the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Environmental Protection Agency being launched." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Needs page number since you need to find the article like microfilm of old
61 "One reason for the yard's decline in importance is the Selkirk hurdle, which forces trains travelling west of New York City and New England to cross the Hudson River 140 miles (230 km) north of the city. This has caused a significant amount of freight traffic to switch to trucks, and much of the traffic that continued to travel by rail to instead be directed to the yard in Selkirk, New York." "Little more than three miles separates Brooklyn from New Jersey across Upper New York Bay. By freight train, however, the trip between the two can cover 280 miles and take more than 24 hours." New England is not mentioned in the article nor is the 140 miles number or anything about trucks.
25 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated at over $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" "Damage from a fire which destroyed a vital trestle at the New Haven railroad's Cedar Hill Yard late yesterday afternoon 'may run as high as $100,000,' a railroad spokesman said"

"Loss of the trestle will require will require use of other routes which will take more time."

Cite 26 was also used. From the AP wire service but not in citation. I have source integrity concerns. "As high as" and "over" mean very different things. Also, this number was from a spokesman the next day and wasn't an after-the-fact number like we present it in Wikipedia's voice
18 "Particularly busy days saw over 4,000 cars classified in 24 hours." "On exceedingly busy days there have been as many as 1,923 classified eastbound and 2,357 westbound." Page number needed due to the microfilm-like way this is presented
56 "The yard contains a TRANSFLO bulk cargo transfer terminal which handles transloading." digital map The interactive map shows nothing of the sort. Neither does the PDF map linked to the page.
44 "Conrail also began to downsize its workforce at the yard, laying off dozens of employees between 1977 and 1979 and attracting the ire of Congressman Robert Giaimo." "Mr. Combs also revealed that Conrail was not taking any measures to to retain a maintenance facility in Cedar Hill, near New Haven where employees were laid off between April and June 1977, and 36 jobs were lost." Also uses cite 45. Page numbers needed. Mr. Combs appears to be a spokesman for a candidate on the campaign trail.
50 "This strike was ended the next day by a bill which banned railroad workers from striking, while also creating a committee to work out issues between railroad workers and employers, which was quickly passed by the United States Congress and signed by President George H. W. Bush." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Good
40 "Plans for rebuilding the bridge were repeatedly delayed, with New York representative Benjamin Gilman calling the situation a "seminar on government procrastination"." "Rep. Benjamin A. Gillman, R-NY, today strongly criticized the State Department of Transportation (DOT) for turning the the negotiations for repairing the fire-damaged Poughkeepsie Bridge a 'seminar in government procrastination" Good
37 "Under Penn Central, the yard was largely in a state of decay. The retarders in the yard had never been upgraded or replaced since their installation in 1929, and were no longer able to apply enough force to cars to slow them. The employees came up with a solution that was dubbed "the toothpick machine": workers in the yard placed pieces of wood ("toothpicks") on the rails in front of each car, to reduce their speed as they went down the hump. A 1974 U.S. Senate report assessing issues in agricultural transportation opined that 'Considering the price of new lumber these days, it is quite possible a new retarder would be cheaper." "Then there is the infamous 'toothpick machine' at the former New Haven RR's main yard at Cedar Hill near New Haven, Conn. Like most major yards, Cedar Hill is a Hump Yard -- that is, cars are classified by gravity. The cars are slowed by retarders mounted beside the rails; these squeeze the flanges of the wheels until the car is slowed to its proper speed. But the retarders, installed in 1925 and never replaced, have lost most of their muscle. A heavily laden car hitting the retarder too fast is not slowed at all. To insure that such cars approach the retarder slowly, crewmen toss blocks of wood (the toothpicks) in front of the wheels. Considering the price of new lumber these days, it is quite possible a new retarder would be cheaper." Page numbers. First quote is not a quote.

I used a PRNG to choose 13 random citations (just over 20%). I have found some big problems. I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn and the nominator check each citation for close paraphrasing and citation integrity issues. Then, in a fresh FAC, a fresh batch of spotchecks can be done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to do my own checks for cite integrity, I will do so, but I am not about to withdraw this after more than 5 weeks and 3 supports. I object to the claim that one of my cites is close paraphrasing. Responses in the order in which they were listed in the table:
  • 26: You say "Nothing in the sentence quoted looks like it came from this article." That is not true, this source supports the text which says "traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles." AP is attributed in the citation, as the author. If there is a different way that should be cited, I will change it, but issues have never been raised in the way I have cited AP articles until now. If I need to attribute AP differently, please let me know and I will make the correction to all sources which are from AP wire service.
  • 13: The date mismatch is an error in the source. I have multiple sources which support the opening year being 1920, including ref 17, which is one of the only modern sources I have and is a specialist publication. The 1920 opening date is also supported by cite 14 (from 1922, references Cedar Hill Yard as having been open for some time), cite 15 (from 1923, says the yards were recently opened), cite 12 (from 1921, refers to the yards as open), and cite 18 (from 1926, says the yard was opened "approximately six years ago"). I can add one or more of these to the sentence which states the yard opened in 1920; the purpose of ref 13 was more to support the claim that the yard "was the largest rail classification yard east of the Mississippi River." As for the paraphrasing claim, I do not agree that this is an issue. I am reporting a basic fact, and there is no way to truly reword this to make it not at all close paraphrasing. Listing a basic fact such as this does not count as a copyright issue, there's only so many ways a fact like this can be stated. I will note that this sentence was used to support a hook when this article was at DYK, and the reviewer and promoter both did not find any issues with this sentence.
  • 47: I will add a page number.
  • 61: This is one that I agree is an issue. I am going to cut it from the article entirely. The Selkirk Hurdle is an interesting concept and something I wanted to incorporate in the article, but I don't really have a great source for it. The burning of the Pokip Bridge and its effects are already covered earlier in the article, so I can cut this without sacrificing the article's comprehensiveness.
  • 25: There are no later sources available which expand upon the burning of the trestle and its replacement. What I can do here is change the wording from "over $100,000" to "up to $100,000". I will also attribute the statement to a spokesperson, in the way I attributed the Amtrak spokesperson quote used with cite 30.
  • 18: I will add a page number.
  • 56: The map I cited definitely included TRANSFLO terminals at the time I cited it, but this was also in September 2021. The map appears to have been redone since, and no longer indicates terminal facilities. I will replace this citation with [37] which shows the terminal at Cedar Hill Yard.
  • 44: Did you look at reference 45, which directly quotes Giaimo, and also quotes a spokesperson from Conrail? I will add page numbers.
  • 37: I'm assuming you mean that I should change the quotation marks around toothpick machine to single marks, which I can easily do. I will add a page number; in fact I will do this for all newspaper references.
@Guerillero:In conclusion, I agree some things need fixing, but I disagree that the issues are large enough that the nomination needs to be withdrawn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All newspapers from Google books now have page numbers, and all newspaper references from the Associated Press now have the AP listed under the Agency parameter. All other changes I indicated I would do above are now done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as archive due to issues with text-source integrity and close paraphrasing. In order for a renomination to be successful, it would be best to double check all the references. Trainsandotherthings, I hope you are not too discouraged, I had to do this after one of my first FACs was closed for similar reasons. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I am displeased my objections to the close paraphrasing claim were ignored. That my nomination has been failed because of one sentence which wasn't even close paraphrasing, in my opinion, does not make me happy. If someone gives me clear things I need to fix, I can fix them. But this was just failed after 5 weeks over a vague "fix the references". I am frustrated with this process, I spent a month and gained 3 supports, and made a ton of improvements to the article but all of that is ignored over a vague claim that "the article has copyright violations and did a crap job with text-source integrity." My responses to the source check were also ignored. And now if I want this to be FA, I will have to spend another month plus begging people to review and hoping that someone doesn't find one sentence they don't like, since that's all it takes to fail a nomination. And that will be after waiting weeks to even renominate because otherwise I'm sure it will just be quickfailed. Before I nominated this, I asked for a mentor and was told I didn't need one. Clearly that was a mistake. It is a known fact that almost all first nominations fail; with that being the case, and this nomination proving the point, I feel cheated in that I was told I didn't need a mentor. Having a mentor may well have lead to a different outcome here. The next time someone asks for a mentor, please think twice about their request.
My feelings after this nomination experience are that the criteria for what makes an article a FA are not clearly defined, can be completely arbitrary, and that above all there are not enough resources to help first time nominators. I thought that having half a dozen GAs would have prepared me for FAC, but the level of difficulty here is exponentially greater. To be blunt, why should I waste so much of my editing time at one FAC when I could easily get 4 or 5 GAs done in the same timeframe? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, I don't think it's accurate to say that the article was archived over one sentence. Unfortunately, when so many of the cites fail verification in one way or another, I do not think there is any other option but to archive the nomination. You ask, why should I waste so much of my editing time at one FAC when I could easily get 4 or 5 GAs done in the same timeframe This is a valid perspective, and one of the reasons that I focused on GAs when I was starting out. However, text–source integrity is something that should be as important to GA as it is to FA; articles with issues should not get passed at either level until the issues have been resolved. I found that going through the cites for the Holocaust in Slovakia article and making sure I can justify each one with a quote, resulted in significant benefit for that article but also my overall editing style. The verifiability of my contributions improved greatly, which is a benefit regardless of whether they end up at FAC.
Yes, it's true that many first FACs fail—mine did—but I learned from the experience and eventually learned to write articles to the standard expected at FAC. I don't think having a mentor would have changed the outcome on this FAC, assuming you could have found one. Most mentors would not have extensively checked the references, which is where the issues were ultimately found. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2022 [38].

William Utermohlen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William Utermohlen, who created self-portraits after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995. I have been expanding this article for five months now and in the past three there has been a successful GA review, the previous unsuccessful FAC and a peer review which has just been closed today. After all of that I am highly sure that this meets the FA criteria. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pink Saffron

[edit]

As the nominator said, it has almost all of the FA criteria met. It is also a very interesting article, I think it should be 100% the Featured Article of day. ----Pink Saffron (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Saffron, I see this is your first FAC review; more engagement with WP:WIAFA is expected at FAC, which is “not a vote”. It might help for you to read through some other FACs on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Placeholder. Fascinating. Ceoil (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless I missed it, the article doesn't say who devised and titled the six cycles.

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]

I did not do a full review— just browsed for medical and MEDRS issues. I found no statements about AD that breach WP:MEDRS. I did see grammatical errors and typos as I read through, but assume others will get to those on copyedit. Google scholar produces a large number of sources that should be used for comprehensiveness; I don’t think the article can meet comprehensiveness without consulting those sources. Also, the original Lancet article should be provided, which I believe is this one (but I find it odd that sources don’t seem to specify), and might mention it was published as a case report:

  • Crutch SJ, Isaacs R, Rossor MN (June 2001). "Some workmen can blame their tools: artistic change in an individual with Alzheimer's disease". Lancet. 357 (9274): 2129–33. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05187-4. PMID 11445128.

This source is used in the article, but it offers a lot of untapped potential. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's an issue accessing sources for expansion of the article, Realmaxxver, many of these sources can be accessed via WP:TWL and others you can request at WP:RX. I share Sandy's concerns about comprehensiveness, however. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from JBchrch

[edit]

One comment: for an artist whose work is famous for depicting the effects of Alzheimer's, I was expecting a bit more content on to the relationship between his disease and his art, i.e. how the medical symptoms of Alzheimer's are expressed in/illustrated by his works. As mentioned by SandyGeorgia, the original Lancet paper has some good material on this. Palmiero, Massimiliano; Di Giacomo, Dina; Passafiume, Domenico (August 2012). "Creativity and dementia: a review". Cognitive Processing. 13 (3): 193–209. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0439-y. is also an interesting MEDRS source, as it uses Crutch and al. 2001 as one of its primary materials. JBchrch talk 13:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although, in using those sources, care must be taken not to breach WP:MEDRS when using a case report to discuss the condition, rather to state what Utermohlen’s physicians observed about his art, or to restate only generalities about the condition that can be cited to secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up any support. Unless it shows considerable further signs of building a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in reviewing this article, but I am not sure whether the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and others are fully resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they have not, and there remains much untapped potential in the sources I mentioned; also, considering there are independent secondary sources, the article relies very heavily on his wife's publications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I am requesting to withdraw this nomination. I need more time to fulfil comprehensiveness and also (Because SandyGeorgia pointed it out) try and replace some of the sources from Utermohlen's wife (like those from Utermohlen's website) with more secondary independent sources. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2022 [39].

Texas A&M University

[edit]
Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the school and has been a FA before. After going through FARC, those demoting it suggested bringing it here (which seems bizarre, but here I am)... Buffs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Buffs (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As a general response: most of the specific issues listed below are samples only of a category of problem, not a comprehensive list. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability. The following are samples of claims not supported by the given citations: "Approximately half of the residence halls located on Southside are reserved for members of the Corps of Cadets", "Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges. As of 2019, the school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is the largest uniformed student body outside the service academies", "require band members to step between each other's feet to complete the maneuvers", "six-tiered structure"
    • "Approximately half of the residence halls located on Southside are reserved for members of the Corps of Cadets"
      Updated sourcing. There are currently 24 residence halls, 12 are for the Corps of Cadets (you can select from the drop-down). I think a previous reference was deleted. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges."
      Specific source updated. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As of 2019, the school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is the largest uniformed student body outside the service academies"
      Sources added. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "require band members to step between each other's feet to complete the maneuvers"
      Additional source appears to have been deleted as a video link where this is clearly self-evident. Re-added + the official marching handbook that spells this out. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "six-tiered structure"
      This is self evident from a previous source and image which clearly shows a six tiered structure. That image has since been replaced and, while visible in the image presented to illustrate Bonfire, you have to look very carefully. Added additional reference to support "six tiers" Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinary claims should be cited to reliable independent sources rather than the university or its affiliates. Examples include "world's largest precision military marching band", "oldest student-run organization in the state", and "largest one-day student-run service project in America". Generally the article relies heavily on non-independent sources.
    This is a governmental organization. By definition, it creates its own sourcing and is appropriate in general context. Extraordinary claims are properly sourced, but we can certainly add more if you'd like. Addressing specific examples you cite:
    I'm not objecting to all citations. Sourcing for example student body size to the university itself is absolutely fine. But the article at present goes well beyond that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added wikilink for "gig 'em" Buffs (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Largest.org is not listed as an unreliable website anywhere in Wikipedia. Merely claiming the source has "an issue with reliability" doesn't make it unreliable. I contend the information is accurate and open it up to proving it wrong. This information appears to be accurate. Multiple other sources corroborate the top schools [46] [47] [48] [49]. That it isn't from some mainstream publication like CNN doesn't mean it's wrong. It is not even a piece of contentious information in the slightest (if it is, please explain how). If this explanation isn't to your satisfaction, just remove it if that's a major sticking point for you. Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tomahawk Nation is a subsidiary of Vox Media and has has appropriate editorial standards. The only thing it cites is when Jimbo Fisher moved to Texas A&M. To be blunt, this is a completely uncontroversial fact. It shouldn't really even need a source. NO ONE disputes it, but one was provided for an inane, noncontroversial fact from a site about the school that had him as a coach (the last entity you'd expect to support such a statement if it was false). If you don't like that source and want another one, feel free to take your pick: [50] and just tell me what you want instead. I'll be happy to replace it. Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • GenomeWeb appears to be a viable independent news agency with no specific reason to distrust it (though I may indeed be wrong). What's wrong with this source? How is it used inappropriately in this article? Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • mcubed.net is nothing more than a database of basic season data. It's no different from the data you'd find on [51]. Again, it's uncontentious, simple facts that are available from scores of sites. You want me to replace it with the NCAA website? No problem (but realize that's going to be 40+ citations to get what you want because the NCAA doesn't split them out on their website). Is this really necessary? Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • biography.com is listed as a source of frequent debate, but there is nothing concrete that states it is not a reliable source. What facts does it cite in this article that even the least bit contentious or inaccurate? Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if you point out what makes a source a "high-quality reliable source" in your eyes. I see no such definition. Buffs (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. Some of the details in image captions don't appear to be cited, eg "Chemistry Plaza, constructed in 1930 with multiple renovations through from 1965 to 2005". Several images have source links which are dead, eg File:Texas_A%26M_University_wordmark.svg. File:TexasA%26MCampus_1902.jpg: when and where was this first published? etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed/replaced Chemistry Plaza image. This info was asked for in the FARC...I see no reason to include such photos, no matter how aesthetic, if they are going to be be a problem like this...more is the pity... Buffs (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to remove it if you like, but this problem doesn't require doing so - just citing the information. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Already did. Not worth the effort. Buffs (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1902 photo came directly from the Cushing library and was listed as author unknown with no known date of first publication listed > 120 years after creation. Accordingly it is the public domain. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Publication date not listed doesn't automatically equate to PD. What is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never stated that a lack of a publication date automatically equates to PD. 1902 is the key figure here for the date taken + no indication of a published date = PD in this case, not all cases where a photo doesn't have publication indications. I included a wikilink for a reason.
    As for the wordmark, obviously they updated the link (I have too), but even on the error page it was rather prominently displayed at the bottom. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation format needs to be standardized. There is an over reliance on T A&M published sources. Some of the web sources (i.g. largest) are not high quality RSes. I am going to oppose based on the size of the sourcing concerns --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) The citation format needs to be standardized. There is an over reliance on T A&M published sources. Some of the web sources (i.g. largest) are not high quality RSes. I am going to oppose based on the size of the sourcing concerns --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) (EC)[reply]

  • @Guerillero: Where is the citation format not standardized? Buffs (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatives for sourced material are listed above. Please indicate your preference and I'll be happy to replace (likewise, what is your definition of a high quality RS?). Buffs (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are any contentious claims that are sourced to the University, but this is a common problem when writing about any governmental entity: they are the source for their own data (such as the number of students they have). If that's a show-stopper for you, I can look at alternative sources to bolster those claims. Buffs (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

It is clear that this article is not yet ready for FAC, so I am going to archive it. The usual two week pause will apply before further nominations. While acknowledging the large amount of good work already done, can I draw the nominator's attention to the statement at the head of the FAC page: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Clear" to whom? I see 5 sources that are under dispute and I've asked for clarification...that's it.
  2. The comment "The citation format needs to be standardized." seems to be without merit. I have gone through and literally checked each and every source. I've also asked for clarification of the other remarks and a willingness to alter each/every one
  3. can I draw the nominator's attention to the statement at the head of the FAC page: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". This is my fourth nomination and my first unsuccessful one.
@Gog the Mild: I do not see the consensus you seem to allege exists. Likewise, this was requested to be sent here after FARC to get community input. Shutting such discussion down after <2 days seems absurd/premature. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2022 [52].

George Floyd (American football)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... George Floyd, the American football player turned educator. He played for the New York Jets for several years in the 1980s, until a third knee injury forced him to retire. He set several records at Eastern Kentucky University, some of which still stand today. All the comments from the first FAC have been addressed, save converting from imperial to metric throughout the article, which I'm still trying to get a consensus on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Hopefully a consensus can arise so this can be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote discussion

[edit]
  • I won't be !voting one way or the other on this, but I don't think the discussion on a hatnote has been fully settled. Fundamentally, hatnotes are warranted any time a reader might reasonably be confused, and the pageview data seems to indicate plenty of that. There's a massive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC disparity, and there's the fact that the other Floyd did play football. Looking at it another way, if this ever became the TFA, I would be utterly unsurprised if we got a comment along the lines of "why don't we mention how he died?" All that points to a common sense need for a hatnote. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: can you review the article as well? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no; I'm not particularly interested in sports articles. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from AryKun

[edit]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

[edit]

Completely non-expert review. Let me know if I am wrong anywhere:

Otherwise, I feel the prose fine and easy enough for me to understand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC) @Kavyansh.Singh: comments responded to, thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the responses/changes. I Support the article for its promotion as a featured article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Leaning oppose. There are some prose issues, which I've listed below. I don't see any way to avoid a high density of sports jargon in an article like this, but that means you have to take extra care to make it comprehensible with no sports background. The high number of abbreviations (DPOW, EKU, OVC, TTT, GC, TFL) makes it harder to read too, though I can see why you introduce them. I would suggest trying to get a review from someone who writes sports FAs but is not particularly familiar with American football. The Rambling Man, would you be able to take a look at this?

  • "Floyd was named to The Tampa Tribune's honorific all-area football team in all three of his varsity years, the first player to do so": "honorific" is the wrong word here; it means an honour that has few or no associated duties. And "to do so" is not right either: the verb structure for a phrase like that has to parallel the first part of the sentence, but we don't have a verb of doing -- instead there's the passive "was named".
  • "where he won the 1979 NCAA Division I-AA football championship with the Colonels": not really a prose issue, but I'd suggest cutting "with the Colonels"; you haven't said it's the nickname for EKU and it doesn't add anything for the reader.
  • "Floyd holds or ties for five records": would be better as something like "Floyd is the holder or joint holder of"
  • "In a game against North Marion High School": a new paragraph so we don't know if this is the junior or senior season.
  • "Floyd became the first player named to the TTT's team during all three varsity seasons": "the" is redundant (the first T in TTT stands for "the"); and is this statement true of all schools or just Hernando? And as a non-native I'm not clear what a "varsity season" is.
  • What is "class 3A"? A link might be enough, depending on what the explanation is.
  • "Floyd wanted to play college football for the University of Georgia as a senior, but instead attended Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) of the Ohio Valley Conference (OVC)." It took me a second to realize that "senior" here referred to when Floyd was a high school senior. And you don't give any explanation; was he turned down by Georgia? Or did he change his mind?
  • "He served as captain of the Leopards' defensive unit": if "the Leopards" is the nickname for the Hernando team, you need to say that somewhere. Ditto for the EKU Colonels in the next section -- something like "Floyd's first start for the Colonels (the nickname for the EKU sports teams)" would do. And you don't say that this was as a freshman, which as an outsider I would think is relevant -- presumably not every college footbal player gets a start on the team as a freshman?
  • "Before the 1980 season": I had to go back through the previous paragraph to figure out that this was his junior year; the only dates you give prior to this are that 1975 is his high school sophomore year, and that they won the 1979 I-AA championship. Another date wouldn't hurt somewhere in that time period to nail down the seasons a bit more.
  • "Floyd appeared at both safety spots." I don't know what this means.
  • "Floyd tried out to become the Jets' punt returner": "tried out to become" is clumsy.
  • 'On August 12, Filip Bondy of the New York Daily News stated Floyd had the defensive backfield reserve spot "wrapped up".' Why are we including this? I don't know what "defensive backfield reserve spot" means, but in any case the very next sentence says he changed positions, so why does it matter what a journalist thought, particularly as it appears he got it wrong?
  • "Floyd recovered a fumble and made a few "All-Pro hits", according to an article in the TTT.": not sure this is worth mentioning -- we're talking about a Jets game, and this is presumably his hometown paper covering a local boy, so would be expected to be positive. Is the source just a game report that makes no mention of Floyd's origin?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM

[edit]

Per Mike above, I'd be more than happy to take a look at this article with a view to ensuring it's accessible to both sports and non-sports (especially non-American football) readers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that takes me to "Floyd shared OVC DPOW...", lunch calls, more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator comment - with only one support and a leaning oppose after over a month in, this nomination is liable to be archived without further movement towards promotion over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Therapyisgood - I hate to do this, but with this one stalled out to the extent it is, I'm going to have to archive it. I recommend seeing if The Rambling Man will be able to complete their review outside of the FAC, and then see if Mike Christie will be able to take a pre-FAC look before the next FAC. Hog Farm Talk 14:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2022&oldid=1069147585"