View source for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3

← Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.198.0.0/16 has been blocked by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 06:26, 30 September 2026. Your current IP address is 44.198.168.175.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
This IP address range has been globally blocked.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

This block affects editing on all Wikimedia wikis.
The IP address or range 44.198.0.0/16 has been globally blocked by ‪EPIC‬ for the following reason(s):

Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected

This block will expire on 14:32, 1 September 2027. Your current IP address is 44.198.168.175.

Even while globally blocked, you will usually still be able to edit pages on Meta-Wiki.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

Other useful links: Global blocks · Help:I have been blocked

You can view and copy the source of this page:

<!--Template:Fa top--><div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion of a [[Wikipedia:featured article candidates|featured article nomination]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 '''promoted''' by [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] 12:29, 14 May 2014 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2014&diff=next&oldid=607776764].
----


===[[Metalloid]]===

<noinclude>{{pagelinks|Metalloid}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Metalloid}}</noinclude>

A metalloid is kind of a cross between a metal and a nonmetal. They have a mix of metallic, nonmetallic and in between properties.

One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive2|suggested]] I ask [[User:John]] if he could copyedit this article. I did, he did, and it looks very sharp now. [[User:Dirac66]] then checked the article, was happy with the standard of copy-editing, and made a few technical observations that I've addressed. More details are at the metalloid talk page [[Talk:Metalloid#Review_Feb_19_by_John|here]] and [[Talk:Metalloid#Comments_as_requested|here]]. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

====Support from John====
'''Support'''. As Sandh has generously pointed out I did a lot of work on this article. I know it intimately and have no reservations about supporting its promotion. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Comment''' I took out "In contrast, Jones (writing on the role of classification in science) observed that, 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.'<nowiki><ref>[[#Jones2010|Jones 2010, p.&nbsp;169]]</ref></nowiki>" because I do not think it is essential to the article. Is Jones writing specifically about metalloids or is it just a general comment on classification? We already have enough about the difficulty of classifying elements as metalloids in any case. We used to have more. "In contrast" is one of the markers I look for in copyediting. So are "additionally", "actually" and "however". Unless the author has explicitly contrasted two things, we shouldn't use this term. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:This is very good. If I may, I'd like to keep Jones as a plain note (without the 'In contrast'). He isn't writing about metalloids. He's writing about whether or not Pluto is a planet and, in that context, the role of classification in science. His writing is particularly cogent, and the parallel of what used to be the lack of a [[definition of a planet]], to the lack of an agreed definition of a metalloid, is striking and interesting. Of course, I won't say that in the note but I can hope that someone else may read Jones and enjoy the analogies. Just replace wherever he says "Pluto" and "planet" with "selenium" (e.g.) and "metalloid" :) [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

====Comment from Designate====
'''Comment''': I notice polonium and astatine are both marked as "Inconsistent" in the top infobox graphic, but only astatine is outlined in black in the bottom graphic. Shouldn't they both be outlined or non-outlined? —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:That's the "inconsistency" at work ;-). The blue colors show the statistic outcome, the periodic table shows reasonings for the individual elements. Both statements are valid and sourced, but their contradiction requires explanation. As there is no space for that in the infobox (for a reason), the micro periodic table should go. 
:Note: I added the micro periodic  table for overview, without giving it much thought back then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Periodic_table_%28metalloid%29&diff=518017568&oldid=510875704]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::The bottom graphic could stay as the caption says it's 'a' periodic table, rather than 'the' periodic table. it's also linked to the [[periodic table]] article. I'm not fussed either way. Designate: if this would still seem to be too confusing I'll ask for the bottom graphic to be deleted. Thank you for your thought provoking comment. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Sandbh, as Designate simply pointed out: it may be right & sourceable, but it is unexplained there. That is a sin. And I think that that table box is not the place to explain it, so removal is my choice. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, in the top graphic you have four categories: Commonly, Inconsistently, Less commonly, and Rarely. Seems the bottom graphic could include the top two designations, or the top three, or all four, but right now it's jarring because it doesn't seem to have been made with the same reasoning as the top graphic. —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::DePiep, could you please remove the bottom graphic? [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::I've removed it. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I was referring to the one at the bottom of the infobox. —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Ah yes, I see what you meant now. It is annoying that the code is so complex that it will require an expert to make this adjustment. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the small periodic table is colored based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Periodic_table_(32_columns,_micro)&action=edit this code]. All the elements have a {{code|{{!}}category}} listed—maybe astatine and polonium can both be changed to {{code|category{{=}}unknown}} instead of {{code|metalloid}}/{{code|metal}}. The individual page for [[astatine]] calls it "Metalloid (disputed)" while the page for [[polonium]] calls it "Other metal (disputed)". It doesn't seem to me that they should be given the same color on the top chart at [[Metalloid]] if At is more commonly recognized as a metalloid than Po. —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 16:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I removed the small PT at the base of the infobox. Deleted two lines I think) of code. I must've been tired when I asked DePiep to do it, as I could've done it myself if I'd looked harder. I'll restore the PT at the very end of the article on the presumption that this'll be OK to restore. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Looks good. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

====Comment from R8R Gtrs====
'''Support'''. During the first FAC, I wasn't confident the article deserved the FA status, but Sandbh refused to give up, and the article was getting better and better over time. I've given a lengthy comment during the second FAC. The issues I raised were resolved, and I didn't support only because I suddenly lost the opportunity to get online, check, and support. The article has remained FA-worthy ever since.--[[User:R8R Gtrs|R8R]] ([[User talk:R8R Gtrs#top|talk]]) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

====Comments from Harry Mitchell====
This is not at all my are of expertise; I'm use to writing history articles, not science articles, but this is a really interesting subject so I thought I'd take a look.
:*Thank you very much Harry. I'm working my way through these, other than those John has astutely edited, and will respond further shortly. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*''The feasibility of establishing a specific definition has been questioned'' by whom?
:*That would be Hawkes. I've hopefully made this clearer by using a semicolon to join this sentence to the one that follows it, since the latter sentence ends with the applicable citation. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::*I think this needs to attributed in the prose; we shouldn't expect the reader to read the citation to work out that the phrase is not in Wikipedia's 'voice'. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:::*So done -- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
*''Classifying an element as a metalloid has been described...'' ditto?
:*No, that is Sharp, as per citation at the end of the sentence. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::*Sorry, I wasn't clear; see above. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:::*Fixed -- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
*'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.' You need a citation after a direct quote (I see you have one just before the quote; perhaps that could be moved to the end of the sentence?)
:*So done. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*You need at least one citation in the 'physical and chemical' section
:*This section is the lede/high level summary for the following two sections, which include sourced text, and a main article link. As such, I didn't think it necessitated citation. I'm happy to revisit this however, if you feel that this will not do. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*''This could be done based on the extent to which an element exhibits properties relevant to such status.'' Is that from Hawkes? If it is, perhaps the citation could moved to the end of that sentence for clarity?
:*Yes; so done. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*''selenium […] is used to improve the workability of stainless steels'' what does 'workability' mean in this context?
**Changed to machinability and wikilinked. Good catch. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*You could do with a citation at the end of paragraphs two and six of the 'biological agents' section 
:*Will do [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::*Now done [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
*''Compounds of antimony are used as antiprotozoan drugs, and in some veterinary preparations.'' 'antiprotozoan' isn't a term I'm familiar with, and I'd be surprised if most lay people were familiar with it; an example of veterinary uses might be nice.
:*I've reworded and simplified this sentence, and added a citation. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
*''Tellurium is not considered particularly toxic. As little as two grams of sodium tellurate, if administered, can be lethal.'' Those seem to be two contradictory statements. 
**I think it emphasises the difference between the element and its compound. Edited to reflect this. Please fix it if I have misunderstood. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*Watch 'with's, eg ''beryllium and lead are noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used...''; this kind of use of 'with' is generally discouraged
**I've taken quite a stern hack at the 'with's. Better? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*''compounds such as sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate are effective flame retardants for wood but were less frequently used...'' Were or are? 'Were' suggests they're now being used more frequently; is that the case?
**Fixed tense. This is an error I introduced, so good catch again. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*''requires a 'heroic quench rate{{'}}'' Who is this quoting? Why use a quote instead of a plain English phrase?
:*Kaminow & Li, as per end of sentence. I quite liked the concise way they expressed this hence kept it as a quote rather than recasting. I've now cited them after the quote, too. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*''The terms amphoteric element and semiconductor are problematic as some elements referred to as metalloids do not show marked amphoteric behaviour or semiconductivity in their most stable forms.'' There's much less detail there than on the other problematic terms; is that deliberate? You need a citation at the end of the sentence.
:*I've added examples of such elements, plus citations. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
*''Use of this latter term has more recently been discouraged'' Try to use active voice where practical; who discouraged the use of the term? IUPAC or somebody else?
:*That was Atkins, as per the citation. (He also happens to be a past chair of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Education). [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::*Reworded to make this clear -- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''remarkably inert to all acids, including hydrofluoric{{'}}'' according to whom? Perhaps spell out the what's remarkable about its non-reactivity with hydrofluoric acid (I can guess that it's remarkable because you mention boron does react with fluorine, but it would be nice not to make the reader guess)
:*That is according to Rochow, as per the citation after the quote. I'll see if I can add something about the highly corrosive nature of hydrofluoric acid. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::*Reworded to show that it's Rochow speaking; note added to elaborate what's remarkable about non-reactivity to HF -- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
*''It can form alloys with many metals; most of these are brittle.'' Most of the alloys or most of the metals? I'm guessing the former, but it's ambiguous as it is.
**Reworded for less ambiguity. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*What's with the external link on electrode potential? External links shouldn't be linked inline per the MoS.
**Fixed. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
*''Classifying aluminium as a metalloid is disputed'' by whom? You cite some examples in the footnote, but it would be nice for the prose to elaborate. What's the scientific consensus? From the context, I'm guessing that it's to treat aluminium as a metal, but again, it would be nice to spell it out.
:*I've edited and restructured this section. It still starts with the same opening sentence but I've included a citation to a reference guide book on metallic materials. That's the closest I could get to scientific consensus that aluminium is a metal. The next paragraph is the one that says aluminium is sometimes classified as a metalloid. That's immediately followed by the disputing paragraph, with the authors doing the disputing given in the citation. Then there is the concluding paragraph with more moderate or nuanced views. I tend to minimize the use of active voice in an encyclopedia article such as this. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
*''and may be more appropriately classified as either'' Do you mean it is sometimes or by some people or that it could be?
:*Reworded -- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

More generally:
*I think the article uses a lot of technical terms, which makes it less accessible than it could be; I'd really love some brief parenthetical explanations of terms (I'll provide examples when I get chance)  
:* OK, that's good to hear. Happy to oblige. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
*watch uses of 'with'; use as a connective is discouraged (eg "p-block, with its main axis anchored by boron"; "noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used")
:* Done, as per John's edits. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
*Be consistent on whether you use chemical symbols or names; my preference is for the names as it makes the article more accessible. (Compare "[[Boron trioxide|B<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>]], [[Silicon dioxide|SiO<sub>2</sub>]], [[Germanium dioxide|GeO<sub>2</sub>]], [[Arsenic trioxide|As<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>]] and [[Antimony trioxide|Sb<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>]]" or "[[beryllium|Be]], [[zinc|Zn]], [[cadmium|Cd]], [[mercury (element)|Hg]], [[indium|In]], [[thallium|Tl]], [[Tin#Physical properties|β-Sn]], [[lead|Pb]]" to "Examples include gallium, [[ytterbium]], bismuth and [[neptunium]].")
:*How I approached this is set out in [[Talk:Metalloid#Names_or_formulae_of_compounds_.28or_both.29.3F|Talk:Metalloid]]. I'm happy to revisit if needs be. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
*I love the comparisons with chemicals people know about (eg steel, tap water); how would you feel about adding some more? Not overdoing it, but enough that the reader has something to which they can compare the chemicals covered in the article.
:*Very happy to try for more as I like the value of comparisons with ordinary things. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
*When I write history articles, I like to see the author introduced by their full name with an explanation of their credentials (eg "the British metallurgist Cecil Desch") rather than just by surname (eg "Phillips and Williams suggested that"...); I think it would be nice to see this here.
:*Not sure if that might be more particular to history writing? I don't often encounter it in scientific writing unless it is for the giants. I'm not sure I see it that much in arts writing either. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is obviously a labour of love and you've clearly put a lot of time into it. I don't see anything that would preclude it becoming an FA, but there's a little bit of work still to go. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
:*Much appreciated. Always good to hear from non-experts. You see things and ask questions that aficionados  would overlook or rarely think to ask. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::*I think we may be done here for now Harry, thank you. (I'll keep an eye out for any ripe technical terms, and possibilities for new comparisons with ordinary things). [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:::*I've replied above on a couple of issues, and there are a couple of others I'll get to when I can (nothing too serious), but I'm happy with the changes so far. Great work. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::::*Thanks again; all looking good so far (a few small things for me to do still). [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

====Comments from Johnbod====
I'm no chemist so I'm concentrating on accessibility. Generally I agree with Harry's comments above, though not about "introducing" noted chemists in the literature. It's obvious they are chemists, so only anyone who ''isn't'' a chemist needs to be introduced, imo.
:*Thank you Johnbod. I appreciate your interest and observations. I'm working through these. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
* "packing efficiencies" has a whole para, but is linked but not explained, which it should be, very briefly.
:*Done -- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
* "Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion" is only explained in the notes, which is not ideal. Failing a short article, perhaps the explanation should go in the text.
:*Done, but this one was a bit trickier to explain concisely. There is still a somewhat technical term ('molar volume') although it has a link. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
* The first para of "Number, composition and alternative treatments" pretty much entirely repeats, with added names of researchers, what has been said already. Better to merge it into the first time round? The first para of "Distinctive" is rather the same.
**I've actioned the first suggestion and I tentatively agree it looks better. Sandbh, what do you think? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::* Am in a rush; will respond as soon as [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
:::* The first one seems at least OK and a clever relocation. I'll have a closer look and post here if needs be. (Puffing to keep up!). [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::* Have trimmed and restructured to remove duplication. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
* I like the section on medical etc uses, but selenium is missing in the final bit. As I'm sure you know, it's inclusion in dietry supplement pills etc has been criticised recently.
:*I've added some content about selenium as an essential nutrient and its medicinal applications. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
* "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small atomic size, relatively high ionization energy, and its having fewer valence electrons (three) than atomic orbitals (four) available for bonding. With only three valence electrons, simple covalent bonding is electron deficient with respect to the [[octet rule]]."  Eek, help! More links please! 
**I toned this one down a bit while (I hope) keeping the meaning intact, and added a link to [[Three-center two-electron bond]]. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 22:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
* "Monographs" - Checking a couple, these don't seems to be used in the refs, so are what is normally called "further reading" on WP. This one "Vernon RE 2013, 'Which Elements are Metalloids?', ''Journal of Chemical Education,'' vol. 90, no. 12, pp.&nbsp;1703–7, {{doi|10.1021/ed3008457}}", at 3-4 pages long, can't really be called a [[monograph]], nor can Goldsmith and Hawkes, where only 2 page ranges are given. Others are sections or chapters in larger, more general, works. I'd just go with "further reading", maybe splitting the true monographs into a sub-section there.
:* Johnbod, my intent here was only to list the known single topic writings on metalloids, of which there are relatively few. I've changed the title of this section to 'Known monongraphs'. Here I'm using the broad meaning of 'monograph', as a written account of a single thing. I've added an explanatory note to that effect. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I have split some too long paras and added links. More later. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::* Thanks again. I believe I may be done here for now, unless I happen to see any gremlins. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 13:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
:* Apparently unlinked: oxygen, crystal, semiconductor is apparently only linked in a table - not sure about the rules here, Valence electron, Covalent bond, allotropic, halide. Several if not all of these come from the single para about boron where I asked for more links above. ''A lot more work is obviously needed here''.  Some of these may seem very basic terms (but you link "diamond") but they aren't. I still haven't read beyond the boron section, but will do so when assured the linking has been checked throughout the article.  [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::* Oh, I missed this one. Have rechecked the article and added more wikilinks. Guidance is that generally, a link should appear only once in an article (upon the term's first occurrence in the text of the article) but if helpful for readers, links can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. And articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles. Have used some judgement in deciding what to link; hopefully no oversights. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
*'''Update''' I have read through the rest of the article, and would have some small points, but I don't know when I'll have time to write them up. The nom seems to have attracted enough support - if the delegates feel it is otherwise ready for promotion, please don't hold that up on my account. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

====Paragraph length (PL)====
Could I please have some opinions about this?

PL has been area of interest to editors and reviewers of this article. Short paragraphs have sometimes been merged; long paragraphs have sometimes been split. All of these changes and associated comments have been well-intentioned. When I look back on them it seems to me they sometimes inadvertently result in paragraphs that cover more than one idea; and at other times they inadvertently split the idea being developed with the result that it becomes harder to comprehend. As well, the end result of some of these edits is that it's no longer possible to follow the bones of the article by reading just the topic/first sentence of each paragraph, which is the way I was taught how to use paragraphs.

Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Paragraph#Paragraphs|guidance]] about PL is that they should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. All quite reasonable.

The upshot is that I've shortened or merged some of the paragraphs in the article so that (a) each paragraph develops the single idea unit that is flagged in its topic sentence: and (b) there is a logical flow from topic sentence to topic sentence, throughout the article.

I'm hoping that these latest edits will still be FAC-acceptable. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:There is also an issue of sheer length, especially when the material is dense (for many readers anyway). I split some paras when not editing on my usual machine but one with a smaller (laptop) screen, where with a table or picture at the side some paras lasted a whole screen.  Heaven knows what they'd look like on a mobile.  Allowing for screen-reading on a vast range of sceen sizes, I would err on the side of short paras, not worrying so much about developments of ideas. The "bones" are supposed to be in the lead anyway, though not all of them. Very long-looking paras just put readers off. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
::I've split or re-split some of the longer paragraphs. I checked the article on a 13.3 notebook; no paras take up a whole screen. Checked on older iphone; most paras (>85%) fit on no more than one screen. Found some interesting external reading about paragraph length [http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/Paragraph-Length.htm here] and [http://strainindex.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/plain-paragraph-length/ here]. The recommendation you make about erring on the side of short paras, given the rise of small screens, is a good one. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Job done on this, as far as I'm concerned. As with images the multiplicity of screen sizes now has rather over-taken our guidance I think.  Useful links. My own style seems to favour short paras, at least online; I was struck after the event by the contrast between my online comment [http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1585?tab=responses here, #8 in a very narrow space] and the preceding 7 in terms of para length. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

==== Accessibility ====

The colour-keys in the periodic table extracts fail [[MOS:COLOUR]]. Non-colour indicators, like asterisks or superscript numbers, should be used. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you, this was raised early on in the development of the article. I believe it is addressed in the text boxes accompanying the images in question. This text explains in words which elements are covered by which legend/colour key. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
::I assume Sandbh's explanation answers (there is full textual descrtiption below). So it is not "colors only". Can {{U|Pigsonthewing}} agree? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

'''Note''' -- I gave myself a reminder when this was nominated previously that I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be, if promoted, the nominator's first FA. I'll wait a bit to see if any reviewer above wants to undertake that, otherwise I'll make a request at [[WT:FAC]]. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
:What do you mean by "spotcheck of sources"? I presume you want me to check if the sources really give the facts mentioned in the article, and that they don't ''lift''. I'm on it. {{flagicon|Friesland}} [[Special:Contributions/Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#6DC6FB;">Princess</span>]] [[User:Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#961370;">Parcly</span>]] [[User talk:Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#F3A4D9;">Taxel</span>]] 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
::Eh, sorry, I'll backtrack somewhat. I think the only things worth checking are the references that quote things straight out of the sources. [[Special:Contributions/Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#6DC6FB;">Princess</span>]] [[User:Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#961370;">Parcly</span>]] [[User talk:Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#F3A4D9;">Taxel</span>]] 04:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

==== Support from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever ====

This is one of the best featured article candidates (FACs) I've ever read! It's properly neutral, has good prose, and is filled with amazing grammar. All the pictures in the article look fascinating, and its worth tons of references everywhere. <s>}I[[User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#d4c00b;">'''Mr*'''</span>]]&#124;[[User talk:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#808000;">(''6''0nna)</span>]]I{</s> 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks for the kind feedback! [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

====Finishing content====
{{ping|John}}{{ping|Designate}}{{ping|R8R Gtrs}}{{ping|Harry Mitchell}}{{ping|Johnbod}}{{ping|Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever}}<br>
I added content re "Pyrotechnics" as a common application (an oversight), and "Abundance, extraction and cost" (polished from an earlier draft). Both copyedited by John. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
:I copy-edited it again. It is a good addition. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 12:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

====Lifting sources, [[Equestria Girls|claiming crowns]]?====
Per [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3#Accessibility|the comment abve]] by {{ping|Ian Rose}} and my replies to that I'm going to check the twelve (as I count) references that have direct quotes from their sources. The reference numbers are as of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalloid&oldid=604844402 this revision], and if the flag isn't North Brabant's that means I haven't checked and cleared it yet.

*'''#23''': {{flagicon|Salzburg}}
*'''#45''': {{flagicon|Vienna}}
*'''#64''': {{flagicon|Vorarlberg}}
*'''#65''': {{flagicon|Indonesia}}
*'''#188''': {{flagicon|Monaco}}
*'''#208''': {{flagicon|Hesse}}
*'''#218''': {{flagicon|Solothurn}}
*'''#375''': {{flagicon|Poland}}
*'''#381''': {{flagicon|Tyrol}}
*'''#401''': {{flagicon|Upper Austria}}
*'''#444''': {{flagicon|Singapore}}
*'''#446''': {{flagicon|Conch Republic}}
<small>...never mind.</small>
:I took this as meaning that the checker (User:Parcly Taxel) is happy with twelve direct quotes that they checked?[[User:Hamiltonstone|hamiltonstone]] ([[User talk:Hamiltonstone|talk]]) 04:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
::Yes, I am happy. {{flagicon|Georgia (country)}} {{flagicon|Georgia (U.S. state)}} [[Special:Contributions/Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#6DC6FB;">Princess</span>]] [[User:Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#961370;">Parcly</span>]] [[User talk:Parcly Taxel|<span style="color:#F3A4D9;">Taxel</span>]] 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

'''Closing comment''' -- this has probably set a record for FAC duration but following the spotchecks by Parcly and Dirac66 I think it's finally ready to promote, tks all. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|promoted}} [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FAbottom-->

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Wikipedia:Featured article tools (view source) (protected)
Template:' (view source) (protected)
Template:Apostrophe (view source) (protected)
Template:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Code (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Conch Republic (edit)
Template:Country data Friesland (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Georgia (U.S. state) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Georgia (country) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Hesse (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Indonesia (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Monaco (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Poland (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Salzburg (edit)
Template:Country data Singapore (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Country data Solothurn (edit)
Template:Country data Tyrol (edit)
Template:Country data Upper Austria (edit)
Template:Country data Vienna (edit)
Template:Country data Vorarlberg (edit)
Template:Doi (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FACClosed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Featured article tools (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Flag icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Flag icon/core (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Flagicon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Nowrap (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagelinks (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Project other (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Template link (view source) (protected)
Template:Tl (view source) (protected)
Template:U (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:User link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Wikipedia other (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:GetParameters (view source) (protected)
Module:PageLinks (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Toolbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Metalloid/archive3"