![]() | Metalloid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
I believe this article meets all of the A-class review criteria. For A2, a fair amount of detail is included in order to provide a comprehensive picture. The literature is relatively scattered. Many sources say a few things about metalloids but very few say more. This has resulted in a high reference count. Sandbh ( talk) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Major reorganization needed. The only (but a huge!) thing I really dislike it talks too about grouping and what elements can be included rather than describing (before you start to make conclusions, consider a page entitled like Possible metalloids or whatever rather than deleting all this useful info). The properties section can be converted into text. Worse for graphical readability but better for "encyclopedishness." In my opinion, a major reorganization is needed before you can consider A-class, but then you can. Other opinions?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool topic and I can tell that you love it. And have looked at a look of sources. But I agree with R8R. Needs work to make it more helpful to an encyclopedia reader. Heck, even as a specialized monograph or the like, would need work to get more paragraphing.
Add more prose in front of some of the honking tables. Condense some of the very short bullets into paragraphs. Make the lead summary style and without citations.
Get RexxS to work with you on the table layout (can we make it look better, transmit more info more cleanly, what is the rationale for order from top to bottom of properties, etc.)
Do not spend all the article on a discussion of what is/is not a metalloid. Sure, that is a tricky topic and part of the question. But how about the person who is not an inveterate cataloguer, not a taxonomy debater, but just wants to know more about the metaloids themselves!
TCO ( Reviews needed) 07:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's huge love for the topic, huge info, and lots of references. I just wonder how we can draw the readers in more. I think trying the organization listed below is worthwhile. I know it is work and I know there is no perfect cookie cutter structure (good to have different articles try different things). That said, wrestling with the structure and trying a rewrite would be worthwhile. Will be value added in the end.
On the tables, I really worry more for the sighted viewers! (I mean let's add the access, sure, no argument.) I know there is huge info in there, but I'm concerned people will be put off and skip it. Any ways to make it cleaner or transmit the info better? (I don't really know, just expressing a concern). Perhaps putting them deeper down in the topic would help? Perhaps more subdivision? (not just two). Can any of them be converted from text to graphical insights? (e.g. showing band gap for different semiconducting elements and having a dashed line zone. (.1ev to 1.5 eV or whatever!) Sorry, if I am not giving better direction. Maybe throwing this out helps others think on it.
TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This might work and possibly address the concerns about the focus of the article. I won't know until I give it a go:
There may not be enough in common about the recognised metalloids to make 2.2 and 2.3 meaningful but I can have a look. Sandbh ( talk) 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I like it. TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
R8R, TCO, RexxS, the feedback has been great. The restructure will take a little while. Sandbh ( talk) 11:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a gallery of the elements in the p-block, showing a trend in appearance from metals to nonmetals (passing through the metalloids). Double sharp ( talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Group # | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Period | |||||
2 |
![]() 5 B |
![]() 6 C |
![]() 7 N |
Oxygen 8 O |
![]() 9 F |
3 |
![]() 13 Al |
![]() 14 Si |
![]() 15 P |
![]() 16 S |
![]() 17 Cl |
4 |
![]() 31 Ga |
![]() 32 Ge |
![]() 33 As |
![]() 34 Se |
![]() 35 Br |
5 |
![]() 49 In |
![]() 50 Sn |
![]() 51 Sb |
![]() 52 Te |
![]() 53 I |
6 |
![]() 81 Tl |
![]() 82 Pb |
![]() 83 Bi |
84 Po |
85 At |
For the metalloids category, I have included the first two clusters only (the elements Wikipedia usually colours as metalloids, plus astatine). You might want to change the colours used to indicate the clusters of metalloids (if necessary). I did not use the "halogens" category. You could experiment with the size, among other things. Double sharp ( talk) 11:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many instances when the chemical symbols of an element not previously mentioned is not linked. Double sharp ( talk) 10:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What about the term "amphoteric line", sometimes used to mean "metalloid line"? Double sharp ( talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
In light of the good feedback, and thinking about this some more, I currently intend to try the following:
Sections 1.3 to 1.6 are still to be done. I'll also expand section 4.3 as this currently only talks about the distinctive properties of metalloids. The rest will be moving stuff around and tidying the resulting new joins between sections 1 to 5. Sandbh ( talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm requesting a second A-class review.
With help from Double sharp and some other eagle-eyed editors, I've restructured and improved the article in response to feedback from the first A-class review. Changes are:
I kept the properties tables in table form rather than turning them into text. Such tables are common in chemistry text books, as are tables generally in encyclopaedias—if memory serves, hard copy Britannica, for example, includes multi-page tables. The original issue with the tables was that they swamped the start of the article. I've addressed this by moving them further down the article as well as adding more before and after explanatory and summary prose.
The lead still has some citations. I gather the nub of the original feedback was that having so many citations in the lead was overwhelming. I've addressed this by pruning the lead and relocating the clippings to other parts of the article.
Despite my initial surprise in response to the first feedback I'm pleased to say the end result is a much better structured and presented article. The feedback was very helpful, insightful and thought-provoking in that regard.
Thank you, Sandbh ( talk) 11:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the legend of the diagram at the top at all ("Common, Less common, Uncommon, Rare") - it looks like it's talking about relative abundance of those elements in the earth's crust of something like that
A problem for this article is that "metalloid" is not really a rigorous term, and so does not lend itself well to exhaustive factual articles! I also dislike the way it says the "metalloid status" of some of them is "disputed" - it is too emotive a term. Whether it is useful to call something a "metalloid" is only ever going to be done on the basis of that element's chemical and physical properties - and none of those properties are disputed! All that we're really talking about here are a few lazy websites or textbooks which labelled something as a "metalloid" based on its position in the periodic table, rather than checking what its properties actually were. There's refs for this in the polonium article, for instance. I don't think there's any "dispute" at all-- feline1 ( talk) 09:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A recent IP editor removed Oxford commas from lists. This article is in Australian English, which I am not fluent in. Do Aussies use the Oxford comma? IAmNitpicking ( talk) 21:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
In the 5th edition of Inorganic Chemistry by Catherine Housecroft there's a mention (chapter 14.1) that IUPAC recommends using the term 'semi-metal' over 'metalloid'. I couldn't find the particular source but for example in https://iupac.qmul.ac.uk/BlueBook/P1.html the name semi-metal is used. Could someone look into this matter? It seems quite important 188.147.108.79 ( talk) 18:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I overall like this article, although it does repeat itself and I do wonder about whether everything belongs or is making it too long/unreadable. For certain there are quite a few statements which are backed up by a single ref and are not widely recognized. As just a small example.
I don't think either of these is in use as yet so could be WP:TOOSOON for inclusion,if you judge them as if they had their own article. Ldm1954 ( talk) 23:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Metalloid is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
I believe this article meets all of the A-class review criteria. For A2, a fair amount of detail is included in order to provide a comprehensive picture. The literature is relatively scattered. Many sources say a few things about metalloids but very few say more. This has resulted in a high reference count. Sandbh ( talk) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Major reorganization needed. The only (but a huge!) thing I really dislike it talks too about grouping and what elements can be included rather than describing (before you start to make conclusions, consider a page entitled like Possible metalloids or whatever rather than deleting all this useful info). The properties section can be converted into text. Worse for graphical readability but better for "encyclopedishness." In my opinion, a major reorganization is needed before you can consider A-class, but then you can. Other opinions?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool topic and I can tell that you love it. And have looked at a look of sources. But I agree with R8R. Needs work to make it more helpful to an encyclopedia reader. Heck, even as a specialized monograph or the like, would need work to get more paragraphing.
Add more prose in front of some of the honking tables. Condense some of the very short bullets into paragraphs. Make the lead summary style and without citations.
Get RexxS to work with you on the table layout (can we make it look better, transmit more info more cleanly, what is the rationale for order from top to bottom of properties, etc.)
Do not spend all the article on a discussion of what is/is not a metalloid. Sure, that is a tricky topic and part of the question. But how about the person who is not an inveterate cataloguer, not a taxonomy debater, but just wants to know more about the metaloids themselves!
TCO ( Reviews needed) 07:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's huge love for the topic, huge info, and lots of references. I just wonder how we can draw the readers in more. I think trying the organization listed below is worthwhile. I know it is work and I know there is no perfect cookie cutter structure (good to have different articles try different things). That said, wrestling with the structure and trying a rewrite would be worthwhile. Will be value added in the end.
On the tables, I really worry more for the sighted viewers! (I mean let's add the access, sure, no argument.) I know there is huge info in there, but I'm concerned people will be put off and skip it. Any ways to make it cleaner or transmit the info better? (I don't really know, just expressing a concern). Perhaps putting them deeper down in the topic would help? Perhaps more subdivision? (not just two). Can any of them be converted from text to graphical insights? (e.g. showing band gap for different semiconducting elements and having a dashed line zone. (.1ev to 1.5 eV or whatever!) Sorry, if I am not giving better direction. Maybe throwing this out helps others think on it.
TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This might work and possibly address the concerns about the focus of the article. I won't know until I give it a go:
There may not be enough in common about the recognised metalloids to make 2.2 and 2.3 meaningful but I can have a look. Sandbh ( talk) 11:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I like it. TCO ( Reviews needed) 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
R8R, TCO, RexxS, the feedback has been great. The restructure will take a little while. Sandbh ( talk) 11:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a gallery of the elements in the p-block, showing a trend in appearance from metals to nonmetals (passing through the metalloids). Double sharp ( talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Group # | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Period | |||||
2 |
![]() 5 B |
![]() 6 C |
![]() 7 N |
Oxygen 8 O |
![]() 9 F |
3 |
![]() 13 Al |
![]() 14 Si |
![]() 15 P |
![]() 16 S |
![]() 17 Cl |
4 |
![]() 31 Ga |
![]() 32 Ge |
![]() 33 As |
![]() 34 Se |
![]() 35 Br |
5 |
![]() 49 In |
![]() 50 Sn |
![]() 51 Sb |
![]() 52 Te |
![]() 53 I |
6 |
![]() 81 Tl |
![]() 82 Pb |
![]() 83 Bi |
84 Po |
85 At |
For the metalloids category, I have included the first two clusters only (the elements Wikipedia usually colours as metalloids, plus astatine). You might want to change the colours used to indicate the clusters of metalloids (if necessary). I did not use the "halogens" category. You could experiment with the size, among other things. Double sharp ( talk) 11:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many instances when the chemical symbols of an element not previously mentioned is not linked. Double sharp ( talk) 10:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What about the term "amphoteric line", sometimes used to mean "metalloid line"? Double sharp ( talk) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
In light of the good feedback, and thinking about this some more, I currently intend to try the following:
Sections 1.3 to 1.6 are still to be done. I'll also expand section 4.3 as this currently only talks about the distinctive properties of metalloids. The rest will be moving stuff around and tidying the resulting new joins between sections 1 to 5. Sandbh ( talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm requesting a second A-class review.
With help from Double sharp and some other eagle-eyed editors, I've restructured and improved the article in response to feedback from the first A-class review. Changes are:
I kept the properties tables in table form rather than turning them into text. Such tables are common in chemistry text books, as are tables generally in encyclopaedias—if memory serves, hard copy Britannica, for example, includes multi-page tables. The original issue with the tables was that they swamped the start of the article. I've addressed this by moving them further down the article as well as adding more before and after explanatory and summary prose.
The lead still has some citations. I gather the nub of the original feedback was that having so many citations in the lead was overwhelming. I've addressed this by pruning the lead and relocating the clippings to other parts of the article.
Despite my initial surprise in response to the first feedback I'm pleased to say the end result is a much better structured and presented article. The feedback was very helpful, insightful and thought-provoking in that regard.
Thank you, Sandbh ( talk) 11:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the legend of the diagram at the top at all ("Common, Less common, Uncommon, Rare") - it looks like it's talking about relative abundance of those elements in the earth's crust of something like that
A problem for this article is that "metalloid" is not really a rigorous term, and so does not lend itself well to exhaustive factual articles! I also dislike the way it says the "metalloid status" of some of them is "disputed" - it is too emotive a term. Whether it is useful to call something a "metalloid" is only ever going to be done on the basis of that element's chemical and physical properties - and none of those properties are disputed! All that we're really talking about here are a few lazy websites or textbooks which labelled something as a "metalloid" based on its position in the periodic table, rather than checking what its properties actually were. There's refs for this in the polonium article, for instance. I don't think there's any "dispute" at all-- feline1 ( talk) 09:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A recent IP editor removed Oxford commas from lists. This article is in Australian English, which I am not fluent in. Do Aussies use the Oxford comma? IAmNitpicking ( talk) 21:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
In the 5th edition of Inorganic Chemistry by Catherine Housecroft there's a mention (chapter 14.1) that IUPAC recommends using the term 'semi-metal' over 'metalloid'. I couldn't find the particular source but for example in https://iupac.qmul.ac.uk/BlueBook/P1.html the name semi-metal is used. Could someone look into this matter? It seems quite important 188.147.108.79 ( talk) 18:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I overall like this article, although it does repeat itself and I do wonder about whether everything belongs or is making it too long/unreadable. For certain there are quite a few statements which are backed up by a single ref and are not widely recognized. As just a small example.
I don't think either of these is in use as yet so could be WP:TOOSOON for inclusion,if you judge them as if they had their own article. Ldm1954 ( talk) 23:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)