Talk:Nonmetal/Archive 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

232:"Nonmetallic elements are either shiny, colored, or colorless. For graphitic carbon, black phosphorus, arsenic, antimony, selenium and iodine their structures feature varying degrees of delocalised electrons that scatter incoming visible light, resulting in a shiny appearance (Wiberg 2001, p. 416). The colored nonmetals (sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, bromine) absorb some colours (wavelengths) and transmit the complementary colours. For chlorine, its "familiar yellow-green colour...is due to a broad region of absorption in the violet and blue regions of the spectrum" (Elliot 1929, p. 629).^ For the colorless nonmetals (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases) their electrons are held sufficiently strongly such that no absorption occurs in the visible region of the spectrum, and all visible light is transmitted.” 1715: 1445:"NONMETALS stand apart from METALS in many ways, both physically and chemically, although these two classes of elements merge into one another. Physically, nonmetals do not exhibit luster or polish; they are poor conductors of heat and electricity; if solid, they are often brittle, they are not ductile, and they possess poor tensile strength. At ordinary temperatures some are solid, some liquid, and some gaseous: their melting points range from −272°C(−457.6°F), under 26 atm pressure, for helium, to above 3550°C (6422°F) for carbon. Their values for specific gravity are low, compared with those for metals. Chemically, their oxides usually react with water to form acids, and their chlorides are often decomposed by water." 2437:: Thank you for taking the initiative to resolve the outstanding issues in FAC-7. I wonder if it might be wise to see how many of the reviewers would be willing to become co-nominators? I would be willing to do this under certain circumstances, and I think others might also. Convincing previous reviewers to become co-nominators will improve (but delay) the FAC-8 nomination. For me to be willing to do this, I would need to engage with the FA criteria in a way I have not yet done. For each criterion, I would wish to state the extent to which I reviewed it and list any outstanding issues that need to be addressed before I'm willing to become a co-nominator. 1282:"A nonmetal (or non-metal) is a chemical element that generally lacks a predominance of metallic properties; they range from colorless gases (like hydrogen) to shiny solids (like carbon, as graphite). They are usually poor conductors of heat and electricity, and brittle or crumbly when solid, due to their electrons having low mobility. In contrast, metals are good conductors and most are easily flattened into sheets and drawn into wires since their electrons are generally free-moving. Nonmetal atoms tend to attract electrons in chemical reactions and to form acidic compounds." 4130:

be clarified what precisely is being compared. Since you were writing about chemical behaviour above, I responded by comparing chemically; if you want to consider both, then any such statement would depend on how you weight the two kinds of properties, and that starts to get into OR. BTW, tellurium (which isn't even a metal) beats thallium on all three physical properties you mentioned (tensile strength 11 MPa vs. 10 MPa, Mohs hardness 2.25 vs 1.2, mp 723 K vs 577), so it's not even that clear that they're good gauges of what good metallicity is.

1290:"A nonmetal is a type of chemical element that is a poor electrical conductor or is a mechanically weak and brittle solid the most stable oxide of which is acidic. They range from colorless gases (like hydrogen) to shiny substances (like carbon, as graphite). Their electrons have low mobility. In contrast, metals are good conductors and most are easily flattened into sheets and drawn into wires since their electrons are generally free-moving. Nonmetal atoms tend to attract electrons in chemical reactions and and to form acidic compounds." 4094:(a) Yes. In general terms, the metals to the right of the TM, as a set, are the weakest metals. None of them have any real mechanical strength; most of them are pretty weak chemically. OTOH, some of the early TM are chemically quite strong; there are quite few mechanically strong TM; and several of the TM (noble metals) are chemically weak. To the left of the TM are the successively mechanically weaker and chemically stronger Ln/An and group 1–2 metals. You can get a good appreciation of what’s going on by studying the 1697: 4287:. As DS noted, however, the noble metals are geographically positioned before the post-transition metals. Another issue is that the proposed paragraph mixes the concepts of metallicity with reactivity, which can be confusing. Finally, I’m not sure that supporting citations will be able to be found. The existing form of wording in the article does not suffer from any of these issues. Given this, and speaking frankly, I no longer know why your form of wording YBG, is still being discussed. 154:

molecular-like thing going on (Ga). (And here I am assuming 40°C weather to define "liquid".) When the covalent bonds extend over the whole network, we always get a solid, too (B, C, black P, Si, Ge, Se, Te), and sometimes we even get one where it doesn't when van der Waals forces are strong enough (the big ones: white P, S, yellow As, red Se, I). So it's not a metal vs nonmetal thing; it's closer to a giant-structure vs molecular thing (blurring as the molecule gets heavier).

809:

some of them as metals, for example arsenic and antimony, due to their similarities to heavy metals. It has been known for over 100 years that the elements commonly recognised as metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) behave chemically like nonmetals. The article treats them as "metalloid nonmetals" in light of their chemical behavior, and for comparative purposes. The metalloids further meet the criteria for nonmetals of low density and relatively high electronegativity.

1153:"Physical properties apply to elements in their most stable forms under ambient conditions, and are listed in loose order of ease of determination. Chemical properties are listed from general to descriptive, and then to specific. The dashed line around the metalloids denotes that, depending on the author, the elements involved may or may not be recognized as a distinct class or subclass of elements. Metals are included as a reference point." lacks a reference. 1706: 31: 2611: 3706:

transition metals, such as scandium, iron and nickel, of high to low reactivity. To the right of the transition metals, (from group 13 onwards) are metals such as tin and lead, none of which are particularly reactive. A subset of the transition metals (including platinum and gold) are referred to as noble metals on account of their reluctance to engage in chemical activity.

3133: 3241:

strongly-metallic-to-strongly-nonmetallic PT trend. The text admits that the comparison is only occasionally made. Unlike the group 17 and 18 comparisons, I don't think this paragraph has anything substantial enough here to be included in the 1st paragraph of the section as I added in the now reverted edits. Best to simply delete this paragraph.

5348:

Furthermore, nonmetals typically exhibit higher ionization energies, electron affinities, and standard reduction potentials than metals. Generally, the higher these values are (including electronegativity) the more nonmetallic the element tends to be. For example, the chemically very active nonmetals

3943:

Ditto; I suspect it would not be possible to find a supporting citation that refers to the PTM as being "the least metallic". OTOH the way the paragraph is constructed now is covered by just one citation. I tried to not use the expression PTM here in order to avoid any controversy as to whether Al is

3366:

The penultimate “In terms of PT geography...” paragraph essentially says both classes are between more reactive elements and less reactive elements. This is not really a fact about the UNM and TM, but rather a fact about the general strongly-metallic-to-strongly-nonmetallic PT trend. Unlike the group

1456:

brittle" is not quite true since all solid nonmetals are brittle, unless he had white P in mind which can be cut with a knife however black P, which is brittle, is the most stable form. That they are "poor conductors of heat and electricity" is contradicted by graphitic C. While Read says that "some"

1301:

Among the metals, and semimetals (in a physics-based sense), gallium, arsenic, antimony and bismuth are brittle and mechanically weak. Gallium trioxide is amphoteric; aqueous solutions of arsenic trioxide are weakly acidic; antimony trioxide is amphoteric, but has acidic properties predominating; and

4548:"Nonmetals possess relatively high values of electronegativity and their oxides are typically acidic. The exceptions concern some amphoteric nonmetallic oxides, such as the dioxides of selenium and tellurium (which nevertheless have a bias to acidity), and water, which is a neutral oxide of hydrogen. 4129:

Which metals are "weakest" depends on precisely what you're talking about. Chemically, 4d and 5d metals are the weakest. Physically, they are the strongest. Chemically, alkali metals are the strongest. Physically, they are the weakest. For this reason, when talking about metallic strength, it should

3691:

Re, "post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals" that is not so. There are overlaps between the metal types, as is the case with the nonmetal types. Towards the middle of the periodic table are transition metals, such as scandium, iron and nickel, of high to low reactivity. To the right of

1323:

It seems to me that nonmetallicity is more correlated with keeping one's own electrons than attracting others', i.e. electronegativity rather than electron affinity. The noble gases are a clear example. Also, Cs has a higher electron affinity than B. Electronegativity is also not perfect considering

808:

The treatment of elements occupying the frontier territory where the metals meet the nonmetals varies from author to author. Some consider them separate from both metals and nonmetals (and refer to them as metalloids); some regard them as nonmetals or as a sub-class of nonmetals. Other authors count

595:

Restrepo et al., on the basis of a comparative study of 128 known and interpolated physiochemical, geochemical and chemical properties of 72 of the elements, reported that astatine appeared to share more in common with polonium (a metal) than it did with the established halogens and that, “At should

5068:

Tangentially, why are we looking only at solid nonmetals? Firstly, you're citing each one to its own source, which makes me wonder if it is a SYNTH to look only at them. Secondly, if it were really a characteristic property of nonmetals, then you'd expect that the strongest reactive nonmetals would

4388:

The relevant paragraph in the nonmetal article is accompanied by a table showing EN ranges for the elements. The pattern of electronegativity is plain to see. For the types of nonmetals, there is a progression from less electronegative to more electronegative. A similar progression occurs among the

5414:

Are high oxidation states in groups 15 and 16 really unusual? I kind of doubt it considering that this is the majority behaviour. Nitric and sulfuric acids are familiar even in the school chemistry lab. I'd rather name the last section "higher oxidation states" than "unusual oxidation states" for

4257:

In general, "metallic character increases going left to right" is one of those lies to children that works because it's correct for the elements encountered in the first year of chemistry. It's not really accurate once you consider the d-block elements (actinoids also have some problems with this

4156:

I suggest any concerns about the Mohs hardness of thallium and its lower melting point are out-weighed by the fact that is is a malleable and sectile close-packed metal, with an ionization energy less than 750 kJ/mol, and an EN < 1.9. In contrast, tellurium is a brittle and crumbly open-packed

3705:

A broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble). On the left side of the periodic table, and below its main body, are highly to fairly reactive metals, such as sodium, calcium and uranium. Towards the middle of the periodic table are

4219:

These categories follow the general left-to-right metallic-to-nonmetallic trend in the periodic table. The metalloids – so metallic they are sometimes not considered nonmetals – are just right of the post-transition metals – the least metallic class of metals. Surrounding these are more reactive

2450:

For example, there is an inherent tension between precision and readability. How can we avoid both over-simplification and over-precision? For example, if not done carefully, adding the "tendency-speak" to make statements precise can cause sentences to be clumsy and wordy. If not done carefully,

149:

Well in my favourite counterexample to that, sulfuric acid already gives the sulfate with Sb as well as Bi (but not As). To some extent it can be national-traditional variation: from what I remember, Russian authors are likelier to call Sb a metal than English authors (though this may be because

116:

Par for the course, there is a little bit of overlap going on here in that C, As, Sb have the electronic structure of semimetals, as does Bi. Yet the chemistry of C, As, Sb is largely nonmetallic whereas Bi is regarded as having just enough metallic character to merit being admitted to the metal

5320:

gets at it quite well (section 5), though I wouldn't suggest using its idiosyncratic terminology. The point is that the very strongest nonmetals are really "the opposites of metals" in all ways (i.e. extremely high EN, forming ionic bonds with the metals, being quite happy in negative oxidation

153:

Metals are nearly all solid because the metallic bond is strong and, crucially, extends over the whole network. You really need special circumstances to have a liquid metal: few electrons to share (Rb, Cs, Fr), relativistic pseudo-closed shell configurations (Hg, maybe Cn and Fl), or some weird

619:

While astatine could reasonably be presumed to be a metalloid based on ordinary periodic trends, relativistic effects—as seen in gold, mercury, and the heavier p-block elements—are expected to result in condensed astatine being a ductile FCC metal. It could also be expected to show significant

578:

Edwards and Sienko speculated that, on the basis of the non-relativistic Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for metallicity, astatine was probably a metalloid. As the ratio is based on classical arguments it does not accommodate the finding that polonium (cf. 2006 entry following) adopts a metallic

548:

The bulk properties of astatine remain unknown as a visible quantity of it would immediately self-vaporize from the heat generated by its radioactivity. It remains to be seen if, with sufficient cooling, a macroscopic quantity could be deposited as a thin film. Historically, "since elements in

3490:

If you are willing to delete all four comparison paragraphs, I would entertain the addition at the end of the introduction to Types, a general statement describing NM L-R trend, mentioning that it mostly mirrors the L-R trend in metals. If this seems a good idea, let me know and once all four

3873:

I think YBG is right on this one. Anything that would call the chemistry of Te "predominately nonmetallic" would have a hard time not saying the same of some 4d and 5d transition metals (Te forms cationic species at low pH, W doesn't even do that; all W(VI) species involve oxide ligands, but

3676:

In the periodic table, metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals – come beside post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals. This follows a general left-to-right metallic-to-nonmetallic trend. Surrounding these are more reactive elements (transition metals and

3897:

Pt exist): the metalloids usually fall within the bounds of metals. (Again, this is mostly thanks to the 4d and 5d metals being complete disasters chemically.) Most people using a "metalloid" category treat them as a third class, neither metal nor nonmetal, as YBG's wording would have it.

1147:"Chemistry- or physics-based techniques used in the isolation efforts were spectroscopy, fractional distillation, radiation detection, electrolysis, ore acidification, displacement reactions, combustion, and heating; a few nonmetals occurred naturally as free elements." lacks a reference. 4443:

Differences between authors on how to categorise elements into sets, differences between EN scales (Allen gives much lower values for noble metals than Pauling does), and differences in EN depending on oxidation state (Pb 1.87 versus Pb 2.33) rather suggests that there is quite a doubt.

4428:

EN is one aspect of metallicity. While there are a fair number of overlaps among the EN values of the elements, and even overlaps between sets of elements, there is no doubting the overall patterns when comparing sets of elements. The scatter chart of EN x MP values confirms this.

210:

If this is your objection to Double sharp's post, that means the rest is a good replacement for the color & phase topic in the article, starters. IOW, this is the encyclopedic approach (some ce todo allright). It also leads to the conclusion that it is not 1st-sentence-worthy.

4220:

elements (transition metals and unclassified nonmetals); and further outside, the most reactive elements (alkali and alkaline earth metals and halogen nonmetals). The least reactive elements include noble gases on the far right and noble metals buried within transition metals.

3988:, but: (a) not really, the 4d and 5d transition metals are weaker; (b) not really, as in particular thallium is a better metal than tungsten is, and both are in period 6. (Tungsten doesn't even form any ionic halides; in high oxidation states it forms molecular compounds like 4651:

So, perhaps something like this would be good: "Nonmetals possess relatively high values of electronegativity, and therefore their oxides are usually acidic. Exceptions occur when the oxidation state is low, the nonmetal is not very electronegative, or both: thus for example

4102:

article. (b) Yes, bearing in mind metallic character is a combination of physical and chemical attributes, rather than one or the other. On W and Tl, I suggest the chemistry-based shortcomings present in W compared to Tl, are out-muscled by the mechanical strength of W (e.g.

3828:

I suspect it would not be possible to find a supporting citation that refers to metalloids being "so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals." This is especially so given it has been know for ~120 years that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry. ---

3240:

The penultimate paragraph with block quote amounts to saying “The metalloids and PTM are in the middle of the periodic table, one is weakly metallic, the other weakly nonmetallic”. This is not really a fact about the M-oids and PTM, but rather a fact about the general

926:"Chemistry- or physics-based techniques used in the isolation efforts were spectroscopy, fractional distillation, radiation detection, electrolysis, ore acidification, displacement reactions, combustion and heating; a few nonmetals occurred naturally as free elements." 3169:: I like it, especially the inclusion of the atomic numbers. Should I include the group numbers? If so, do they need to be labeled? I'm inclined to consistently include the s/p/d/f block labels but drop the normal shell-filling order s / p / d / f. What do you think? 1390:

A nonmetal is one of a number of elements, including gases, liquids and solids, which are grouped together because they do not conduct heat or electricity well, are not ductile and malleable, and do not reflect light well. Chemically, nonmetal atoms form negative

4315:

and I both mention reactivity to justify the pairings. I mention metallicity to place these two 4-fold divisions in the broader PT context. Without the metallicity and PT context, there seems to be little justification for including either paragraph, mine or

5349:

fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have an average electronegativity of 3.19—a figure higher than that of any individual metal. On the other hand, the 2.05 average of the chemically weak metalloid nonmetals falls within the 0.70 to 2.54 range of metals.

5133:

The removal is fine with me. The way I see it, if you have a specific source saying the general statement, it's OK to cite illustrative examples to different sources; but if you don't have a specific source saying the general statement, it starts being

5237:

18-electron vs duet/octet is not about metals vs nonmetals, but about transition vs main-group. Obviously, the alkali metals are trying to get a nice, stable full shell; it's just that it's much easier for them to do it by shedding the outermost one.

3677:

unclassified nonmetals); and further outside, the most reactive elements (alkali and alkaline earth metals and halogen nonmetals). The least reactive elements include noble gases on the far right and noble metals buried within transition metals.

1179:

Note 4 does not need a cite since it is only listing the grayed-out elements in the parent image; ditto note 12 sets out the first row elements in the parent image; note 13 as per note 4; note 26 is a meta-explanation of what is going on in the

665:

6. Edwards PP 1999, Chemically engineering the metallic, insulating and supercon-ducting state of matter, in Seddon KR & Zaworotko M (eds), Crystal Engineering: The Design and Application of Functional Solids, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, p.

3685:

The statement, "metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals" is dubious. Only about 50% of authors actually mention lists of metalloids. It has been know for over a century that metalloids behave chemically mainly like

1515:

While there is no common rigorous definition of a nonmetal in terms of the precise properties involved, a broad definition based on relatively low density (a physical property) and relatively high electronegativity (chemical) encompasses:

4768:"Nonmetals possess relatively high values of electronegativity, and their oxides are therefore usually acidic. Exceptions occur when the oxidation state is low, the nonmetal is not very electronegative, or both: thus, for example, water H 3921:, but then you seem to argue as though I had said "least reactive" instead of "least metallic". There are less reactive metals amongst the TM, but are there any that would be considered less metallic (or more nonmetallic) than the PTM? 1128:

I rechecked the costs as at April 2023 since I did this originally as at August 2022. In the ensuing eight months there was hardly any variation, in relative terms. I suspect that an annual check would suffice, an idea I got from you.

1545:

Nonmetals include gases , liquids , and solids . They are generally dull instead of shiny , and they do not conduct heat or electricity very well . They cannot be shaped into wires or thin sheets , and they tend to have a low density

106:

The mechanism for the rest of the shiny nonmetals, which are all semiconductors, arises from their band gaps being less than equal to the visible spectrum cut off of 1.8 eV. S has a bigger band gap, giving rise to its yellow color.

2354:

Thanks. BTW, I figured out how to get a hanging indent work with the text, which also serves as the table legend. I want to test it out with a bunch of different screen widths, but once I do I think this whole section is resolved.

4212:

First of all, the topic sentence of a paragraph needn’t be the first sentence; in my paragraph, the topic sentence was the second one. Nevertheless I’m happy to follow this style since it has been used throughout the rest of this

613:

Hermann, Hoffmann, and Ashcroft predicted At would be an fcc metal, once all relativistic effects are taken into account, and that it would have a band gap of 0.68 eV (cf. Batsanov) if only some of these effects were taken into

3662:

Topic sentence 3 breaks the logical flow of ideas. It is not a topic sentence as it does not set out the broad premise of the paragraph. Inserting a paragraph mentioning metals here, rather than at the end of the section, is

644:

2. Vasáros L & Berei K 1985, General properties of astatine, in Kugler HK & Keller C (eds), Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic and Organometallic chemistry, 8th ed., At, Astatine, system no. 8a, Springer-Verlag, pp. 107–28

604:

Thornton and Burdette observed that "Since elements in heavier periods often resemble their n+1 and n-1 neighbours more than their lighter congeners, eka-iodine ...was expected to be radioactive and metallic like polonium."

4305:. The multiple pages listed in the ref may all support this 4-fold division or perhaps the division is synthesized from multiple tangential comparisons. Without seeing the original, I hope the former but suspect the latter. 1407:

The properties include poor conductivity; brittle and mechanically weak if solid; usually low density and mp; large ionization energy; gain or share electrons; usually negative EA; form negative ions; acidic oxides. ---

3367:

17 and 18 comparisons, I don't think this paragraph has anything substantial enough here to be included in the 1st paragraph of the section as I added in the now reverted edits. Best to simply delete this paragraph.

2550:

That makes sense. By definition, a co-nominator supports the nomination. IMO, a co-nomination seems stronger that a mere support, but if you think it is unhelpful or just plain unneeded, I won't press the issue.

2470:

I would strongly recommend against renominating so soon unless you have recruited a co-nominator. Otherwise the next FAC might easily degenerate into another wall of text trying the patience of the coordinators.

4327:, what do you think? Would the article be better without a paragraph comparing the NM categories to M categories? If you want such a paragraph, do you prefer an approach using the M-to-NM trend or one without? 1541:

Unlike metals, solid non-metals are dull, brittle and not malleable. They also tend to be less dense than metals, and have lower melting and boiling points (apart from carbon). With high electronegativity (see

1339:

The sources are about 50:50 between defining nonmetals as (i) elements either not having the properties of a metal or (ii) in terms of more specific properties as per following 20 examples from the literature:

4384:

He surveys the s-block metals; the f-block metals (a chapter each on Ln and An); the d-block metals (a chapter each on the 3d metals, and the 4d-5d metals (including the noble metals); and the p-block metals.

4376:

A key consideration is that the article opens with a reference to metallic properties and concludes with a comparison of metals and nonmetals. In this context the mid-way broad comparison seems appropriate.

1605:

Some of the elements have high values of electronegativity and some have lower values. Those with low electronegativity values are called metals and those with high electronegativity values are categorized

3571:

with the fuzziness paragraphs between. I will consider any comments before restoring my new version in a day or two. I can already see a couple of places where I could make my proposed text read smoother.

4355:

It’s not clear to me why there is so much ado over a single paragraph that takes up ca. 1% of the article’s size. I’m currently time-challenged and hope to be able to add some further comments later on.

1356:

The distinctive chemical property of a nonmetal is the ability to gain electrons to form an anion when reacting with a metal. The nonmetals have large ionization energies and most have negative electron

671:

7. Encyclopedia of the Structure of Materials, Elsevier, Oxford, p. 142; Pyykkö P 2012, Relativistic effects in chemistry: More common than you thought, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, vol. 63, p.

1387:

A nonmetal is a kind of matter that does not have a metallic luster, is a poor conductor of heat and electricity, and when solid, is a brittle material that cannot be pounded or pulled into new shapes.

4301:

While the 3- or 4-fold division of nonmetals is well attested, it is my understanding that there is precious little literature support for a comparable division of metals; it isn’t even mentioned at

525: 5459:

I still think the "higher oxidation states" section has problems: nitrogen already has oxidation state +5 in nitric acid, which is a familiar compound. Moreover, the actual oxidation states in H

4392:

Metallicity is broadly related to EN and to reactivity. So, the s- and f-block metals are the most EN/metallic, the ordinary TM are next, then follow the p-block metals, and the noble metals.

763:. So, no major class Metalloids in there. The Metalloids appear as subdivision of class Nonmetals. The article is rewritten this way by Sandbh, with the pre-overhaul GA-icon kept undiscussed. 1344:…a substance that conducts heat and electricity poorly, is brittle or waxy or gaseous, and cannot be hammered into sheets or drawn into wire. Nonmetals gain electrons easily to form anions. 4254:

The problem with this wording is that the noble metals are a subset of the transition metals, and in fact are almost right next to the PTM (Hg is already quite noble, and Au certainly is).

4323:

Although i prefer my approach (seeing the categories as a reflection on metallicity trends) to Sandbh’s, I frankly think the article would be better without either of these paragraphs. @

3885:, there's actually quite few properties that distinguish metals from metalloids, other than a slightly weaker tendency to form alloys (and even then, intermetallic semiconductors like Mg 5316:

It should probably be noted that these generalisations are at their best for the strongest nonmetals. Near the borderline, especially for the metalloids, it is quite different. I think

1087:"From right to left in periodic table terms, three or four kinds of nonmetals are more or less commonly discerned. These are: the relatively inert noble gases;" are also unreferenced. 3944:

or is not a PTM. If it is regarded as such, then a case could be made that Zn is less metallic than Al. This treads on another controversy as to whether Zn is a transition metal. ---

4463:

I may as well gently add, once again, it is well known that both metals and nonmetals range from highly to less reactive (even noble). The paragraph under discussion says just that.

579:(rather than covalent) crystalline structure, on relativistic grounds. Even so it offers a first order rationalization for the occurrence of metallic character amongst the elements. 113:

Why metals are nearly all solid whereas nonmetals cover all three bases is something I'll need to look further into. I do know that Hg is liquid on account of relativistic effects.

1512:

I've adjusted the lede paragraph, and made associated edits later in the article, to make things easier to follow in terms of what is a nonmetal in the broadest sense of the term.

1369:

A nonmetal is an element that gains or shares electrons when it combines chemically. There is no set of physical properties that applies to all nonmetals, there is for the metals.

135:

TL;DR. If this is the missing encyclopedic link, it should be in the article. Then, I don't think it has the right proportions. As talkpage post, it doesn't solve the question.

4176:

Point being, there are a bunch of things that have be considered representative of "metallicity"; since they don't always agree, it's helpful to specify what exactly is meant.

3970:

AEM/AM/TM in the same period? I'm definitely not suggesting that we'd use either of these convoluted expressions - I'm just trying to verify my understanding of the situation.

1294:

The reference to poor electrical conductivity applies to nearly all nonmetals. Carbon, as graphite, is an exception. But it is a mechanically weak and brittle substance, and CO

447:

Good point. You are correct: Nonmetal is a thing. The article is essential. But the chemistry stuff (reactions, structures, minerals) should mostl be in Main Group Chemistry.

2447:

Reviewers might have conflicting criteria that cannot be satisfied simultaneously. If so, far better for this to surface - and hopefully resolve - before FAC-8 than during it!

4616:

is acidic. As for explicit examples, I'd avoid getting into the weeds, considering that authors vary about what counts as amphoteric. (Somehow I doubt many people consider N

596:

not be considered as a halogen." In so doing they echoed the 1940 observation that, "The chemical properties of the unknown substance are very close to those of polonium."

4524:

in general. There surely are a lot of organic bases. Even in the inorganic realm, probably ammonia is the most famous base with only nonmetallic elements in its formula.

562:

Astatine was judged to be a metal when it was first synthesized. That assessment was consistent with some metallic character seen in iodine, its lighter halogen congener.

4018:. On the other hand, Tl does an okay job of pretending to be an alkali metal cation, and TlF can quite reasonably be described as ionic, although high conductivity of Tl 3077:

has a lot of detail not related to the first row anomaly. This makes the picture cluttered and confusing. I've included here an outline of what could be an alternative.

249:

The absorbed light may be converted to heat or re-emitted in all directions so that the emission spectrum is thousands of times weaker than the incident light radiation.

3788:: Your longish post seems to me to have three main objections, which I would like to discuss individually. I would appreciate your effort to keep your responses brief. 677:

8. Edwards PP & Sienko MJ 1983, On the occurrence of metallic character in the Periodic Table of the Elements, Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 60, no. 9, p. 695

660:

5. Edwards PP & Sienko MJ 1983, On the occurrence of metallic character in the Periodic Table of the Elements, Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 60, no. 9, p. 692

1121:

I don't think that having a "daily cost" item is a good idea. I doubt that such prices are stable enough that they could be kept up-to-date with reasonable effort.

549:

heavier periods often resemble their n+1 and n−1 neighbours more than their lighter congeners, astatine…was expected to be radioactive and metallic like polonium."

2057: 1350:

A nonmetal is a chemical element that is mechanically weak in its most stable form, brittle if solid, and usually gains or shares electrons in chemical reactions.

639:

1. Thornton BF & Burdette SC 2010, “Finding eka-iodine: Discovery priority in modern times”, Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 86−96

97:

Obviously all metals are shiny and all bar Hg are solid. I know a little about the shininess; visible light gets scattered by the delocalised surface electrons.

778:

it can be subclassified Metalloid. Recent complication: same author (Sandbh) appears to have changed the article object (ie, everything) as "chemically" only

4308:

I think the noble metals being a subset of the transition metals is the reason why this beautiful and symmetrical scheme has not attracted greater interest.

870:) add to the confusion/mistake. If article content is changed into this, the article should be moved. But morte likely this is inappropriate application of 697:

12. Thornton BF & Burdette SC 2010, Finding eka-iodine: Discovery priority in modern times, Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, vol. 35, no. 2, p. 86

3646:

In the periodic table, metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals – come beside post-transition metals, the least metallic of metals.

819:"Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored on account of its rarity and intense radioactivity; theory and experimental evidence suggest it is a metal." 687:

10. Restrepo G, Llanos EJ & Mesa H, Topological space of the chemical elements and its properties, Journal of Mathematical Chemistry, vol. 39, p. 411

4197:(3) You object to how my paragraph fits into the section flow. I need to think about this more. Let’s wait until after we discuss the other two issues. 1492:"? If there is more than one common definition of nonmetal, mentioning all of them would be better than implying there is only one accepted definition. 5094:

Thanks. I was looking at the solid metals given the elemental gases are nonmetals and of the two liquid elements, Br is an insulator (i.e. a nonmetal).

1394:

Bands in metals In terms of the band theory, the distinction between a metal and a non-metal is that in the former there are incompletely filled bands.

1596:

The electronegativities of metals are small while those of nonmetals are large. These data are useful in the classification of metals from non-metals

655:

4. Batsanov SS 1971, Quantitative characteristics of bond metallicity in crystals, Journal of Structural Chemistry, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 809–813 (811).

1230:

list. I count 17 items, nine of which are for missing references. More refs should be no problem. The remaining eight items should be OK to address.

554:

Qualitative and quantitative assessments of its status, including having regard to relativistic effects, have been consistent with it being a metal:

110:

The mechanism for the remaining colored and colorless nonmetals, has to do with the permitted energy levels that their individual electrons occupy.

5321:

states, forming strong acids, and going for simple or hydrated anions in preference to oxyanions), whereas the other ones tend to compromise more.

4788:

Gervasini (2013) mentions both aspects so I'll cite them. They don't give specific examples of amphoteric oxides so this'll require another cite.

418: 380: 4648:, which is sometimes called just plain acidic already. Also, there's a few nonmetals oxides that display neither acidic nor basic properties. 3730:

forms when Al comes into contact with air. This protects it from further oxidation For this reason it is even passive toward nitric acid (HNO

1372:

A metal is a lustrous malleable element that is a good conductor of heat and electricity; a nonmetal is an element that is a poor conductor.

2451:

simplifying sentences can over-simplify things or lead to false statements. It will take perseverence and carefulness to resolve this issue.

5616:

I’ve taken the liberty of adding multiple signatures to facilitate replying to each point independently using the neat new reply feature. @

692:

11. Corson DR, MacKenzie R & Segrè E 1940, Possible production of radioactive isotopes of element 85, Physical Review, vol. 57, p. 459

4604:(I think that's based on Wulfsberg's books), since you've just mentioned the former. Also relevant is the oxidation state, which is why I 100:

The nonmetals are shiny (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te; C, black P, Se, I), colored (S, F, Cl, Br) or colorless (H, N, O, and the noble gases).

3390:. I’ve seen no word of agreement or disagreement with my suggestion that this paragraph is not needed and should be removed. Thoughts? 3264:. I’ve seen no word of agreement or disagreement with my suggestion that this paragraph is not needed and should be removed. Thoughts? 529: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 5097:

Citing each one to its own source strikes me as compiling a list rather than synthesising new knowledge, per se. How do you see that?

1452:

That "nonmetals do not exhibit luster or polish" is contradicted by graphitic C, black P, gray Se, and I. That they are, "if solid...

1397:

the principal chemical property of a non-metal is its ability to form a negatively charged anion by accepting electrons from a metal.

1714: 1115:"Oxygen is found in the atmosphere; in the oceans as a component of water; and in the crust as oxide minerals." lacks a reference. 117:

club. Frex, nitric acid gives carbon dioxide with C, arsenic acid with As, antimony trioxide with Sb, and bismuth nitrate with Bi.

4173:

Aren't you kind of proving my point about it not being clear that those properties are good gauges of what good metallicity is? :)

3568: 3564: 3517:

explaining that a broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble).

2210: 3962:: A couple of questions. (a) Is it true that the PTM is the least metallic class of metals? (b) Is it true that in each period, 1324:

that Au beats Si by this measure, but at least it doesn't have literally alkali metals beating nonmetals, but the noble metals.

465:

No problem, Smokefoot, I only added the link to keep the arguments, already made, at hand. I assume this talkpage is best place.

4878:. As for NO, the reaction does not occur in the absence of oxygen, though I'll grant that in normal conditions it is there. :) 1093:"Metalloids are here treated as nonmetals in light of their chemical behavior, and for comparative purposes." is unreferenced. 837:

There was no change to the article object, since nonmetals are still referred to in terms of physical and chemical properties.

702:

13. Hermann A, Hoffmann R & Ashcroft NW 2013, Condensed Astatine: Monatomic and metallic, Physical Review Letters, vol. 111

402:

The article is nice, although the topic called Main Group chemistry might be more appropriate. Has that idea been discussed? --

1381:

A nonmetal is an element that usually has a low density, a low melting point, and is a poor conductor of heat and electricity.

4850:

O are only formally anhydrides: in practice the reactions with water hardly occur. Greenwood and Earnshaw outright say that N

781:

while not changing anything to article body, title, TOC or setup???. This is disputable, in various ways, and is disputed.

2301:

The sources table legend is in the text as a table. I'm sure there's a better way to do this, but I don't know what it is.

741: 505:

i.e. the convention is to put "metals" last, I've replaced mentions of "nonmetal halogens" with "halogen nonmetals". ---

3692:

the transition metals, (from group 13 onwards) are metals such as tin and lead, none of which are particularly reactive.

980: 719: 524:

Isn't astatine a metalloid? Here it says astatine is a metal, but most other sources say it's a metalloid or nonmetal?

450:

Yes, I realize that I am discussing this issue in two places, but I dont think that anyone at the Chem Project cares.--

3640:

The classification of nonmetals can vary, with approaches ranging from as few as two types to as many as six or seven.

1375:

A nonmetal is an element that tends to gain valence electrons in chemical reactions, becoming an anion in the process.

1363:

The simplest way to tell a metal from a nonmetal is that most nonmetals do not conduct thermal energy or electricity.

866:

For starters, the body and the TOC say otherwise (eg "Physics"); this distinction is not made. Further hatnote specs (

801:

Yes, the two great classes are (i) metals and (ii) nonmetals. This is a universal distinction. "Metalloids" is only a

3187:: OK, I've replace the graphic with a table. Feel free to improve it or revert and discuss how it could be improved. 4159:= 1.9. That thallium has a metallic chemistry and tellurium has a nonmetallic chemistry is a further consideration. 1587:

The Allred Rochow electronegativities of the nonmetals are larger than 1.8, those of the metals are smaller than 1.5

1475:

I restored the lede paragraph back to saying what nonmetals aren't since there is no agreement as to what they are.

1353:

As a result of the free electron, graphite, though a nonmetal, is able to conduct electricity while diamond cannot.

4600:

I think that one should connect the high electronegativity of nonmetals to the acidity of their oxides, as is done

4559:

The NB footnote will say, "Germanium (II) (hydr)oxide has been reported to be more basic than acidic." The cite is

1736:

Corrosive chlorine, a halogen nonmetal, combines with highly reactive sodium to form stable, unreactive table salt.

1639: 1527:

Mention of the relatively low density and relatively high EN of nonmetals is set out in Hein M & Arena S 2013,

38: 372: 5137:

I think that people usually mean Brønsted acids when "acid" is used without qualification, but this is moot now.

1063:"namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium" might work better as a parenthetical. 4284: 3655:

A broadly comparable range of types occurs among the metals, from highly reactive to less reactive (even noble).

3150:

f. It doesn't really matter if the d- and f- anomalies are included. Perhaps something like attached image. ---

1602:

Metals are the least electronegative elements (they are electropositive) and nonmetals the most electronegative.

962:

I'm inclined to change the name of the article to "Nonmetal (chemistry)" and to create disambiguation links for:

295:, i.e. "The internal structures and bonding arrangements of the nonmetals explain their differences in form...". 1534:

Here are extracts from a dozen sources corroborating the low density of nonmetals (#2 also refers to high EN):

1057:"largely make up the" I know this is shortest, but would "make up most of the" be a bit sounder grammatically? 2455:

Is there any interest in pursuing such a process? Is anyone else willing to consider becoming a co-nominator?

1590:

Metals, in the lower left corner of the table, have low electronegativities and nonmetals, in the upper right

587:

Siekierski and Burgess presumed astatine would be a metal in the context of some of the properties of iodine.

4258:

generalisation, but the d-block has the most exceptions). Nonmetals don't have this problem, but metals do.

1584:

Table 11.5 shows that the relative electronegativity of the nonmetals is high and that of the metals is low.

1497: 1378:

Chemically, the property of an element that makes it a nonmetal is the element's ability to gain electrons.

1216: 120:

I intend doing this work as a stand alone exercise from John's copyediting, and will post the results here.

81: 76: 71: 59: 3098:

Please proceed, with the exception that the first rows of the d and f blocks do not need to be shaded. ---

815:

It isn't included in the article since it has been counted as a (post-transition) metal. The article says:

729: 707: 5646: 5581: 5488: 5423: 5399: 5326: 5301: 5243: 5222: 5142: 5078: 5053: 4883: 4677: 4529: 4449: 4419: 4263: 4181: 4135: 4074: 4031: 3996: 3903: 3416: 3290: 2156: 1490:

Perhaps you could say "Nonmetal is a classification of elements. It commonly refers either to <foo: -->

1329: 682:

9. Siekierski S & Burgess J 2002, Concise Chemistry of the Elements, Horwood Press, Chichester, p. 122

356: 159: 4414:

So now metallicity is about EN, but when it comes to comparing W and Tl, it's about physical properties?

1100: 4396: 4099: 4095: 3989: 5463:

S and HF for the non-hydrogen elements are −2 and −1, not 2 and 1; and the oxidation state of Xe in XeF

4516:

I still don't buy the precise wording at the beginning. If you were going to say nonmetals form acidic

1197:

That is an introductory and explanatory sentence; the cites are in the following three sentences/paras.

5317: 1555:

Nonmetals appear on the right side of the periodic table a . These elements usually have a low density

1552:

Nonmetals are characterized by lack of luster , lack of conductivity , brittleness , and low density .

1075:

I know, hypocritical from me but the "Physical" section could benefit from less instances of "occurs"

1761:

It looks pretty, and better than I'd expected, and adds interest to the article. Please proceed. ---

1286:

I am thinking about changing this so that nonmetals are instead explained in terms of what they are:

1236: 1023: 1018: 3643:

Traversing the periodic table from right to left, three or four types of nonmetals can be discerned:

3117:

I know the d and f blocks don’t have any nonmetals, but they do have 1st row anomalies, don’t they?

1599:

Elements with high electronegativity (such as nonmetals) have a greater ability to attract electrons

881: 455: 407: 2298:

The uses table refs are identical for each section; it would be nice to have them be more specific

5069:

be even more clear-cut examples. But fluorine reacts with concentrated nitric acid to produce FNO

1493: 1212: 1027: 620:

nonmetallic character, as is normally the case for metals in, or in the vicinity of, the p-block.

430: 3734:), a strong oxidizing agent. When the oxide coating is sanded off, Al reacts vigorously with HNO 4006:. It also doesn't have any aqueous cationic chemistry to speak of, and the most stable oxide WO 3722:

For aluminium, Whitten and Davis write, " is quite reactive, but a thin, transparent film of Al

1422:

I've updated the lede paragraph to refer to what nonmetals are, rather than what they are not.

103:

The mechanism of shininess for the semimetals C, As and Sb is the same as that for the metals.

5642: 5617: 5577: 5552: 5511: 5484: 5419: 5395: 5370: 5322: 5297: 5272: 5239: 5218: 5193: 5152: 5138: 5089: 5074: 5049: 5024: 4910: 4879: 4688: 4673: 4540: 4525: 4445: 4415: 4324: 4278: 4259: 4230: 4177: 4131: 4112: 4070: 4041: 4027: 3899: 3624: 3544: 3520: 3412: 3387: 3286: 3261: 2335: 2206: 2152: 2127: 1647: 1325: 994: 737: 352: 323: 155: 2493:

The plan is to not renominate until all the discusssion on this page has been concluded. ---

2332:

have been reorganized to be more specific. For now, I'm happy with the sources table legend.

1638:

It seems that it would be much better if either the history section is split and merged with

1235:

A source spot check was completed in one of the more recent FAC nominations by, as I recall,

5606: 5542: 5441: 5360: 5262: 5183: 5124: 5014: 4991: 4812: 4796: 4785:

Wulsberg does not mention EN in the context of oxides but does mention low oxidation states.

4716: 4624:

amphoteric even though it has both acidic and basic properties. :D) I'd just suggest that Sb

4581: 4560: 4468: 4434: 4404: 4361: 4292: 4164: 4120: 4104: 3949: 3834: 3767: 3749: 3598: 3530: 3448: 3324: 3155: 3103: 2541: 2498: 2391: 2345: 2240: 1766: 1696: 1624: 1593:

These two trends result in nonmetals generally having higher electronegativities than metals

1523:

the other varying conceptions of nonmetals and the resulting sets of of nonmetallic elements

1480: 1465: 1427: 1413: 1310: 1261: 1247: 1134: 1035: 1004: 947: 896: 874: 842: 786: 715: 510: 471: 438: 388: 341: 309: 216: 200: 172: 140: 125: 1612:

The most electronegative elements are the nonmetals on the far right of the periodic table

907: 4283:

There is in fact a general trend of increasing electronegativity from Cs to F. Please see

1642:, or the opposite, merge the discovery article here. It is short enough to go both ways. 1573:

Most nonmetals have no luster , are soft , are poor conductors , and have a low density.

868:

astronomy, metallicity, nonmetallic substances, in physics, valence and conduction bands

650:

3. Moody B 1991, Comparative Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd ed., Edward Arnold, London, p. 303

2610: 2274: 451: 403: 4791:

Gervasini A 2013, "Characterization of acid–base sites in oxides", in Auroux A (ed.),

759:

To deconfuse. Currently this article makes this top level distinction: Metal-Nonmetal

570:

Batsanov calculated astatine would have a band gap of 0.7 eV (but see the 2013 entry)

5625: 5560: 5378: 5280: 5201: 5160: 5032: 4564: 4497: 4332: 4238: 4202: 4108: 4053: 3975: 3926: 3875: 3864: 3811: 3793: 3652:

The greatest discrepancy between authors occurs in the metalloid "frontier territory"

3593:

Thanks. I hope to be able to carefully scrutinize this tomorrow morning my time. ---

3577: 3496: 3477: 3430: 3395: 3372: 3353: 3306: 3269: 3246: 3227: 3192: 3174: 3122: 3082: 2590: 2556: 2520: 2476: 2460: 2420: 2374: 2360: 2311: 2254: 2218: 2188: 2135: 2112: 2095:

Legend in L-R order instead of top-bottom, which also places similar sources together

1796: 1745: 1671: 47: 17: 4601: 1643: 750: 733: 5073:! I think it would be better just to talk about oxoacids and the acidic hydrides. 4395:

Among the metals a similar pattern is seen in the melting point v EN chart in the

4216:

I have recast my paragraph taking into consideration the comments received above.

2536:

As I understand it a co-nominator cannot also support or oppose a nomination. ---

1705: 351:

It looks pretty much alright to me, based on what I could find in the literature.

5471:). Even coordination number isn't an accurate phrasing because of species like NH 421:. Could be that Main Group is a valid topic, but I do not see how it would be an 5602: 5538: 5454: 5437: 5356: 5258: 5179: 5120: 5010: 4987: 4939:

Because CO is a slightly acidic oxide, it reacts with bases to produce formates.

4823: 4808: 4712: 4592: 4577: 4464: 4430: 4400: 4357: 4317: 4312: 4288: 4226: 4160: 4116: 3985: 3959: 3945: 3830: 3785: 3763: 3762:

I've further copy edited the last para of this section, and added an image. ---

3745: 3594: 3540: 3526: 3444: 3383: 3320: 3257: 3184: 3166: 3151: 3114: 3099: 2537: 2509: 2494: 2434: 2387: 2341: 2292: 2236: 2202: 1762: 1620: 1476: 1461: 1423: 1409: 1306: 1257: 1243: 1130: 1031: 1000: 974: 943: 892: 888: 838: 812:

Astatine has at various times been counted as a metal, metalloid, or nonmetal.

782: 754: 711: 506: 467: 434: 384: 337: 305: 212: 196: 136: 121: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2515:

Do I understand you correctly that you would prefer not having a co-nominator?

2369:

And now I've fixed the hanging indent. Everything is resolved in this section.

4982:

It seems then that the only peculiar oxides are water, being amphoteric, and N

4800: 2123: 1731: 1081:"as used in non-stick coatings for pans and other cookware." is unreferenced. 540: 2209:: What do you think of putting each graphic in its proper section? Check out 2101:

Somewhat mnemonic/symbolic color selection (I don’t feel strongly about this)

1278:

The first paragraph of the lede starts by explaining what nonmetals are not:

5650: 5629: 5610: 5585: 5564: 5546: 5492: 5445: 5427: 5403: 5382: 5364: 5330: 5305: 5284: 5266: 5247: 5226: 5205: 5187: 5164: 5146: 5128: 5082: 5057: 5036: 5018: 4995: 4887: 4854:

O cannot be considered the anhydride of hyponitrous acid (p. 444, 2nd ed.):

4816: 4708: 4681: 4585: 4533: 4501: 4472: 4453: 4438: 4423: 4408: 4365: 4336: 4296: 4267: 4242: 4206: 4185: 4168: 4139: 4124: 4078: 4057: 4035: 3979: 3953: 3930: 3907: 3868: 3838: 3815: 3797: 3771: 3753: 3602: 3581: 3534: 3513:

I've deleted all four paragraphs, and added one paragraph to the end of the

3500: 3481: 3452: 3434: 3420: 3399: 3376: 3357: 3328: 3310: 3294: 3273: 3250: 3231: 3196: 3178: 3159: 3126: 3107: 3086: 2594: 2560: 2545: 2524: 2502: 2480: 2464: 2424: 2395: 2378: 2364: 2349: 2315: 2258: 2244: 2222: 2192: 2160: 2139: 2116: 1800: 1770: 1749: 1675: 1651: 1628: 1501: 1484: 1469: 1431: 1417: 1333: 1314: 1265: 1251: 1220: 1138: 1039: 1008: 951: 900: 846: 790: 723: 533: 514: 475: 459: 442: 411: 392: 360: 345: 313: 220: 204: 163: 144: 129: 291:

The difference in solid, liquid or gaseous forms of nonmetals is addressed

278:

Academic Press, San Diego. Wiberg is here referring specifically to iodine.

5516:

Thanks. I've rewritten this paragraph to address your well-raised oncerns.

3132: 2264:

I subsequently made some additional changes. Here's a link to the latest:

5636: 5621: 5571: 5556: 5534: 5389: 5374: 5341: 5291: 5276: 5212: 5197: 5156: 5043: 5028: 4493: 4371: 4350: 4328: 4274: 4249: 4234: 4198: 4089: 4064: 4049: 3971: 3938: 3922: 3882: 3860: 3823: 3807: 3789: 3630: 3620: 3588: 3573: 3514: 3508: 3492: 3473: 3426: 3406: 3391: 3368: 3349: 3302: 3280: 3265: 3242: 3223: 3188: 3170: 3141: 3118: 3093: 3078: 3074: 2586: 2552: 2531: 2516: 2488: 2472: 2456: 2416: 2370: 2356: 2329: 2324: 2307: 2265: 2250: 2230: 2214: 2184: 2146: 2131: 2108: 1810: 1792: 1756: 1741: 1727: 1685: 1667: 933:

This does not have anything do with the concept of a nonmetal in physics.

916: 626: 376: 329: 292: 4664:

are amphoteric. A few nonmetal oxides are neutral, such as CO, NO, and N

4570:

I haven't been able to get a clear read on Ge(II) hence the NB footnote.

1360:

If the oxide of a nonmetal is placed in water, the mixture will be acid.

4843:(11.2). Thus it can quite easily end up protonated in aqueous solution. 4483:

Further comments (because at the FAC7 I stopped at Physical properties)

2130:

What do doy think about using this graphic instead of the current one?

1347:

A nonmetal is an element whose atoms tend to gain (or share) electrons.

334:(The accompanying footnote needs a citation but the rest should be OK.) 4048:, is “weaker” a synonym for “less metallic” (ie, “more nonmetallic”)? 3491:

comparison paragraphs are removed, I'll add it from my offline draft.

1723: 891:

starts a talk on this page proposing all desired changes coherently.

1437:

I found a hybrid nonmetal entry by Read J 1965, in JR Newman (ed.),

1099:"In 2014 it was reported that the Earth's core" sounds a bit like a 183:

pyramids sharing corners. It is often described as a mixed oxide, Sb

938:

Astronomy and materials science are not mentioned in the main body.

4856:

is not to be regarded as the anhydride of hyponitrous acid since H

4302: 3131: 2609: 2512:

That eliminates my concern about a sudden renomination. Thank you.

2444:

Trying to recruit co-nominators this way might not be viewed well.

1403:

A non-metal is an element that has four or more valence electrons.

827:"In chemistry, a nonmetal (or non-metal) is a chemical element..." 3806:. Would it be acceptable to say "sometimes" instead of "often"? 3804:

metalloids – so metallic they are often not considered nonmetals

1558:

Dull , reflecting light poorly or absorbing strongly Low density

993:

The hatnote would be reduced to "For nonmetallic substances see

381:§ Request for comment on the classification of chemical elements 3843:

That doesn't answer my question: would it be acceptable to say

1204:

Footnote 23 has the somewhat mysterious "combined with sulfur"

3995:, and in low oxidation states it forms cluster compounds like 3146:

They do. The degree to which the anomalies standout is s : -->

1520:

the 23 elements within the scope of the article; and therefore

1109:"Dingle explains the situation this way:" who is this Dingle? 1069:

Footnote 6 I think "both metals" is better than "metals both"

880:; more like trying to fit topic description (lede issue) in a 150:

Russian authors often don't recognise a "metalloid" category).

25: 3649:

The boundaries between these sets of nonmetals are not sharp.

4233:, (and any others), any feedback on this revised paragraph? 1581:

With high electronegativity (see here) non-metal elements ..

2211:

special:permalink/1183897347 § Abundance, sources, and uses

1384:

A nonmetal is an element that is relatively easily reduced.

267:

Elliot A 1929, "The absorption band spectrum of chlorine",

1809:

I’m experimenting here with a table to replace the one at

627:

suggested distinguishing criteria for metals and nonmetals

398:

Article could be revised and renamed: Main Group Chemistry

4096:

melting point v. electronegativity chart (for all metals)

3697:

For comparison, here's the last paragraph of the section:

1400:

A non-metal is an element which ionizes by electron gain.

4876:

O (a similar relation exists between CO and formic acid)

4758:

In water, NO reacts with oxygen to form nitrous acid HNO

4553:

The page # cites are to Kneen, Rogers and Simpson 1972,

2614:

Periodic table highlighting the first row of each block.

2151:

I like your proposed version, especially because of #9.

1022:

and trimmed the hatnote, after setting up redirects for

823:

The edit in question changed the opening sentence from:

4700:

O apparently reacts with water to give hypoiodous acid.

1567:

Non- metals are generally lighter in weight than metals

1538:

A nonmetal is an element that usually has a low density

1050: 861: 779: 429:

nonmetal chemistry. (Incidentally, does it differ from

5555: