2264:"A nonmetal is a chemical element that, in the broadest sense of the term, has a relatively low density and high electronegativity. More generally they are deemed to lack a preponderance of metallic properties such as luster or shininess; the capacity to be flattened into a sheet or drawn into a wire; good thermal and electrical conductivity; and the capacity to form a basic (rather than acidic) oxide. Since there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal, some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such. The decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic character."
2433:§Cost: "Based on the available literature as of April 2023, while the cited costs of most nonmetals are less than the $ US0.74 per gram cost of silver, boron, phosphorus, germanium, xenon, and radon (notionally) are exceptions:" The lack of distinction of silver as not part of the rest of the list makes it a bit difficult to parse this on first reading. I suggest two sentences, for example: "Based on the available literature as of April 2023, the cited costs of most nonmetals are less than the $ US0.74 per gram cost of silver. Boron, phosphorus, germanium, xenon, and radon (notionally) are exceptions:"
2378:(an organic chemist) observed, virtually all the compounds they care about are made from combinations of nonmetals; and it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases. Nevertheless, and here it is me who is resuming the narrative, whole books have been written about nonmetals, the most recent of which was an updated (2020) English version of the German 5th edition on nonmetals of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019.
1663:, a vibrant area of inorganic chemistry. The cutting edge topics in main group chemistry are missing (or scattered throughout Knowledge (XXG)). But again, I have tried to debate this distinction previously with little traction from other editors but eliciting a robust defense (territoriality?) by Sandbh. I also am opinionated. The article looks nice, presents truths, and is well organized. Good luck with the FA. --
509:"Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals.": this reads oddly. Do most people say that there are between 14 and 23, or do most sources have a specific intervening number in mind? We could either do something like "most chemists recognise between 14 and 23", or something like "14 elements are unanimously recognised as nonmetals, with a further 9 debated", or similar.
2221:"The distinctive properties of nonmetallic elements allow for specific applications that often cannot be fulfilled by metallic elements alone. Living organisms are composed almost entirely of the nonmetals hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Nonmetallic elements are important to industries ranging from electronics and energy storage to agriculture and chemical production."
858:"The elements commonly recognized as metalloids (boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium) are sometimes counted as an intermediate class between the metals and the nonmetals when the criteria used to distinguish between metals and nonmetals are inconclusive. At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry.
527:"While the term non-metallic dates from as far back as 1566, there is no widely agreed precise definition of a nonmetal. Some elements have a marked mixture of metallic and nonmetallic properties, and which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals varies on the classification criteria. Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals."
440:, which has the same rule as you described. Please don't take these comments as some kind of test: the idea is to improve the article to a point where reviewers can support, not to tick off all the comments. It's the improvement of the article and the final product that count, not having a response to the questions raised.
848:"At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their nonmetallic chemistry": I'm not sure what "their nonmetallic chemistry" means here, given that their properties seem to be partly those of metals, partly those of nonmetals. Do you mean "the chemical properties they share with nonmetals" or similar?
809:, which has all the problems of a parenthetical citation except the parentheses. Since you're claiming to cite something undisputed, the precise source of the information shouldn't feature in the text (since, in theory, any reliable source would say the same): it should simply be part of the footnoted citation.
645:"The decisions involved depend on which properties are regarded..." grammatically includes that possibility, but this one might be somewhat a matter of taste. "Any persons who enter the camp will be shot" doesn't mean that you're safe if walk in alone: the plural is understood to include the singular.
2016:
P.S. Please discount my opinion greatly. I have no relevant expertise at all, and i sort of wish i never butted in (though i vaguely recall maybe i was invited somehow) at all. I originally thot my "outsider" perspective would be helpful but i think it was not. In fact i feel for my own peace of mind
354:
The article seems to be inconsistent as to when to write out numbers as words, and when as figures. For instance, we have " Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals" and "Two nonmetals, hydrogen and helium, make up about 99 percent of ordinary matter in the observable universe by
1658:
Sandbh (principal author of this FA nom) and I have been around this issue previously: I like neither the title nor the scope of the article. It is written like a old-fashioned high school-level overview of a theme that does not exist in my world as an inorganic chemist. Fuddy-duddy. "Nonmetal"
1064:
The citation density in this section isn't great; in the first paragraph, for example, we have three sentences, bundle-cite to three pages of a text. It would be clearer, more verifiable and more reassuring to break down precisely where each claim comes from, or at least to bundle only by the claims
2194:
These sentences in the Lead "Most nonmetals have biological, technological or domestic applications". "Nearly all nonmetals have individual uses in medicine, pharmaceuticals, lighting, lasers, and household items" are also true for metals. The article still doesn't come across as authoritative. I
1974:
As I recall about this topic, the term is not one in general use. My impression is that it is an artifact of the early days when people were trying to make sense of the elements and compounds and tried "metal" vs. "non-metal" as a classification, as part of a way of understanding. The lede speaks
1091:
I originally showed the cite as four pages but one of the pages has an historical picture which adds nothing to
Edwards' explanation so I’ve trimmed that one page from the cite. He manages to spread out his explanation over the 2.5 pages hence my citation (now) refers to three pages. The first cite
2399:
We are discussing if the article is of FA standard and I don't think it is. I also think there are problems with the title, (do chemists have a unique concept of a metal that material scientists don't share?) and current scope of the article. I find the noisy table confuses me more than it informs
2170:
As I said in an earlier review, it is inherently difficult to write an article about a topic that is defined by what it is not: not-a-metal, especially when there are clear edge cases. Nevertheless, as an organic chemist, virtually all the compounds I care about are made from combinations of these
2134:
Copernicium (element 112) may turn out to be an insulator and flerovium (114) and oganesson (118) may turn out to be semiconductors, rather than metals, due to relativistic effects. Bulk quantities of these elements have not been synthesized so all we can go on is theory and inference. Since there
917:
It’s rarity and intense radioactivity make an assessment of its metallic or nonmetallic status quite difficult. Nobody has ever seen astatine, for example, since a visible quantity would immediately vaporise from the intense heat emitted by its radioactivity. While general sources don’t forget its
1204:
No, everything is not either coloured or colourless. Only a few metals such as gold, for example, are coloured, the rest have a lustrous, shiny or “metallic” appearance. Among the nonmetals there are shiny nonmetals like graphite; coloured ones such as sulfur, and colourless ones like hydrogen.
690:
The age of source does not necessarily affect its relevance. In this case the three citations are listed in reverse date order to show that the difficulty of defining what a nonmetal is dates back ca. 150 years. In other cases I recall it was not technically possible, in some instances, to have
1975:
as if this is a modern thing, however. I believe it must be explained this is a framework once believed to be helpful, and then what its current status is (either not regarded as helpful by anyone, or regarded helpful by some (whom?) for some reasons to be explained in the body of the article.
1473:"Plasticity occurs under limited circumstances only in carbon, phosphorus, sulfur, and selenium": are these the only nonmetals to show plasticity, or do these specific nonmetals only show plasticity in rare circumstances? More generally, I don't think this statement is actually cited anywhere.
2384:
6. Any chemistry textbook will refer to the concepts of metals and nonmetals, and their differences. Yes, some fuzziness occurs in the frontier territory where the metals meet the nonmetals, and the article captures this, consistent with literature and the nature of chemistry. --- thank you,
1994:
I do appreciate the box at the top right showing a portion of the periodic table of elements, identifying non-metals vs. metalloids. And the inclusion of the recognizable small version of a complete periodic table at the bottom. In my past comments, I believe I was adamant that graphical
330:
Thanks for your efforts in responding to my comments. I'm going to hold off before voting, partly because I don't have the technical expertise to endorse the article's content, and partly because I've only been able to copy-edit part of the article so far. I'll keep an eye on this page; my
2370:
3. The article notes that there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal; that some variation exists among sources as to which elements are classified as such; and that the decisions involved depend on which property or properties are regarded as most indicative of nonmetallic or metallic
1799:
Thx for the ping, Sandbh; I wish I could help, especially considering all the time I put in to this article last year, but real life has not been kind to me of late, and I am struggling to keep up with health issues on the homefront and barely keeping up on
Knowledge (XXG). So sorry :(
2326:
I would feel uncomfortable seeing this article on the Main Page as TFA. It does not give me the impression that the concept of a "nonmetal" is anything more than a vague, and an ill-defined one. Despite reading it, I am still left wondering if indeed they exist! Since you asked, I
953:
The citation for Bodner & Pardue says, "When the chemistry of these elements is discussed, hydrogen is separated from the others and astatine is ignored because it is radioactive." The citation for Cherim says, "Astatine is often ignored because of unavailability." ---
1092:
is to
Herzfeld, as mentioned by Edwards, who first explained the microscopic electronic origins of the differences between metals and nonmetals. I have now switched the order of the cites in the bundle, since Herzfeld is there only because he is mentioned by Edwards. ---
829:
I agree with you; any reliable source would say the same. The insight that Hawley’s provides is mentioned earlier in that any list of nonmetals is open to challenge, as the next sentence in the article illustrates with regard to carbon, phosphorus and selenium. ---
1556:
Hmm. WP does not, AFAIK, have a preferred style of citing/bibliography construction aside from deprecating parenthetical cites (nor do the FA criteria). The formatting of the bibliography e.g. in the case of journals and monographs is fairly self-evident. ---
400:
Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and
1978:
As I recall from before, perhaps the most salient thing about this topic is that there is NOT general agreement about what defines non-metals, what elements are included or not. The lede states that, but then goes on to speak as if there exists objective
355:
mass. Five nonmetallic elements...". I don't think the MOS has a strong opinion either way, but this should certainly be consistent within a sentence, generally be consistent within a passage, and as far as possible follow some logic across the article.
2428:§Unclassified nonmetals: "In periodic-table terms, a geographic analogy..." There is a stray double quote mark at the end of the paragraph. Is there a missing opening quote mark (in which case embedded quotes should be single) or can it be removed?
902:"Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored": I'm not sure you mean "ignored": sources don't forget it exists, they choose not to count it. More generally, why would Astatine's rarity and/or radioactivity count against its being a nonmetal?
1086:
The second paragraph has one bundle-cite of two citations: Herzfeld (1927), and
Edwards (2000). The whole paragraph is a condensed summary of what Edwards says (in ten paragraphs, over ~2.5 pages), as part of a 29-page chapter in the book,
2038:
a non-specialist's input and support on technical articles. We are writing an encyclopedia and it is always nice to know that such articles are not merely informing those who are already informed. So you have provided a valuable service.
1721:
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived.
1223:"For boron, graphitic carbon, silicon, black phosphorus, germanium, arsenic, selenium, antimony, tellurium, and iodine, their structures": clearer to rephrase subject-first: "The structures of boron, graphitic carbon ..."
729:
Steudel’s monograph is an updated translation of the 5th German edition of 2013, incorporating the literature up to Spring 2019. After five editions over four decades, there is no other comparable source.
1382:
guidance and added an in-text attribution, since the quote encompasses nigh on a complete sentence. I did the same for one other such example I found upon checking the article (re "snowflakes"). ---
2072:
for KS4 (Years 10 and 11) says, "Trends in the periodic table; Explain the reactivity and general properties as related to the atomic structure of groups 1, 7 and 0; between metals and non-metals."
1625:
I don't feel in a position to support, I'm afraid. Scanning through the remainder of the article, there's still work to be done on prose, clarity and MOS. I'm not sure whether that makes me an
458:
To clarify, single numbers appearing in text (one, two, three…nine) are written in words, larger numbers are written as figures e.g. 6,043,204. That is what I meant to say the first time. ---
305:
First read done. I realise that this is quite a big job; I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do a full review, but will make some comments aimed at improving clarity, readability and prose.
2000:
I am sorry not to be more helpful, but the first two items I just mentioned undermine my ability to see this as featured-ready. I do hope this is helpful nonetheless. --Doncram (
1248:
As further up, WL terms like "delocalised electrons", and consider explaining in text or a footnote if understanding them is crucial to the reader's comprehension of the text.
1065:
on each page. The bundle-cite for the second paragraph would also benefit from the same treatment: telling readers that everything in this (not overly small) chunk of text is
2140:
The semiconducting or insulating status of an element is not always helpful in determining nonmetallic status. So, carbon as graphite—which is as good a nonmetal as any—is a
1031:
I've never seen a hatnote like "Physical properties apply to elements in their most stable forms in ambient conditions": how does this usage compare with other
Chemistry FAs?
1982:
The superheavy elements copernicium (element 112), flerovium (114), and oganesson (118) may turn out to be nonmetals. As of April 2023 their status has not been confirmed.
932:
Brilliant: some explanation of that would help considerably. I'm still not sure that "ignored" is the right word; it suggest carelessness or arrogance, and so is arguably
2175:
suggests but, given that
Knowledge (XXG) has such an article I think it is reasonable to evaluate it by the usual FA criteria. On that basis, I support its promotion.
1575:
with it: this is an advisory comment. However, using (for example) {{cite book}} would make the article more durable (in other words, idiot-proof) for future editors.
316:. It may take me a little while to address your comments as I expect to have intermittent and unpredictable internet access for the next four days. I’ll see how I go.
2242:. Rather than a black or white categorisation, the definition provides that the greater the number of criteria satisfied, the more reliable is the characterisation.
1785:
all of whom have previously reviewed the article. All are invited to comment, but none are obligated. I would've included DePiep but for him being site-banned. ---
659:
I've added a wlinked footnote saying, "Metallic or nonmetallic character is usually taken to be indicated by one property rather than two or more properties." ---
131:
123:
This is my sixth time at FAC for this article; attempt #5, when the article was then called "Nonmetal", was closed on
September 26, 2022, some seven months ago.
1516:
This is very good. I removed the “only” and merged the footnote into the text, after some trimming of the main body text. It looks much better now, thanks. ---
40:
2468:
No further comments after reading through the rest of the article. It gives a good overview of the various aspects of not-being-a-metal. It is a pleasure to
1906:
I think your previous pings may have malfunctioned; square brackets yield piped links, not pings. Perhaps asking on their user talk pages would work better?
683:
science. Three sources are cited separately here; elsewhere, they are bundled into a single footnote. Would suggest adopting the latter approach throughout.
2499:
and in spite of the supports the nomination has garnered, it seems that a consensus to promote is not going to form. So, with regret, I am archiving this.
2077:
Closer to home, a search of
American Chemical Society journals for the terms "non(-)metal/s", yielded the following numbers of hits over the periods shown:
1339:(and usual practice on plagiarism), material quoted or closely paraphrased (as opposed to summarised) in the text also needs to be attributed in the text.
912:"Astatine, the fifth halogen, is often ignored on account of its rarity and intense radioactivity; theory and experimental evidence suggest it is a metal.
866:
It's not, I'm afraid, at least not to me. I'd suggest expanding that sentence to be clearer about which nonmetallic characteristics you're talking about.
290:
Saving a space. Not a chemist, so I'll mostly be commenting on prose, as well as clarity/accessibility from a (definite) non-expert's point of view.
1989:
This begs the question of who will make the determination and on what basis. And if there is a basis, then why are non-metals not really definable?
2521:
30:
17:
880:
The sentence now reads, "At other times they are counted as nonmetals in light of their predominately nonmetallic (weakly acidic) chemistry." ---
1698:
1659:
is a demarcation in some depictions of the
Periodic Table about the properties of elements. IMHO, the topic should be expanded and relabeled to
244:
2171:
elements and together they represent the overwhelming majority of known compounds. The term "nonmetal" may indeed be falling out of fashion, as
1402:"For the colorless nonmetals (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases) their": this and similar examples need a comma after the brackets
1335:"For chlorine, its "familiar yellow-green colour...is due to a broad region of absorption in the violet and blue regions of the spectrum"": per
2195:
can't see how our readers will gain an understanding of what a nonmetal is (if indeed such a thing exists) when even the authors seem unsure.
1545:
with the way that it's currently set up, but having such a colossal bibliography formatted entirely manually seems like asking for trouble in
538:
By itself I can see it could read oddly but, but the context is given by the preceding two sentences. Does that make what’s going on clearer?
366:
9 written in figures and larger numbers are spelt out. I suspect I’ve followed this convention consistently but will check the article again.
2532:
2135:
are no semiconducting or insulating metals the classification decisions for these superheavy elements should be relatively straightforward.
1480:
Yes, the “only” means only in those nonmetals. The footnote immediately following lists in what forms these four show plasticity. ---
2308:, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks.
1611:, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks.
2453:
Thank you
Mirokado. I have removed the stray double quote mark, and split the long costs sentence into two, as you suggested. ---
394:
The article breaks that rule in the lede, with "Generally, from 14 to 23 elements are recognized as nonmetals". We've also got
1946:
who commented during FAC nomination #2. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thank you ---
1819:
Also thanks for the ping. I will be happy to look at this starting 6 June or thereabouts, but cannot do much before then. --
1638:
1580:
1507:
1435:
1369:
944:
871:
863:
I suspect the sentence of concern is clear in the context of the preceding sentence but if not could you please let me know?
814:
749:
650:
591:
476:"and which of these borderline cases are counted as nonmetals varies on the classification criteria": not quite grammatical:
445:
407:
336:
295:
235:"Nonmetal (chemistry)" occurred as a result of changing the name of the article. This happened as an outcome of discussions
2180:
2022:
2005:
627:
It is written that way since most sources attempt to distinguish nonmetals using one property. This is elaborated in the
213:
2551:
2508:
2481:
2462:
2447:
2409:
2394:
2340:
2317:
2295:
2281:
2204:
2184:
2157:
2048:
2026:
2009:
1955:
1929:
1915:
1900:
1882:
1854:
1828:
1814:
1794:
1731:
1710:
1672:
1642:
1620:
1600:
1584:
1566:
1525:
1511:
1489:
1464:
1439:
1418:
1391:
1373:
1355:
1326:
1301:
1264:
1239:
1214:
1176:
1151:
1126:
1101:
1055:
1017:
992:
963:
948:
927:
889:
875:
839:
818:
800:
767:
753:
739:
711:
679:
Citing an 1892 source seems odd for "there is no rigorous definition of a nonmetal", which is implicitly talking about
668:
654:
640:
609:
595:
577:
547:
500:
467:
449:
427:
411:
389:
375:
340:
325:
299:
279:
264:
224:
198:
178:
89:
2364:
1. I understand that FAC opposes are judged based on the merits attached to the oppose rather than the oppose itself.
1409:
Done, noting that sometimes the decision as to wether or not to add a comma seemed to be rather finely balanced. ---
933:
1873:
who commented during FAC nomination #1. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. ---
1845:
who commented during FAC nomination #2. Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. ---
582:
I may have missed some: just to clarify, it's normal practice in longer articles to link the first use in the lead
2492:
2234:
Re the authoritativeness of the article, chemistry has all sorts of fuzzy definitions. For example, there is the
1634:
1608:
1591:
I’ve added a short html note to the front of the Bibliography section setting out a referencing style guide. ---
1576:
1503:
1431:
1365:
940:
867:
810:
745:
646:
587:
441:
403:
332:
313:
291:
240:
236:
362:
I follow an Australian style guide, which I don’t have access to right now and that I recall says numbers up to
2375:
2176:
1756:
2144:(in the physics sense of the term) along its planes but a semiconductor in a direction vertical to its planes.
1046:
at the top of the Elements commonly recognised as metalloids section. I’ve copy-edited the note in question.
2405:
2336:
2291:
2200:
1911:
1772:
248:
2381:
5. As Mike further noted, combinations of nonmetals represent the overwhelming majority of known compounds.
2547:
2504:
2313:
2068:
AFAIK, the term nonmetal remains in relatively popular use. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry's
2044:
1937:
1810:
1727:
1660:
1616:
1360:
Yes; citation isn't enough here, there also needs to be attribution (e.g. "According to Elliot..."), per
807:
the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, as given by (for example) Larrañaga et al
189:
2148:
Would you be in a position to review your ability to see this article as featured-ready? Thank you, ---
1685:
Thanks for your closing comment that, "the article looks nice, presents truths, and is well organized."
1379:
1361:
1336:
1891:: I seem to have run out of prospective reviewers. Is it OK to ask for help at the FAC talk page? ---
1768:
1695:
628:
72:
1546:
1317:
I've added "or opposite" and adjusted the following mention of chlorine to serve as an example. ---
1292:
I replaced all English spellings of colour with their US versions except for direct quotations. —--
1160:
Most of the third paragraph appears to be uncited, or at least it isn't clear what's cited to where.
1668:
744:
Excellent: attributed sources should always be briefly introduced, so make that clear in the text.
620:"property or properties" can be condensed to "properties" (and so on for similar phrases elsewhere)
151:
2525:
1282:
784:); more generally, this reads like an address to the reader, which is strongly discouraged by MOS.
2496:
2477:
2443:
2401:
2348:
2332:
2305:
2287:
2196:
1907:
1824:
252:
155:
781:
2235:
722:
Steudel: who/what is this, and why is their opinion being given such prominence in the article?
2543:
2500:
2309:
2040:
2018:
2001:
1970:
Responding to ping. This will not be a complete review. I just read the lede and some more.
1801:
1780:
1740:
1723:
1612:
135:
53:
1076:
The first paragraph has two citations and two notes; in turn, the notes have seven citations.
937:
163:
159:
2458:
2390:
2277:
2153:
1951:
1925:
1896:
1878:
1850:
1790:
1706:
1596:
1562:
1521:
1485:
1460:
1414:
1387:
1351:
1322:
1297:
1260:
1235:
1210:
1172:
1147:
1122:
1097:
1051:
1013:
988:
959:
923:
885:
835:
796:
763:
735:
707:
696:
664:
636:
605:
573:
543:
496:
463:
423:
385:
371:
321:
275:
260:
209:
174:
105:
85:
61:
1776:
231:
188:
redirects to this article and it was done without a discussion. How does this not violate
2524:
has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
2172:
1760:
1680:
1664:
2473:
2439:
2239:
1920:
Oh, I see. Or should that be “d’oh” I see. Good thing I asked and will try again. —-
1820:
1764:
791:
I’ve removed the parentheses and adjusted the "remove the address to reader" aspect.
2217:
Re the uses of nonmetals I have adjusted the subject paragraph in the Lead to read:
2229:
I have likewise adjusted the corresponding section in the main body of the article.
2061:
2031:
1752:
1748:
193:
127:
2400:
me. The article just doesn't come across as an "example of our best work". Sorry.
380:
Article checked. I believe it follows the numbering convention consistently. ---
2539:
2454:
2386:
2273:
2149:
1947:
1941:
1921:
1892:
1874:
1846:
1786:
1702:
1592:
1558:
1517:
1481:
1456:
1410:
1383:
1347:
1318:
1293:
1256:
1231:
1206:
1168:
1143:
1118:
1093:
1047:
1009:
984:
955:
919:
881:
831:
792:
759:
731:
703:
692:
660:
632:
601:
569:
539:
492:
459:
419:
381:
367:
317:
271:
256:
218:
170:
81:
57:
1423:
Imagine the sentence written without the brackets: "For the colorless nonmetals
1110:
Avoid abbreviations like "e.g." in prose; use "for example", "such as" instead.
2034:, please do not worry on this point. In so far as we can the FAC coordinators
976:"their status has not been confirmed" seems to be crying out for an {{as of}}.
2141:
2064:. Thanks for your comments and your "outsider" (as you put it) perspective.
1043:
1039:
144:
825:
I removed Larrañaga et al. and replaced it with the name of the monograph:
780:(see e.g. Larrañaga et al): parenthetical citations shouldn't be used (see
568:
I recall wiki-linking all first uses of technical terms; I’ll check again.
1744:
1346:
There is a citation to Elliot immediately following the quoted text. ---
918:
existence they regularly ignore further consideration of its properties.
600:
Thanks. I believe this section may be OK now in terms of its wlinks. ---
432:
That's very idiosyncratic (does it seriously expect you to write out e.g.
185:
113:
97:
2069:
1494:
Brilliant: that should be clarified in the text. The citation does show
1498:
those four show plasticity; however, there's nothing cited to say that
437:
395:
2438:
I have read through to the Uses section and will continue later.----
758:
I’ve added a footnote that explains the significance of Steudel. ---
126:
A further copy edit was requested and this has now been completed by
101:
1185:
Nonmetallic elements are either shiny, colored, or colorless: isn't
1167:
I’ve rearranged the paragraph and added some further citations. ---
1135:
3D should be spelt out as "three-dimensional", similar to the above.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1995:
presentation like this, up front, was needed. Thank you for that.
516:
The subject sentence occurs at the end of the following paragraph:
109:
418:
Headslap! Sorry!! I explained the rule the wrong way 'round. ---
2247:
The situation with regard to what is a nonmetal is no different.
1448:"free moving" and similar need a hyphen when used as adjectives.
117:
1694:
Smokefoot and I had previously politely discussed the topic of
1277:
nonmetals (sulfur, fluorine, chlorine, bromine) absorb some
1230:
Copy edited for consistency with the rest of the paragraph.
691:
multiple citations bundled together. I’ll check that again.
491:
Changed to "depending on the classification criteria used."
1310:"transmit the complementary colours": what does this mean?
702:
All the double or triple cites have now been bundled. ---
2211:
1888:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1842:
1838:
561:
Lots of technical terms here could/should be wikilinked.
134:. The article had previously been copyedited in part by
1281:(wavelengths)": we've crossed the Atlantic in terms of
434:
six million, forty-three thousand, two hundred and four
331:
perspective here might change as more reviews come in.
205:
65:
1189:
either coloured or colourless? And aren't some things
2272:
Do my foregoing responses address your concerns? ---
1069:
in seven pages of two different sources isn't ideal.
1042:at the top of the Common applications section, and
158:, who were involved in FAC #5. I will also notify
2559:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
1428:(hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the noble gases)
130:, an uninvolved editor and a coordinator for the
1001:Z = 112: can this be explained for non-chemists?
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
2256:seeks to accommodate this situation as follows:
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1038:Metalloid is an FA that uses a similar notes,
2565:No further edits should be made to this page.
2538:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
2017:i shouldn't have commented here. --Doncram (
1571:Indeed not, and so my comment that there's
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
2367:2. Chemistry is full of fuzzy definitions.
247:. Concurrently I created new articles for
270:I've addressed all of JJ's comments. ---
2084:
827:Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary.
399:
234:. The redirect from "Nonmetal" --: -->
7:
2254:Definition and applicable elements
2252:The lead paragraph of the section
556:Definition and applicable elements
24:
2070:English Chemistry Curriculum Map
1255:I've added "(free-moving)". ---
586:the first use in the body text.
1654:I dont like the title and scope
1629:, but it certainly makes me a
1:
2351:, for the following reasons:
1541:There's nothing technically
1378:Thanks. I have followed the
2533:featured article candidates
31:featured article nomination
2582:
1455:Done for free moving. ---
2552:21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
2509:21:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
2482:07:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
2410:09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
2395:07:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
2341:20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
2331:promotion. Sorry Sandbh.
2318:19:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
1956:05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
1930:05:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
1916:11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
1901:11:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
1883:04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
1855:00:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
1573:nothing technically wrong
2562:Please do not modify it.
2463:04:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
2448:20:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
2347:Your oppose is OK by me
2296:09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
2282:06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
2205:08:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
2185:11:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
2166:Support by Mike Turnbull
2158:01:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
2049:15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
2027:03:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
2010:02:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1829:20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1815:19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1795:02:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1732:16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
1711:01:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
1673:12:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
1643:16:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
1621:16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
1601:08:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
1585:12:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1567:11:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1526:03:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1512:12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1490:11:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1465:11:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1440:12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1419:09:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1392:11:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
1374:12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1356:10:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1327:02:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1302:10:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1265:02:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1240:10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1215:10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1177:03:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
1152:09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1127:09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1102:11:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
1056:08:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
1018:09:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
993:09:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
964:02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
949:17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
928:05:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
890:01:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
876:17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
840:10:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
819:19:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
801:09:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
768:00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
754:17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
740:04:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
712:11:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
669:04:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
655:09:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
641:05:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
610:12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
596:06:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
578:04:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
548:00:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
501:04:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
468:11:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
450:11:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
436:in words?), and against
428:10:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
412:09:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
390:08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
376:00:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
341:11:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
326:00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
300:16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
629:distinguishing criteria
280:13:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
265:07:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
249:Nonmetal (astrophysics)
225:18:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
199:12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
179:12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
90:12:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
2491:Given the comments by
2422:Comments from Mirokado
1984:
909:The full sentence is:
855:The whole passage is:
1980:
132:Guild of Copy Editors
2493:UndercoverClassicist
1696:Nonmetal (chemistry)
1661:Main Group Chemistry
1635:UndercoverClassicist
1609:UndercoverClassicist
1577:UndercoverClassicist
1504:UndercoverClassicist
1432:UndercoverClassicist
1366:UndercoverClassicist
941:UndercoverClassicist
868:UndercoverClassicist
811:UndercoverClassicist
746:UndercoverClassicist
647:UndercoverClassicist
588:UndercoverClassicist
442:UndercoverClassicist
404:UndercoverClassicist
333:UndercoverClassicist
314:UndercoverClassicist
292:UndercoverClassicist
195:In actu (Guerillero)
73:Nonmetal (chemistry)
2487:Coordinator comment
2376:Michael D. Turnbull
1966:Comments by Doncram
1757:Michael D. Turnbull
208:on the talk page. (
1773:CactiStaccingCrane
1089:The New Chemistry.
1026:General properties
253:Nonmetal (physics)
206:JJ posted comments
2127:
2126:
1938:Materialscientist
1839:Materialscientist
934:WP:EDITORIALISING
312:Thanks very much
96:A nonmetal, like
92:
2573:
2564:
2537:
2531:
2528:, and leave the
2286:Yes, thank you.
2265:
2236:IUPAC definition
2222:
2085:
1945:
1807:
1784:
1737:Pinging as well
1717:Coordinator note
1684:
808:
435:
221:
196:
141:
106:chemical element
79:
48:The article was
38:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2560:
2535:
2529:
2489:
2424:
2263:
2220:
2192:
2168:
1968:
1935:
1871:ComplexRational
1805:
1769:ComplexRational
1738:
1719:
1678:
1656:
1538:
1502:those four do.
1028:
806:
558:
433:
351:
288:
219:
194:
139:
76:
64:) 24 June 2023
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2579:
2577:
2568:
2567:
2555:
2554:
2542:goes through.
2513:
2488:
2485:
2466:
2465:
2436:
2435:
2430:
2423:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2382:
2379:
2372:
2368:
2365:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2258:
2257:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2243:
2231:
2230:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2215:
2191:
2188:
2167:
2161:
2146:
2145:
2137:
2136:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2121:
2117:
2116:
2113:
2109:
2108:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2073:
2060:Responding to
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
1997:
1996:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1976:
1967:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1886:
1885:
1858:
1857:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1817:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1655:
1652:
1650:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1604:
1603:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1569:
1551:
1550:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1492:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1421:
1404:
1403:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1358:
1341:
1340:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1287:
1286:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1199:
1198:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1071:
1070:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1003:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
995:
978:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
915:
914:
913:
904:
903:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
861:
860:
859:
850:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
823:
822:
821:
805:We still have
786:
785:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
724:
723:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
685:
684:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
643:
622:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
580:
563:
562:
557:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
520:
519:
518:
517:
511:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
486:
485:
473:
472:
471:
470:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
416:
415:
414:
357:
356:
350:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
328:
307:
306:
287:
286:Comments by UC
284:
283:
282:
228:
227:
202:
201:
152:Reaper Eternal
108:that is not a
94:
93:
80:Nominator(s):
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2578:
2566:
2563:
2557:
2556:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2541:
2534:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2511:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2486:
2484:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2434:
2431:
2429:
2426:
2425:
2421:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2402:Graham Beards
2398:
2397:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2383:
2380:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2366:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2350:
2349:Graham Beards
2346:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2333:Graham Beards
2330:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2306:Graham Beards
2303:
2302:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2288:Graham Beards
2285:
2284:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2250:
2246:
2245:
2241:
2240:hydrogen bond
2237:
2233:
2232:
2228:
2227:
2219:
2218:
2216:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2197:Graham Beards
2190:Graham Beards
2189:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2177:Mike Turnbull
2174:
2165:
2162:
2160:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2143:
2139:
2138:
2133:
2132:
2122:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2095:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2076:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2063:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1987:
1983:
1977:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1965:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1943:
1939:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1908:Jo-Jo Eumerus
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1859:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1835:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1682:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1653:
1651:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
999:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
979:
975:
974:
965:
961:
957:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
939:
935:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
916:
911:
910:
908:
907:
906:
905:
901:
900:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
873:
869:
865:
864:
862:
857:
856:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
846:
841:
837:
833:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
778:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
728:
727:
726:
725:
721:
720:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
698:
694:
689:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
677:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
619:
618:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
564:
560:
559:
555:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
534:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
515:
514:
513:
512:
508:
507:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
480:the criteria
479:
475:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
451:
447:
443:
439:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
402:
397:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
359:
358:
353:
352:
348:
342:
338:
334:
329:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
226:
223:
222:
215:
211:
207:
204:
203:
200:
197:
191:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
176:
172:
167:
165:
161:
157:
156:Graham Beards
153:
148:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
121:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
91:
87:
83:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2561:
2558:
2544:Gog the Mild
2518:Closing note
2517:
2512:
2501:Gog the Mild
2490:
2469:
2467:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2328:
2310:Gog the Mild
2253:
2193:
2169:
2163:
2147:
2059:
2041:Gog the Mild
2035:
1981:
1969:
1889:Gog the Mild
1887:
1802:
1781:SandyGeorgia
1741:Double sharp
1724:Gog the Mild
1720:
1691:
1657:
1649:
1630:
1626:
1613:Gog the Mild
1572:
1542:
1536:Bibliography
1499:
1495:
1427:
1424:
1278:
1274:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1088:
1066:
826:
680:
583:
481:
478:according to
477:
363:
289:
229:
217:
190:WP:PRECISION
168:
149:
136:
125:
122:
95:
54:Gog the Mild
49:
47:
35:
28:
1380:WP:PLAGFORM
1362:WP:PLAGFORM
1337:WP:PLAGFORM
681:present-day
169:Thank you.
2371:character.
1777:Guerillero
1547:WP:DURABLE
1193:colourful
1187:everything
232:Guerillero
184:Right now
2526:WP:FAC/ar
2522:candidate
2173:Smokefoot
2142:semimetal
2120:2000-2005
2112:2006-2011
2104:2012-2017
2096:2018-2023
1979:criteria:
1761:Petergans
1681:Smokefoot
1665:Smokefoot
1283:WP:ENGVAR
1067:somewhere
631:section.
112:(such as
2520:: This
2474:Mirokado
2440:Mirokado
2164:Comments
2023:contribs
2006:contribs
1934:Pinging
1867:Hog Farm
1861:Pinging
1837:Pinging
1821:Mirokado
1765:Mirokado
1430:their".
1279:colours
1275:colored
782:WP:PAREN
186:Nonmetal
150:Pinging
114:aluminum
98:hydrogen
50:archived
2470:support
2210:Thanks
2062:Doncram
2036:require
2032:Doncram
1806:Georgia
1779:, and
1753:Doncram
1749:Dirac66
1631:not yet
1142:Done---
1117:Done---
938:WP:NPOV
936:contra
438:MOS:NUM
396:MOS:NUM
164:WP:CHEM
160:WP:ELEM
140:Georgia
128:Dhtwiki
104:, is a
2497:Graham
2455:Sandbh
2387:Sandbh
2374:4. As
2329:oppose
2274:Sandbh
2212:Graham
2150:Sandbh
2115:1,812
2107:2,077
2099:3,519
2088:Period
1948:Sandbh
1942:Nick-D
1922:Sandbh
1893:Sandbh
1875:Sandbh
1863:buidhe
1847:Sandbh
1843:Nick-D
1787:Sandbh
1703:Sandbh
1701:. ---
1627:oppose
1593:Sandbh
1559:Sandbh
1549:terms.
1518:Sandbh
1482:Sandbh
1457:Sandbh
1411:Sandbh
1384:Sandbh
1348:Sandbh
1319:Sandbh
1294:Sandbh
1257:Sandbh
1232:Sandbh
1207:Sandbh
1197:shiny?
1169:Sandbh
1144:Sandbh
1119:Sandbh
1094:Sandbh
1048:Sandbh
1010:Sandbh
1008:Done.
985:Sandbh
983:Done.
956:Sandbh
920:Sandbh
882:Sandbh
832:Sandbh
793:Sandbh
760:Sandbh
732:Sandbh
704:Sandbh
693:Sandbh
661:Sandbh
633:Sandbh
602:Sandbh
570:Sandbh
540:Sandbh
493:Sandbh
460:Sandbh
420:Sandbh
382:Sandbh
368:Sandbh
318:Sandbh
272:Sandbh
257:Sandbh
255:. ---
220:buidhe
171:Sandbh
102:carbon
82:Sandbh
58:FACBot
2472:. --
2238:of a
2091:Hits
1803:Sandy
1543:wrong
1285:here.
192:? --
137:Sandy
110:metal
16:<
2548:talk
2505:talk
2495:and
2478:talk
2459:talk
2444:talk
2406:talk
2391:talk
2337:talk
2314:talk
2292:talk
2278:talk
2201:talk
2181:talk
2154:talk
2123:713
2045:talk
2019:talk
2002:talk
1952:talk
1940:and
1926:talk
1912:talk
1897:talk
1879:talk
1869:and
1851:talk
1841:and
1825:talk
1811:Talk
1791:talk
1728:talk
1707:talk
1699:here
1669:talk
1639:talk
1617:talk
1597:talk
1581:talk
1563:talk
1522:talk
1508:talk
1500:only
1496:that
1486:talk
1461:talk
1436:talk
1415:talk
1388:talk
1370:talk
1352:talk
1323:talk
1298:talk
1261:talk
1236:talk
1211:talk
1191:both
1173:talk
1148:talk
1123:talk
1098:talk
1052:talk
1044:here
1040:here
1014:talk
989:talk
960:talk
945:talk
924:talk
886:talk
872:talk
836:talk
815:talk
797:talk
764:talk
750:talk
736:talk
708:talk
697:talk
665:talk
651:talk
637:talk
606:talk
592:talk
574:talk
544:talk
497:talk
482:used
464:talk
446:talk
424:talk
408:talk
386:talk
372:talk
349:Lead
337:talk
322:talk
296:talk
276:talk
261:talk
251:and
245:here
243:and
241:here
237:here
175:talk
162:and
154:and
145:John
143:and
118:iron
86:talk
62:talk
56:via
2540:bot
2304:Hi
1813:)
1745:YBG
1692:NB.
1607:Hi
1195:and
584:and
401:32.
230:Tx
166:.
120:).
116:or
100:or
52:by
2550:)
2536:}}
2530:{{
2507:)
2480:)
2461:)
2446:)
2408:)
2393:)
2339:)
2316:)
2294:)
2280:)
2203:)
2183:)
2156:)
2047:)
2025:)
2008:)
1954:)
1928:)
1914:)
1899:)
1881:)
1865:,
1853:)
1827:)
1793:)
1775:,
1771:,
1767:,
1763:,
1759:,
1755:,
1751:,
1747:,
1743:,
1730:)
1709:)
1671:)
1641:)
1633:.
1619:)
1599:)
1583:)
1565:)
1524:)
1510:)
1488:)
1463:)
1438:)
1417:)
1390:)
1372:)
1364:.
1354:)
1325:)
1300:)
1263:)
1238:)
1213:)
1175:)
1150:)
1125:)
1100:)
1054:)
1016:)
991:)
962:)
947:)
926:)
888:)
874:)
838:)
817:)
799:)
766:)
752:)
738:)
710:)
699:)
667:)
653:)
639:)
608:)
594:)
576:)
546:)
499:)
466:)
448:)
426:)
410:)
398::
388:)
374:)
364:10
339:)
324:)
298:)
278:)
263:)
239:,
216:)
212:·
177:)
147:.
88:)
67:.
33:.
2546:(
2503:(
2476:(
2457:(
2442:(
2404:(
2389:(
2335:(
2312:(
2290:(
2276:(
2214:.
2199:(
2179:(
2152:(
2043:(
2021:,
2004:,
1950:(
1944::
1936:@
1924:(
1910:(
1895:(
1877:(
1849:(
1823:(
1809:(
1789:(
1783::
1739:@
1726:(
1705:(
1683::
1679:@
1667:(
1637:(
1615:(
1595:(
1579:(
1561:(
1520:(
1506:(
1484:(
1459:(
1434:(
1425:,
1413:(
1386:(
1368:(
1350:(
1321:(
1296:(
1273:"
1259:(
1234:(
1209:(
1171:(
1146:(
1121:(
1096:(
1050:(
1012:(
987:(
958:(
943:(
922:(
884:(
870:(
834:(
813:(
795:(
762:(
748:(
734:(
706:(
695:(
663:(
649:(
635:(
604:(
590:(
572:(
542:(
495:(
484:?
462:(
444:(
422:(
406:(
384:(
370:(
335:(
320:(
294:(
274:(
259:(
214:c
210:t
173:(
84:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.