Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Metalloid
Metalloid edit
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add
{{collapse top|Previous nomination}}to the top of the discussion and{{collapse bottom}}at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.
The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 4, 2014 by BencherliteTalk 11:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
.png)
A metalloid is a chemical element that has properties in between those of metals and nonmetals. There is no standard definition of a metalloid, nor is there agreement as to which elements are appropriately classified as such. Despite this uncertainty, the term remains in use in chemistry literature. The six commonly recognised metalloids are boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony and tellurium. Elements less commonly recognised as metalloids include carbon, aluminium, selenium, polonium and astatine. Typical metalloids have a metallic appearance but are brittle and only fair conductors of electricity. Chemically, they mostly behave as weak nonmetals. They can form alloys with metals. Most of their other properties are intermediate in nature. Metalloids and their compounds are used in alloys, biological agents, flame retardants, glasses, optical storage and optoelectronics, pyrotechnics, semiconductors and electronics. The term metalloid originally referred to nonmetals. Its more recent meaning, as a category of elements with intermediate properties, became widespread in 1940–1960. Metalloids are sometimes called semimetals, a practice that has been discouraged. (Full article...)
- Most recent similar article(s): nil
- Main editors: Sandbh, John, Double sharp, Materialscientist
- Promoted: 2014
- Reasons for nomination: Birthday of EG Rochow (deceased), author of classic monograph on metalloids; <50 chemistry FA; first TFA for main contributor.
- Support as nominator. Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support as a contributor to the article. It looks good and is a good example of our best work. We should be proud to have this on the main page. --John (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Definitely deserves it for all the great work done on it since 2011! Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fluorine has been scheduled for 23 September; a very similar article there, best to leave this for 2015. Parcly Taxel 06:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- So you want F in 2014 and metalloid in 2015 even though this ruins both date appearances? And you go and nominate F for 2014 against the wishes of the main editors working on it (come on, R8R and TCO have surely done the most for that article) and against consensus at WT:ELEM? Sigh. Personally I'd say that because of both the date and the similar-article thing we should have put F on 26 June 2015 (or maybe even 2016 for the round number) and metalloid on 4 Oct 2014. Now F is in 2014: OK, I can handle that. But let's not mess with the other date as well. Please slow down a little. Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, here's the deal. Personally I think both date relevance claims are weak. With people, you can talk about their birthdays or the anniversary of the date they became President or were killed in battle, and that makes sense. With buildings, you can have the date of opening; with ships, the date of launch or of sinking; battles and so on have obvious dates, as do TV shows and lots of music articles. But chemical elements? If you asked people at random the most appropriate date to have such articles as TFA, I doubt anyone would say "the anniversary of the birth of someone who wrote about them"; the most popular answer would surely be "it doesn't really matter". And so this will run on 4th October – not because I think it's the best date for it but because it makes some people involved in the article's promotion happy. (Had it not been listed on WP:TFARP I would have run this months ago, but it didn't seem worth having this conversation. And when people involved in the promotion of an article disagree, as seems to have happened with fluorine, then I can't make everyone happy.)
When considering over-representation on the main page, part of my thinking is whether running two similar articles together is likely to raise eyebrows. Anyone who pops up at Talk:Main Page on 4th October to say "What? Another chemistry TFA? We had one of those two weeks ago!" will get the response they deserve from those who appreciate the importance to an encyclopaedia of high-quality science articles - something we unfortunately lack. Let me finish by offering once again my congratulations to all those involved in bringing these articles to FA standard, and I hope the articles get the readership and appreciation they deserve when they are TFA. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 10:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, here's the deal. Personally I think both date relevance claims are weak. With people, you can talk about their birthdays or the anniversary of the date they became President or were killed in battle, and that makes sense. With buildings, you can have the date of opening; with ships, the date of launch or of sinking; battles and so on have obvious dates, as do TV shows and lots of music articles. But chemical elements? If you asked people at random the most appropriate date to have such articles as TFA, I doubt anyone would say "the anniversary of the birth of someone who wrote about them"; the most popular answer would surely be "it doesn't really matter". And so this will run on 4th October – not because I think it's the best date for it but because it makes some people involved in the article's promotion happy. (Had it not been listed on WP:TFARP I would have run this months ago, but it didn't seem worth having this conversation. And when people involved in the promotion of an article disagree, as seems to have happened with fluorine, then I can't make everyone happy.)
- So you want F in 2014 and metalloid in 2015 even though this ruins both date appearances? And you go and nominate F for 2014 against the wishes of the main editors working on it (come on, R8R and TCO have surely done the most for that article) and against consensus at WT:ELEM? Sigh. Personally I'd say that because of both the date and the similar-article thing we should have put F on 26 June 2015 (or maybe even 2016 for the round number) and metalloid on 4 Oct 2014. Now F is in 2014: OK, I can handle that. But let's not mess with the other date as well. Please slow down a little. Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Following an excellent suggestion from Sandbh, I'm scheduling this with images of the six principal metalloids randomly displaying, rather than the periodic table which doesn't show up very well at TFA size. BencherliteTalk 11:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)