Review
(criteria) |
 Support Good image for this scope. Yann (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Question How can you tell it is Yttrium? To me they look all alike. A scope is only relevant when the subjects are visually distinguisable. Lycaon (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info It is labelled as Yttrium and I have bought it as such from a reputable source. These elements may be similar, but they don't look exactly the same. Maybe you cannot tell for sure what it is, when you only see an image of them, but in my opinion this is not the point. It is important to know how an element looks like, even if there are others that look alike. Jurii (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Conditional oppose I am confused. In en:Yttrium the visual appearance of this element is described as "silvery-metallic" in the introduction and "silvery white" in the infobox. It appears to me that the lumb depicted here is "metallic-black" or something like that and the sample looks quite dissimilar to these images of Yttrium:
Assuming this is correct, I seems for me like the nominated image is a lumb with an atypical surface color, and thus not representative of "typical" Yttrium. I do not recall my basic inorganic chemistry undergraduate course (1991) anymore (I do recall synthesizing yttrium barium copper oxide in a later solid state chemistry course, and that was fun), but is it possible that this lumb has been exposed to some atmosphere, which has caused some surface reaction, which has led to a change of color?
- Info It is 99.99% pure Yttrium in crystalline form without oxidation. The color, of course, is due to illumination condititons. The light source was the sun, the background was a sheet of white paper. The other images of Yttrium are produced and photographed in a different way, therefore the different look. I got the element from here: http://www.smart-elements.com/index.php?arg=detail&element=Y&newitems=&limit=1&art=3235&gpn=1&pn=&cat=&view=gl&tr=32&out=1&lid=15 If this isn't enough for a valued image, I really can't do any better. Jurii (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment OK. The link indicates that it is a lumb embedded in an acryllic block, is that correct? I do not really doubt that it is yttrium you have there, but I think its visual appearance should match how it is normally described in order to be an adequate illustration of the scope. If the apparent very dark color is due to the lighting conditions during the shot it could be an idea to redo the shot under other lightning conditions, where the color is more silvery-white or silvery-metallic. Concerning oxidation it does strike me that if the yttrium lumb is embedded in an acryllic block, then the embedment has probably been done at elevated temperatures, which would accelerate any surface reactions like oxidation. I am also unsure if the embedment in such a dielectricum can change its visual characteristics. The other images could show freshly exposed surfaces after applying a file or saw to cut the material. I do not have personal experience with metallic yttrium though, and I do not know fast the clean metal surfaces change its characteristics when exposed to ambient conditions. Also, I could not find this infomation in on-line sources in a quick search. --Slaunger (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is in an acryllic block, yes. There was no oxidation, otherwise there would be bubbles all around the sample. I made hundreds of pictures from it, this is the one that came out best with the most details. Another reason for the darker color probably is the rougher surface of this one. Jurii (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThank you for clarifying regarding the acryllic block. I think you should add that information to the image page. I appreciate the effort you have taken to make a good photo of your sample. It is truly a nice and intriguing photo, and I am so sorry to be so reluctant to support it (due to the color). I don't understand your argument with the bubbles though, and I think we misunderstand each other on this point. The process temperature for acryllic glass when moulding is 240-250 deg C, so my point is that the lumb must have been at an elevated temperature during the moulding process until covered, and at such elevated temperatures surface reactions are accelerated unless the moulding is done in a very clean and inert atmosphere. Thus it is my concern that the lumb may have undergone fast oxidation in a thin layer in the mould process, i.e., before being covered with the acryllic glass, which may have caused the change in surface colour. It is just a guess though, the main point is that the color does not seem to match the expected appearance. --Slaunger (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bubbles probably would occur, when the element would react with the acryllic glass. This is what happened here: [1] with a different element. I cannot proof that no oxidation during the moulding occured, I have to trust here the seller that it didn't. If a color darker than expected impairs the illustration of the element's properties I don't know. But the same element can have different looks, depending on many conditions like shape and obtaining prozess. Jurii (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Thanks for the additional information. The link does not work for me by the way. I do realize elemtns can look very differently depending on the manner in which they have been refined.
- Oppose I'm not convinced. For organisms a scope can be valid when the organism is visually distinctive from other taxa. Here this metal can be anything. It is not a matter of believing, it is a matter of seeing the difference. A picture of a white powder, e.g. could be sugar, talc, or cocaine for that matter. Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Isn't this a very pricipal statement, which we first ought to discuss in general? What you are basically saying, is that if images of scopes are not visually distinct, they are not relevant to nominate. While I do see, that this seems consistent with what we have agreed upon for living organisms, I also have quite some dramatic side-effects. E.g., I do not feel sure there could not be a VI of each element although some of them may look visually similar. Concerning sugar vs cocaine I see a point in not being able to see a big difference in the powders alone. What could distinguish them, could be other objects alongside, like sugar cubes together with sugar, and the silver(?) tube, razor blade and small mirror together with the cocaine (sorry, I know this is irrelevant for this nomination). Perhaps, the good VI for elemnets would be a lumb of the element shown alongside with some application, which is unique for the element, be it some laser application, some radar application, as radiation source in medical physics, etc.? --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last suggestions sound reasonable. Maybe we should suspend these element noms and first discuss modalities. Lycaon (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Unfortunately I will not be online the next week or so, so I will not be able to participate actively in such a discusiion right now. I would appreciate if you could open a thread there to get the discussion started. --Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
