Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
To be blunt, the biggest barrier here is equipment so I'm going to describe what I'd consider best practise, and just do what you can. Buy (very cheap on ebay) or make a and light it up. are a good, cheap way to get a lot of light. You should vary the amount of light on each side until it looks right (by altering the physical distance of the light sources). A small piece of white or black plastic, such as ] or ], is probably the best background material, you can buy small scrap pieces for very little. Paper is going to show too many fibres and stuff at this scale. I'd then photograph it on a tripod, focus stacking using a macro lens and/or extension tubes (depending on how small it is). Chances are you might know someone with the right equipment. Using your current camera: Improving the lighting will help the sharpness etc with your current camera quite a bit, because the shutter speed is probably low enough for motion blur at the moment. You need to put the gem at the minimum focus distance of the camera, it will be blurry if you go too close. Make sure your camera is in macro mode (usually a flower symbol). ] (]) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
To be blunt, the biggest barrier here is equipment so I'm going to describe what I'd consider best practise, and just do what you can. Buy (very cheap on ebay) or make a and light it up. are a good, cheap way to get a lot of light. You should vary the amount of light on each side until it looks right (by altering the physical distance of the light sources). A small piece of white or black plastic, such as ] or ], is probably the best background material, you can buy small scrap pieces for very little. Paper is going to show too many fibres and stuff at this scale. I'd then photograph it on a tripod, focus stacking using a macro lens and/or extension tubes (depending on how small it is). Chances are you might know someone with the right equipment. Using your current camera: Improving the lighting will help the sharpness etc with your current camera quite a bit, because the shutter speed is probably low enough for motion blur at the moment. You need to put the gem at the minimum focus distance of the camera, it will be blurry if you go too close. Make sure your camera is in macro mode (usually a flower symbol). ] (]) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
:Many thanks. I'll see what I can come up with. ] ] 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry
This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana
This was in a user sandbox from 25 Oct to Nov 06, 2011, when it was moved to mainspace, becoming DYK eligible on Nov 6 as it's also over 24K of prose today. Log herePumpkinSkytalk19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Photos
A 0.25 carat rectangular-cut blue Yogo sapphire.A 0.19 carat diamond-cut blue Yogo sapphire.
Hey PS, sorry the photo so blurry and otherwise not the greatest, but I just had the cell phone, which clearly lacks macro capabilities. The guys at the jewelry store were happy to show off their Yogos, however. This one is currently worth (if you buy it from them) about $5000. If I ever remember to bring my actual camera to town, I'm sure they'll drag them out again for me. They had several, including one that was an unusual purplish color. Also a couple Montana Sapphires, for about 1/3 the price of the Yogos. Montanabw21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
They also gave me their handy-dandy handout on them, not sure if a RS, but will insert text here verbatim if you want to use it. Might provide clues to find backup for some claims (The Charlie Russell's friend and QEII claims are cool if it can be independently verified). Citation is "History of the Yogo Sapphire." Brochure (no author, undated) Central Montana Publishing Co., Lewistown Montana (any typos are mine unless noted):
"History of the Yogo Sapphire"
"Jake Hoover, once partner to Montana's cowboy-artist, Charlie Russell, is credited with the discovery of sapphires in Yogo Gulch in the Little Belt Mountains of Central Montana in 1898.
"The brilliant blue gems were at first thought by Hoover to be pieces of broken bottle glass. When examined by American and British gem authorities, the sapphires were found to be of unique quality and it was not long before the gems gained worldwide recognition.
"Yogo mining interests were purchased by British and American firms. In its heyday the mine produced $30 million in top quality gems. The mine was closed for a number of years because of litigation and other problems. It was recently re-opened and Yogo sapphires, which gain their name from the area where they are found, are again appearing on the world market.
"The mine, 45 miles southwest of Lewistown, is the only producing sapphire dike mine in North America, and possibly the world.
"A unique quality of Yogo sapphires is that they retain their brilliance under artificial light. Sapphires from other parts of the world generally absorb artificial light, making them appear black and lustless .
"Yogo sapphires, for the most part, are free of "silk" or milkiness, which adds considerably to their value. It also permits cutting and polishing with greater ease and without undue waste of valuable material.
"Yogo sapphires are found among the crown jewels of Europe and they grace the engagement ring given to England's Queen Elizabeth by Prince Phillip. The beautiful Yogo sapphires are truly gems 'befitting a queen'."
Well, now the myth extends to Kate Middleton (see here). However, I CAN verify the Jake Hoover/Charlie Russell connection: see JSTOR and Vivian Paladin, who is a respected history writer affiliated with the Museum here. Hoover seems to be a rather colorful and interesting character. Be interesting to see where the whole British crown jewels/engagement ring bit came from, as it's all over the place when you search for Yogo info. Montanabw22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Also another Voynick book, with some tantalizing excerpts about museum collections, in google books: The Great American Sapphire
When you are ready to go live, give me a shout if you want any copyediting or a second set of eyes. I generally stay out of sandboxes unless invited... Montanabw22:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably not needed, but some direct links to the Smithsonian, with possible US-Gov't PD images (maybe): summary, cool jewelry
Did some copyediting. Hope I helped and didn't screw up anything. All is intended in good faith and I will not be at all offended if you toss it all out. Looks like you were sort of putting in material by source, I mostly just rearranged things by topic and tried to keep the sources with the right material, but you might want to just revert my whole edit and put back in only what was helpful. I threw in a few hidden text comments where something struck me odd. I guess is was a slow day in wikiland that I had to go poop in someone else's sandbox, so if I was bad, just trout slap me or something! Montanabw02:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It's okay. I go through a source and add all pertinent info from it, mixing in with what I have already, go to the next source, etc.PumpkinSkytalk02:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question. I'll do a test Rock Creek. And guess what, no Montana Rock Creek articles (hmm, someone tell Mike Cline, he does geography stuff). Mostly wanting to verify that it is or is not the same one that is the world-renowned trout stream named Rock Creek that flows into the Clark Fork not far from Missoula? If two different waterways, they are close to each other... eep! Montanabw02:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
To avoid any more possible edit conflicts, I'll stay out of the article for now. I looked at my digital Montana highway map, which is not quite up to USGS quality, but I think it's the same Rock Creek as the famous fishing stream ...arises near Phillipsburg, flows north, empties into the Clark Fork a bit east of Clinton, MT at the exit where the bar is that holds the "testicle festival." Mountain range running next to it is called the Sapphire Range. I bet it's the same one, unless there is a tinier one nearby, which I suspect not... there's another Rock Creek over by Red Lodge, I think, hence my original question. (A topo map hints there may be another over by Wolf Point) Here are some sources on western Montana's Rock Creek; yeah, I'll alert Mike. ,, Montanabw03:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yep, page 19 of the book "sapphires were next discovered in 1892 at Rock Creek, sixteen miles southwest of Phillipsburg. PumpkinSkytalk 03:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)...in the article already "Rock Creek near Philipsburg in 1892" PumpkinSkytalk03:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
So the source indicates that the sapphire find was closer to the Phillipsburg end of the stream, I wonder how close that is to the headwaters (see handy map I sent). Hmm tricky phrasing, as the creek flows along the (aptly-named) Sapphire Mountains and empties into the Clark Fork about 20-30 miles from Missoula, today it's more associated with "near Missoula" than "near Phillipsburg" (thanks to the fishing stuff). All of which is completely unrelated to this article, of course other than to confuse my small mind. Montanabw00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK ideas
rarity vs diamonds
one of two in situ sapphire mines
premier gem site in America
Originally thought to be worthless blue pebbles by gold miners
Retain their luster under artificial light
Marketing campaign exposed the scandal of heat-treating other sapphires
Hoover sent them off in a cigar box to Tiffany's
...that Yogo sapphires are rarer than diamonds , were designated the Montana state gemstone in 1969, and are only mined in Yogo Gulch, Montana?
I would prefer something like 1, even without the State gem, because you can really present a fact "to be known" in this case and don't need something quirky to get attention, - pictured please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My personal favorite is #5 because I love uncovering scandal and fraud, but that's just me, I don't have strong feelings on any other than not liking #4, and we are getting close to the five day clock, so Ill be happy with any. If we go with #6, I'd add a link to Tiffany's, which is also significant. For an image, should we use the lead image (we can't use fair use for DYK, only free images) or one of Tim's as uploaded at talk (the blowups are a bit blurry, but the smaller ones look OK) Montanabw17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Added pictured, have to not agree with cut, as for caption, it's in the template and in the article but not showing up. Do you know why or who could figure it out?PumpkinSkytalk22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
...Hmm, in the article it's because I changed thumb to 200px to make the image bigger but I don't know how to keep it bigger and also have the caption.
(ce) Sorry, I was not clear. I mean a caption is not shown in the article for that pic. - There is no caption in DYK, therefore I think something should be added to the hook like (xyz-cut example pictured), because it doesn't look like what you mine in Yogo Gulch. - Never had a problem with a caption whatever size, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Now I see what you mean, I guess it's because the pic has no higher resolution. Perhaps ask Materialscientist, he can do miracles about pics, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I changed it to an infobox, so the caption shows up. I think all the entries are correct, but might want to double-check to make sure. Dreadstar☥22:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a great article! Just stumbled across it while looking at gem-related stuff! I added some categories and the jewellery nav box, hopefully they're appropriate! Dreadstar☥04:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Object There are multiple text issues that need to be addressed before it can pass. Here are some of the issues that I see:
In the lead: "They are considered among the finest sapphires in the world, and by some gem experts, the finest." Seems redundant, and "some" is a weasel word.
In the lead: "Yogo sapphires are rarer than diamonds." is really short and should be merged with adjacent sentences. At the very least it should have a connecting words like "moreover", "Indeed", etc.
"Yogo Gulch is located in what today is" Confusing, and historical wording seems unnecessary. Perhaps just "Yogo Gultch is located in ..., east of Great Falls, Montana"
Not sure if this should be in parenthesis or not,. Figured it would be good to say what it was called at the time. Dreadstar☥22:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I'll give it a try! I'm now looking at the entire section, as you mention three points below with the request for breaks in the location section. Might have to restructure that whole section. I'll work on that next. Dreadstar☥22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
There are three citations following that statement, which seems a little on the high end. In fact, excessive numbers of sequential citations are used throughout the article. They distract from readability, and are likely redundant. Choose the best, and reduce the number down to one or two. See Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill
Done Cite overkill indicates 5 or more is overkill. Thomas the Slav was the main page FA only 3 days ago and it has cases of three refs in a row. I've reduced cases in Yogo sapphire to three as you do not make a valid case that over 2 is overkill.PumpkinSkytalk19:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
" the word "Yogo" is alleged to mean "blue sky" in Piegan Blackfeet" Again, same issue as in the lead. Does it mean this in the language or not? If so, say so, but keeping the " there is some dispute about this translation" statement is probably appropriate. However, this statement doesn't seem to really fit with the section title. It could however be cleverly placed in the opening lines.
Done Fixed and expanded upon, with ref. From the way I'm reading it, the name (romance, blue sky) seem to relate to the actual location being...well, romantic with blue skey...but if it still doesn't fit that section, I'll try to fix further. Dreadstar☥22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd recommend some paragraph breaks in the Location section, it seems a bit long and the sentences don't flow together as well as they could. Perhaps there could be two paragraphs: one on historical locations, and one about the current location. The relationship of the sapphires to the gulch needs to be more clear. I'm assuming the location of the gems hasn't changed over time, except in where we politically classify it.
Much better! I concerned though with the two-sentence paragraph at the end of the section. Since its short, it should be either expanded or integrated into the above text. If the latter, it might work best at the end of the first paragraph. Jessemv (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"East of the river is Pig-Eye Basin—where Jake Hoover, claimed to be the discoverer of Yogo sapphires, had a ranch" I'm not sure why this statement is important, or the information following it. I'm assuming its there for some context, but it doesn't really mean much to me. If it is important to the formation of the sapphires, please tell why. The ranch mention seems like an excessive detail.
I do like the "Yogo sapphires are unique among the world's sapphires: ..." paragraph, nice job on that. Although there's a sentence that starts with "because" and I don't think that's grammatically correct.
"Some gem experts consider them the finest sapphires in the world." Again, weasel word. I don't doubt the statement, but who said this? Also, this paragraph has excessive citations, in one case six, which is definitely overkill. Like I said above, reduce them and use the best you can find.
It's better, but unfortunately I believe "many" is still a weasel word. See Weasel words#Forms. I understand what you are trying to say, but its a "Numerically vague expression". Personally, if the US Geological Survey considers yogo sapphires the finest, and as such an authoritative figure that completely convinces me. If you feel that the mentioning of these "many" gem experts complements the USGS's statement, then perhaps you should find a few of the more notable experts and use them instead. I don't know if "many" implies that the majority of all gem experts everywhere agree on this statement, or if the "many" was extrapolated from Stephen Voynick's observations of a smaller group. So I believe that still needs to be fixed in either way I described. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Jeez dude, USGS says "AMONG the finest". Voynick says "THE FINEST". That's NOT the same thing. Voynick doesn't list specific names in his book. I really don't see there's much else to do on this one. PumpkinSkytalk21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well if Voynick doesn't specifically mention names, then weasel words are the only thing that can be used. Since they're frowned upon, if Yoynick says they are the finest in the world, then put down his notability/authority on the matter, and just say that he states that. Jessemv (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"It is believed that the reason Yogos are almost always blue rather than coming in as wide variety of colors as other Montana sapphires is that their bedrock had a much longer cooling time" I think "It is believed" could be reworded. Try "Current theory holds", "Yogo sapphires are almost always blue because", "X believes that Yogo sapphires are almost always blue because", or something like that. On top of that fix, commas or parentheses should be used in this statement. For example: "In contrast to traditional Montana sapphires, Yogo sapphires are almost always blue because their bedrock has a longer cooling time."
"There had been considerable debate ..." paragraph: the citation is way at the end, which makes me a bit suspicious that the sentences at the beginning could be original research. Name the citation on the first use, and then place it at the end of every two or three sentences, so its absolutely clear the material is covered by said citation. While citations can detract from readability, having it only at the end of the long paragraph like that is too far off balance I think. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. Also applies to some of the paragraphs in the Mining History section.
" surface. This is why the Yogos found to date are generally small." I suggest better linking between these sentences, like "surface, causing the Yogo sapphires to be generally small."
"The Yogo sapphire deposit is located in a silica-poor lamproite igneous rock dike cutting into limestone that intruded a fissure into the earth" Wording issues. Try "The Yogo sapphire deposit is located in a silica-poor lamproite igneous rock dike, which transitions into limestone as it intrudes into a fissure." Does this sound better?
"Mining at the English Mine confirmed this as the deeper the digging there got, the more likely miners were to find bigger Yogo roughs." Probably change to something like "Subsequent mining at the English Mine confirmed this" or "This was confirmed by subsequent mining at the English Mine."
It's better, but it's still a bit redundant. How about "... generally small, which was later confirmed by subsequent mining at the English Mine." If the geology does indeed cause the smaller roughs to be near the surface, then this will be confirmed by digging. I don't think you need to describe the size-depth distribution twice. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"... and initially gave Montana sapphires a bad name". I realize the "a bad name" comes from the citation source, but it just seems informal. Try a synonym like "discredit", or perhaps there is a better word.
I was thinking more along the lines of "and initially discredited Montana sapphires", but that works as well. DoneJessemv (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"have very good color". Is there better word choice?
Mining history section: no real issues that I can spot, just make sure you follow GA criteria by not delving into unnecessary details. In that regard, the monetary values given raise the biggest alarm in my mind. Perhaps someone can follow up and say one way or the other here, but just really think about keeping with summary style.
Totally disagree. Monetary values are not trivial, especially when the mine and its production of Yogos has been an economic yoyo. PumpkinSkytalk21:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh. I did not understand that the prices fluctuated that much. In light of this, yes the values would be important. If the fluctuation is important, perhaps that should be more clear. Otherwise, it just sounds to me as a "so-and-so did this for $X" with little connection between them. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought it was obvious but maybe it's because I know the history so well. Will think on how to do this. Open to suggestions. PumpkinSkytalk02:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It's stated, or at least hinted at in the beginning of the section where it talks about the geologic nature of the site making Yogos expensive. PumpkinSkytalk15:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing of the underlying history. I've also thought more about this, and after you pointed it out I realized that the numbers illustrate the growing apparent value of the mine. So this is Done as well. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"95% of the time". The word "time" was just used. Consider something like "with an accuracy of 95%"
The "Notable Yogo sapphires" section I think delves into unnecessary details, and one sentences is followed by four citations. Consider honing this section a bit more.
Well, each is a pretty long paragraph. I for one am interested in the historical connections, but I'm looking at lines like "... if she would take a set of sapphires from Montana and create a piece of finished jewelry" and "Crevoshay named the brooch "Conchita" in honor of her mother." and "The brooch can also be worn as a pendant or clasp and can be beaded." as examples of information that, although interesting, may not be particularly notable. If these actually are important aspects of the historical connection, then I would suggest trying to summarize them a bit more, and connect them to adjacent sentences. The second paragraph doesn't really have this issue, although it could use better transitions in the sections including and in between "Yogo sapphires also won a bronze medal ..." to "... Bess Truman, and their daughter Margaret Truman." The citation issue is fixed. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"The gems in question were being donated to the Smithsonian's Gem and Mineral Collection by gemologist Robert Kane of Fine Gems International in Helena, Montana, which has the largest selection of Montana sapphires in the world." There's a passive voice here which could be addressed by placing the subject, verb, and noun in better order. Something like "Gemologist Robert Kane of Fine Gems International, which has the largest selection of Montana sapphires in the world, donated these gems to the Smithsonian's Gem and Mineral Collection." Is that better?
The article has some good potential, but there are some stumbling blocks that I think are holding it back. This is my first GA review. I hope what I have listed helps with improving the article. Getting it to Good Article criteria takes significant work, and I wish you best of luck. Jessemv (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed the banner at the top of the Talk page changed when I saved my review, and it said that it was up to the first reviewer (me) to pass the article. Over the next week or two, I don't believe I'll have enough time to follow up, so I'll need someone else to do that. Sorry for any confusion this generated. Jessemv (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Correction, I'll do my best to follow through, now that I've started this. Once again, I apologize for this apparently uncouth statement. I do still welcome further reviewers. Jessemv (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm impressed at the speed in which these issues were addressed. Thank you very much; the article is looking much nicer now. Here's the results from my re-read, and the test of the GA criteria:
It does contains appropriate images, which have proper licenses and captions. However, there are several images that seem pretty blurry, and I'd recommend you try to get ones that are cleaner. For example, why in File:Point-19 carat diamond cut blue Yogo sapphireCROP.jpg does the camera's focus drop so quickly? Surely there's an image of the entire sapphire. The image of a "one-carat Yogo sapphire" on a pedestal would be much better if it wasn't "taken with blurry cell phone camera". And the last image of the blue shallow sapphire could be better, as I'm not positive what I'm actually looking at. See Misplaced Pages:How to improve image quality. Now, I don't see the GA criteria specifically stating that the images have to be clean and crystal clear, so I'm debating about whether this holds back the article from GA or not. I guess they're not as "illustrative" as they could be. I'll research policy a bit more, but in the meantime I advise you to improve their quality.
The article is factually accurate and verifiable and as far as I can tell does not contain original research, so that passes. It's broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and maintains proper summary style without going into unnecessary details, so that works as well.
I do have a few additional issues with the text, but they are pretty minor now.
Location section: "The Yogo area to the west." What? Insert a missing "is", but perhaps its better to connect it to another sentence. What is "Yogo area"? The mine itself?
Minerology section: "... other than blue, almost always purple, very rarely reddish." How about "other than blue: almost always purple, and very rarely reddish."?
Minerology section: "The largest cut Yogo is a 10.2 carat gem held by the Smithsonian Institution." The paragraph talks about how fine they are, describes how large Yogos are rare and expensive, details their color, and then ends with a statement which complements the size descriptions again. Perhaps this sentence better belongs earlier in the paragraph, or change the order of the sentences in another way. I'm hoping I'm not stepping into FA text requirements, but I'm just trying to say that the organization in this paragraph could be a bit better.
Mining history: "Nonetheless, sapphire mining at Yogo Gulch began in 1895 when someone finally thought to investigate the nature of the "blue pebbles." If the citation covers the entire sentence, it should be placed at the end. If the citation does not cover the end of the sentence, it would probably be best to apply after the period the citation that does.
Mining history: "Baron organized some German and Thai gemcutters". The word "some". I believe you can remove that word entirely without changing the meaning of the sentence.
"Yaras was from Oxnard, California." Unnecessary detail? If not I'd recommend merging it with another sentence, as I was initially confused by "Yaras' firm was called Sapphire Village, Inc. Yaras was from Oxnard, California." since the sentence break wasn't obvious at first.
""Mining" on these homesites was limited to hand tools." I don't see why its important to put this in quotes, because it seems like it's a scare quote.
"Brown discovered he could get the best gemcutters for the best price, who were also willing to improve their skills, in Thailand. This is where American Yogo Sapphire Limited set up its network of cutters." Perhaps "Brown discovered quality gemcutters in Thailand who were willing to improve their skills, and accordingly set up the American Yogo Sapphire Company at that location."
I recommend interspersing the appropriate citations throughout the "Kunisaki then put his mine up for sale, asking $6 million to recoup his expenses." paragraph.
There's now a long run-on sentence. Try just "... purchased Citibank's four sealed bags of Yogo material. However, only one of the bags was truly valuable." This way, the fact that dirt isn't valuable is implied as well. Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"Most are from the Rock Creek deposit." Most is a weasel word. How many? Perhaps insert this back into a previous sentence, such as the "He provided 333 Montana sapphires weighing 27.97 carats along with 98.48 grams of 18K yellow gold for the project." If this is done, of course remove the "however" in "The largest one, however, is a blue Yogo..."
Not all Montana sapphires (non-Yogo) are from Rock Creek. As the article says, there are others. This let people know which one. I'll say majority. PumpkinSkytalk22:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Now, these issues are relatively minor. Overall, the article is put together well, and I congratulate you on your efforts. The text issues I've suggested will simply improve readability and the quality of the text, but the information is already there. Provided they are taken care of, I should have no problem passing the article for GA. Jessemv (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Jesse, I am going to review recent edits and put in changes I think need to happen. I have a few concerns about your review and do not concur that all of your recommendations are correct or necessary. First, I am going to recommend that you not nitpick punctuation, particularly when you are not correct (as in your suggestion that a colon is better than a semicolon; the semicolon was proper in that instance, though there are multiple ways that sentence could be punctuated). There are numerous ways to do things, and there is a place for stylistic differences. Also, on a GA-class article, the criteria is not as stringent as for FA, and you need to back off a little and let the editors do their job. Second, you are not understanding the purpose of "weasel" words ... sometimes these indefinite terms are needed because that is what the sources themselves say, they give us no more, we are stuck with "some, many, most, and few." Not all topics have the benefit of access to scientific studies or opinion polling. Thus the mere presence of an indefinite term does not mean it violates WP guidelines. Third, while the detail here may in places need to be tightened up a bit and the prose made a bit more "sparkling" (as the WP guidelines suggest) these sections do not present undue weight, they are needed because the history of the gem and the mining activities are crucial to the topic and covered nowhere else. And fourth, as for the photographs, they are as good as we can get at the moment -- the problem is that we need free images, Yogos are hard to find, and so we basically have amateur photographers doing the job. We don't have expensive cameras with macro lenses -- gem photography is, as I just discovered personally, a challenge. I took one of the images in this article, here's how: on short notice I only had my cell phone camera handy to spontaneously get an image after sweet-talking a jeweler into taking his time to let me see a $5000 unset gem he knew I clearly was not going to purchase...! When I get my courage up, again, and have time, I am going to have to see if my regular digital camera is even capable of taking a marco image (It's a point and shoot with some macro capacity -- I'll have to practice on a ring I have at home or something) and if it is, I MIGHT be able to talk the nice jeweler into letting me photograph that gem again. He might say yes, he might not. Even then, the image might not be much better! Montanabw22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
All right. In the future I'll work on not being so picky about GA text requirements. When someone else GA reviews the article I'm working on, I know I would appreciate it if they really looked over the text and informed me as to how I could really hone it. Since there's no guarantee as to how quickly editing is going to happen after the GA passes, and I don't know what PumpkinSky's plans are, I thought I'd try to point out what I was having issues with. I understand FA has to have the best possible text, and I didn't think I was that good of a writer to analyzing the text that deep. I'm sorry if I caused offense there, as its clear that as the primary contributor PumpkinSky's put significant work into the article, and is motivated to improve it, so I thought I could help to that end. That way when it passes GA we can really sit back and be proud of this fascinating article. But I've learned from my mistake and I'll try to avoid that there. As for your second issue, my understanding came from the weasel words article. I was just trying to reduce any possible confusion into what the statement actually said. Several Wikipedians have corrected me on my application of weasel words, so I thought it was a requirement that needed to be taken care of. After further review of this Manual of Style page, I see that they are words to watch for and avoid if possible, but you are correct, their presence shouldn't hold an article back. Thus, a suggestion like that would have been better outside of a GA review, I stand corrected here. PumpkinSky has addressed my issues with those long sections, so there's not a problem here anymore. Finally, thank you for explaining the situations with the gem images, I have a better understanding of how difficult it is to get a better photo. The images are adequate (abeit not optimal) so do work in the article. Improving the quality would be beneficial to the article and Misplaced Pages at large, so I wish you the best of luck with that. As stated above, I marked the images as fine. Jessemv (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Jesse, you did good, just went overboard a bit on a few things (weasels and photos). I'd gladly work with you again. Your copyedit ideas (reword this to that) were really good. Most people just say "your writing sucks, fix it" and don't tell you how. PumpkinSkytalk23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you. I'll try to avoid going overboard on the weasel words and images, I'll think more on how I can handle those better next time. I'm glad you appreciated my copyediting ideas; I mean if I'm going to take the time to point out a specific issue I might as well take it one step further by offering some thoughts. As I've said before, this is my first GA review, so its been a very educational experience for me. Even though I'm wincing a bit at Montanabw jumping in and correcting me, I'll consider what she said for next time. Anyway, as of right now you've got two remaining issues left (both are from my re-read, near the top) and as soon as those are taken care of I'll be happy to pass it. Thank you for your hard work. Jessemv (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like we can now all hold hands and sing Kumbayah. I'm glad to see the good-faith tone here. I sort of gave up on seeking GA status for articles because I got tired of being nitpicked to death, the last one I did on my own nom went OK, but I hadn't initiated one for almost two years due to my frustration with the process, I was mostly (like this case) supporting others' leads. For future use, I think there is a "on review" tag (purple in color) rather than an "on hold" tag that sometimes is a bit milder but keeps the article in the queue and open to improvements. Sometimes, it's a good idea to start with general suggestions, like "section X is a bit wordy, you may want to review it and tighten up the language," or "I think you have too many run-on sentences (or too many short, choppy sentences), can you take a look at that?" Just some thoughts. Montanabw01:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for your bad experiences there Montanabw. Not sure if I'll regret saying this later, but I'm looking forward to being nitpicked, since when I get Folding@home up to GA I'll probably take a Wikibreak, and I want to do so that knowing that I left behind a quality piece of work, with 500-600 views per day, and no regrets of "well I COULD have done this..." Actually, I started this whole thing because I believe I'm good with copy editing, but its nice to carry it through. I'll keep that On Review tag idea in mind; I didn't see it under Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations. Now that I know a bit more about how GA Reviews go, perhaps I'll do more. Apparently there's quite a backlog. :D Thanks to both of you. Jessemv (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Coordinates in lead
I added coordinates for Yogo Creek since Yogo Gulch is not in the USGS names data. There is also a Yogo Crossing and Sapphire Village close by. Both have coordinates. We should use the one that most approximates Yogo Gulch. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The Yogo sapphire deposit is located in a silica-poor lamproite igneous rock dike cutting into limestone that intruded a fissure into the earth" Wording issues. Try "The Yogo sapphire deposit is located in a silica-poor lamproite igneous rock dike, which transitions into limestone as it intrudes into a fissure." Does this sound better?
It may sound better to some folks 'round here, but it's garbage to a geologist. The intrusive dike does not transition into anything. The lamproite dike intrudes pre-existing limestone along a fracture or fissure. Vsmith (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
When in doubt, how does the source word it??? If "cutting" is correct and corresponds with the source, best keep it. Montanabw17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The source is closer to the original. VSMITH--glad to have a pro in the field reviewing this. I'll change it back to the original.PumpkinSkytalk00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I note that a few of the references cited are to commercial jewelry website info pages and are not WP:RS. One such turned out to be a dead link. Seems any GA reviewer type should have picked up on that. Vsmith (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Ref # 38 sapphiremine.com/ (Seems a dead link), #41 Montana Gem, & #43 Gem Gallery - used about a dozen times - and says at the bottom Summary material courtesy of "Yogo: The Great American Sapphire," Stephen M. Voynick - so why not use the book. If I found three with a quick scan ... how much more commercial promotion is included? Vsmith (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of the web refs were there to back up Voyich (I probably found them, they were live two weeks ago, sigh...). I fully anticipate a PR or FA reviewer to complain that we don't have enough web refs...which is what always annoys me about this process, sigh. Montanabw18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
sapphiremine.com/ worked in late Oct. Removed.
Montana Gem. Removed as others refs say same. Made it an ext link.
Gem Gallery. Same as Montana Gem.
Lily Gem, same as above
QUESTION - would something by the New Mexico Faceters Guild which leads to be okay? This is where the paydirt webpage was copied from.PumpkinSkytalk01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps reliable for general and gemological information (what/where) like history/locations/gems, thinking of them as a gemology company with some history . I would try to have better sources for scientific (geological) facts and analysis. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they will definitely check each reference to make sure it's valid and not a dead link. I'm not sure how much emphasis they'll put on web-based references (I think it depends on the reviewer), but I can understand why they prefer them since it's rather difficult to check not only the source itself but to make sure the article and source match. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That could be a problem, because by far the best and most detailed info is in the Voynick book, esp for historical stuff, less so for mineral science stuff. PumpkinSkytalk02:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If you have specific page numbers cited you should be OK. Another tool if you're worried is the "quote" option that is available in any of the citation templates. It may be time consuming, but it can help ease any kind of doubt for a source that is not available to the reviewer. And really, the only places FAC is really going to want something they can see themselves is any kind of outstanding claim. Citations that merely confirm facts aren't going to be brought into question. In an article like this, there aren't many outstanding or controversial claims that I could find. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec) A FAC page contains direct links to checking tools like (checklinks, dablinks). I've run them on this article yesterday and had no major problems, but they are not ideal and sometimes miss such redirects as ref. 38 mentioned by Vsmith. In general, reliable books and journal reviews are fine as refs, online or offline, and there is no need for quotes. You can provide them on the FAC page upon request. Materialscientist (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate all the help guys. I'm not a science person, I just like Yogos. All the Voynick refs have specific pages cited. I bought the book on Amazon for about $10. I'll even scan and send people pages if they want.PumpkinSkytalk03:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I would only recommend using quotes in instances where there could be some question about whether or not the source says what the article claims it does. I don't use them very often; it's just an option that is available if needed. Like I said, there really aren't any claims here that demand tons of sources or extra details from a given source because they are controversial or outstanding. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a tool to check dead links. I can't recall the details, but it will do the whole article in one sweep...? I concur in minimizing the use of quotes. It looks awkward. However, within a ref template, you can sometimes add a quote to the footnote if needed. See, for example Finnhorse, which used a ton of sources in the Finnish language (cause that's all there was) and the editor inserted the quote from the original Finnish in the footnote for the benefit of those who cared. Montanabw02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The tool is called checklinks, but it is not a magic wand, see my comment above. Quotes are used when it is necessary to convey the exact phrasing (scientific definitions, foreign language notes, specific way of expression, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just removed 3 commercial websites: russell11, gemgallerymtloc, and edcollins. All had sales hype on the page or related pages. I've left a cite needed tag on the last of the three as it was the only ref for the ref'd sentence. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I am reverting this, as we need to discuss. The fact that they happen to be commercial is not a slam dunk for their removal; there are times when a commercial link is OK when there is nothing better. I'll go find the MOS guideline on this. Montanabw18:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
For FA, we may want to look at finding better sources, but we aren't going for an FA nom quite yet, so no rush. Questionable sources are not prohibited, but the page reads "...Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Here, I'd argue that the source is only marginally "questionable" in the first place, and even if it is, we have no BLP concerns, no extremist material, we are talking about, basically, a gem, not a living person. The source in question is an inside page on a bigger site, has no on-page advertising other than the header, is an authored article, happens to state something non-contentious (that the Missouri River sapphires aren't always the best, and Collins found mediocre ones to boot) and appears to have proper research and fact-checking, though not cited. What Pumpkin (as lead editor) can probably do is contact the people on that web site and see if they can provide him some of their underlying source material. Possible the very article was published somewhere in a proper third party RS (perhaps a magazine or something) and they just didn't cite that it was republished. Anyway, this source is not one that needs to be deleted from the article as it is. It might be a red mark in the FA run, but not for general inclusion. Ditto the gem gallery page, also within a commercial site, but with purely educational content. The Russell Country site is a mainstream site, commercial, but not whacko. It supports the other work with an online URL, but could probably be tossed if we had to. The Piegan translation is just plain fuzzy and to ask the tribe is probably going to violate WP:OR. Montanabw20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much. They can stay in WP under the general guidelines, and fit GA criteria (which needs sources, but not perfect sources), but for an FA run, we may have to at least come up with a better rationale for keeping them that what I've said to date. After the article I'm babysitting for TFA day is over, I'll ask some folks I know and trust who have several FAs to their credit to review the cites for potential problems and let us know where the landmines might be. To give you an example of use of sources with commercial use, Sheila Varian is a GA, but I doubt I could ever get it to FA unless I were to verify the stuff taken from her own web site to third party sources. (I suspect much of it actually was recopied from old magazine articles about her, I recognize the writing style of certain writers at some Arabian horse magazines, but without attribution on the web site, thus they are "questionable" sources.) I also use a video of her doing a workshop as a source, and that might be a WP:PRIMARY problem at FA, most likely. On the other hand, Russell and Sigurd Varian is probably the next article I want to try to clean up and get to GA (but have to buy a book first), and once it's there, FA will probably not be difficult because there is a lot of third-party stuff on them (also helps that they are both deceased). Montanabw16:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
That would seem the correct choice, however that stub is rather lacking - and itself not much more than a dab page for two distinct concepts: first a sedimentary deposit type which is totally unrelated to the meaning here and then secondly a one liner linking crystal habit. The crystal habit page however lists "prismatic" in a table with a very poor description: "semi-cylidrical" -- no. Argh ... so many messes to clean :) Vsmith (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Note: just removed the "semi-cylidrical:" bit there. Vsmith (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Infobox changes?
I noticed in the last round of edits, a number of changes were made to the infobox, it now differs significantly from the one at sapphire. I tweaked the header to conform to those in related articles (seems to be no reason to say "corundum variety" as there are no sapphires that are NOT corundum). Given that I'm not a gem and mineral expert, I am puzzled why these changes were made, particularly when they contradict those at the sapphire article. I would think (as a layperson) that the minor differences that make a Yogo a yogo are not significant in the underlying structure. But I'm not a gemologist, so am asking someone to explain. And, while they are at it, maybe look at the sapphire box and see if it, therefore, contains errors? Montanabw20:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The previous infobox had no reference and neither does the one at the sapphire article. It appears the sapphire infobox was simply copied into this article. The updated version has a reference. The data in the updated infobox is for corundum as sapphire is a variety (the "corundum variety" bit was added for that reason). The infobox can of course be improved with referenced data, but it currently is an improved version - because it is based on a WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I thought this was obvious .. the mineral box was copied from sapphire, it is unsourced there and would have been feathered at FAC. The current reference is perhaps the best we can have for a single WP:RS covering most mineral properties (or you'd need a dozen of refs, which usually slightly contradict each other). It can still be feathered - the data are for corundum. Corundum and sapphire share basic properties (say space group), but might not share some more specific ones (spread in parameters, morphology). The separation between "basic" and "specific" is often vague - say, minor impurities can obviously change color; this might or might not affect some optical parameters. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw, and didn't comment because .. It is a right link, but the article is in a poor state (say, compared with Prism (geometry); say, I can't tell by heart if "greater than 5 to 1 but less than 50 to 1" is correct there or nonsense). I hope it will get better and thus would support your wikilink - and you urged me to check that article :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm supportive of keeping the infobox content sourced and accurate (and I know squat about gems and minerals, so I shall defer to the rest of y'all on that) but (corundum variety) looks really dumb (IMHO) and clunky in the header. Neither Ruby nor Sapphire do so, so unless there is something more corundum-y about Yogos than other sapphires or rubies, I think that either all three gem headers should have it or none of them should -- it's aesthetically yucky-looking. I'll not toss it until a consensus, but can we at least keep it looking like the other gem infoboxes? Montanabw23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Are there other varieties of the Yogo sapphire that aren't corundum? If not, then it's kind of misleading to make such a differentiation in the lead of the infobox. And it does look clunky.. :) I'm supposing that there are non-corundum varities of sapphire? Dreadstar☥23:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: the corundum variety bit -- I put it in because the infobox data was for corundum and not specifically about sapphire. And, yes it looks a bit clunky or whatever, so remove if you wish. Probably need to find a respectable gemmology source for more detailed data (beyond or differing from "plain old corundum") both here and on the sapphire article. Vsmith (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Pumpkin and the other editors have correctly addressed the mineral and chemical composition issues in the text of the article (?) I also wonder if the content details of the sapphire and ruby infoboxes need to be changed to parallel this one or vice-versa. (Like I say, I know squat on this stuff and am not about to touch that bit) I just like the infobox layout to simply be clean and consistent throughout whatever project they are part of -- if all gem infoboxes had a parenthetical to mineral composition, sort of like some of the biology articles have infoboxes with both common and scientific names, it would be another matter entirely, but it appears none of the others do, so uniformity is a nice thing. Montanabw18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that other wikipedia articles can not be used as references (in any sense). I was going to copy the mineralbox from here to sapphire/corundum after things settle. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The header is a MOS issue, not a referencing issue. I'll leave the referencing of the data in the infobox to the rest of you because I don't feel I have the knowledge base to do that part correctly. But the header is a WikiFairy issue, which in this case, I seem to be... Montanabw19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Some additional sources
Here's some additional sources that reference the Yogo that aren't currently in the article. Don't know what they say, but if you can find them, they may be useful:
A Report on the Petrography of the Igneous Rocks of the District of Little Belt Mountains, Montana.
Pirsson, L. V. Book Description: From 20th Ann. Rep., USGS, Wash., 1899. Paper, p. 463-581, 8 pl., 7 figs. Included is a study of the sapphires of Yogo Gulch, their origin and their character, including a crystallographic study of these crystals. New printed covers, first three pages are photocopies, VG. (UA205). Bookseller Inventory # 4854
Life Magazine 9 February 1953 World We Live in 2/9/53 Book Description: Time Life Inc., New York, 1953. Soft cover. Book Condition: Very Good. 1st Edition. Folio - over 12" - 15" tall. Life Magazine 9 February 1953 World We Live in- Miracle of the Sea II, William McCormack at Crime Comm., Cairo Carnival, 24 new cardinals, Rio Grande Collece, OH. basketball, The Crucible-play, Yehudi Menuhim's yogo, Dobe at Westminster Kennel Club Show, Elizabeth Taylor Whitman candy ad, Sapphire Lincoln bust, Leczerne High School Pennsylvania play -Life magazines are a wonderful gift for Birthdays, holidays, Reunions, and other special events! 1953/02/09 0:00:00. Bookseller Inventory # 100847
Montana Western History - Autumn 1964
Merriam, H.G. (editor) et al Book Description: Roberts, Helena, 1964. Stapled Paper. Book Condition: Very Good ++. B/W Photographs (illustrator). Vol. XIV, No. 04. 80 pages of articles, book reviews, and curios relating to Montana history. Lead article on the 1865 Powder River Indian Expedition by H.D. Hampton. Also articles on Don Hollowbrest, Headchief, Henry H. Blake , and sapphire mining. B/W photographs accompany the articles. Cond : Paper wrapper is white with red lettering. Front cover graphic is the C.R. Russell painting of 1898 - entitled `A Desperate Stand '. Staples tight but hinge rubbed. Light soiling, no names, marks, nor tears. Complete your series !! Quote (p. 63) : " Wood, as general manager of the company, went to San Francisco in the summer of 1892 to purchase three hydraulic engines and other apparatus for the mines. A tunnel eight miles long had been built to convey water. Stones totalling 40,000 to 50,000 carats were . .". Magazine. Bookseller Inventory # 005284
The Sapphire-Bearing Rock of Yogo Gulch. Pirsson, L. V. Book Description: From USGS 20th Annual Report, GPO, 1900. Paper, p. 551-556, 1 pl., 1 fig. Origin, microscopic and megascopic characters, and occurrences of sapphires at Yogo Gulch. VG. Photocopy. (UA8). Bookseller Inventory # 944
Rock & Gem . Volume 25, No.7. July 1995. Book Description: Ventura: Miller Magazines, 1995., 1995. 98pp, (8.5 x 11 inches), color and (mistly) b&w photos. Good condition in stapled wrappers (soft cover). Covers lightly worn and creased, address label, first 20pp have tiny corner creases, otherwise clean, binding sound, no tears or markings. Includes atricles on a new California gold rush: prospecting, detectors, dredges (underwater prospecting), gold-finder's club, crystallized gold. Also Jade hunting in Lillooet (Canada), Montana's Yogo Sapphires. Amethyst, quartz and fossils on the Fall Line in Georgia. The ghost town of Panamint City. Sniping for gold in underwater crevices. Oregon's Quartzville Creek. Rock of the month is silver. Bookseller Inventory # 20029
Some are probably also accessible via Google Scholar. Here's my search. If you can't access full text without paying $$, I DO have access to the UM library database and can probably get it. (I suspect Mike can as well via MSU??) If you are REALLY wanting to owe me one, I can also access in person all published copies of Montana: The Magazine of Western History at the MHS library. Montanabw20:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC) From the Google scholar search, most are via paid databases (ask me to hunt if interested) but a couple free ones are:
Two solid technical refs there - good. Will read through them later and maybe add a bit. But, it's late ... gotta get some shut-eye. Vsmith (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The Harlan ref gives a more precise age of the dike at 48.61 ± 0.30 Ma based on Ar/Ar dating of phlogopites from the dike. It also gives a Mississippian age for the host limestone, whereas the Moon Montana book says Precambrian. The dike rock is referred to as lamprophyre variety ouachitite, rather than lamproite. It also suggests that the sapphire is xenolithic in origin and not a primary mineral crystallizing from the dike magma. Back later, Vsmith (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Been occupied elsewhere, but plan to work a bit on it ... the bit about sapphire being xenocrysts (derived from previous rocks) rather than crystallizing from the magma kinda fits. More later. Vsmith (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
NICE JOB! there Vsmith! I'm going to make a few minor tweaks: make the ref style consistent and in the convert template you put metric to English, whereas the rest of the article is the other way around. I think that should be consistent, so I'll swap that around.PumpkinSkytalk14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - went back to tweak a bit after getting a cup o coffee and saw that you had already reformatted the ref, good. Thinking about now incorporating a bit of supporting detail from the Meyer and Mitchell paper re the spinel coating and etching of the sapphire margins. Later. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Good work all, I'm going to trot over and do a wee bit of copyediting, revert me if I screw up any actual content. Montanabw 20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Follow up --I made a few minor copyedits, one that moved a bit of redundant material from mineralogy and incorporated it into history, but someone verify that I didn't mess up, as there was both an 1894 and 1895 dates that I blended together. The new mineralogy material I presume is correct, but as a non-mineralogist and non-gemologist, I would recommend adding a few more wikilinks to explain a few more of the technical terms, or to explain the way you are using normally common words that may be used here as terms of art like "host" and "locally" -- I put in hidden text where I was getting confused, my remarks were intended with a spirit of self-deprecating humor, so no snark implied! (smile). Montanabw21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
They were discovered at Yogo Gulch in 1865 and sapphire mining at Yogo Gulch began in 1895. - err, try not to use "Yogo Gulch" twice in the one sentence Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The first four paras of the Mineralogy and geology jump around a bit content-wise. I'm sure they can be rejigged to make a more logical order. I'm thinking about how to do this.....Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok - I've rejigged that bit now and feel it flows a little better, see how the subject matters are gathered together. I'll leave it for a bit for others to look at. The article looks better further down at first glance. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Mining production of Yogos has proven difficult and sporadic over the years. - "proven sporadic" comes across as weird to me. The gist of this is that the difficulty in mining has led to only sporadic activity? Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Correct, the difficulty of the mining there has made it and Yogo gems expensive, so the various companies operating there have generally found it hard to make the mine profitable, except for the early days when the English Mine was there. PumpkinSkytalk20:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Subsequently a series of several other firms mined the sapphires but with marginal success - could lose either "series" or "several" here. Also the "but" possibly. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Overall, not looking too bad. It was choppy and is less so now. I think another set of eyes is good to be safe. Any article which can incorporate "Carats and Shtick" has to have something going for it ;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No. Do you have any idea how hard it is to take a photo of a small gem without professional training and equipment. The ones herein were almost all taken by people writing the article and there are essentially no free ones of Yogos out there other than these. one uses what is available and free.PumpkinSkytalk11:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I know exactly how easy it is to photograph small gems these days. - And this is a FA candidate after all!
Here's my gf's silver jewellery blog http://modernist-jewellery.blogspot.com/ This is someone with no training in photography, no interference from me, just using a several years-old Fuji Finepix (admittedly the model that worked, before Fuji broke it). The only gimmick used is a bit of white nylon draped to make a lighting tent. With modern digital cameras, it's just not hard to do this well any more. Rapid turn-around is a great advantage over film - if the shot is duff, then re-do it there and then. Quality for cheap is particularly easy nowadays as lens objectives are so small that tricks like a £20 jeweller's loupe and some blu-tac can now give an excellent ersatz macro lens. If someone is sufficiently well-heeled to have access to (natural) sapphires, they can certainly afford this level of equipment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that as terribly practical, but my point is that gem photography is really not that hard these days and that FAs need to have photos that are better than this (Sorry, but it's tough at the top). I might well get her to write a blog post on cheap photography though? - especially if you were to post a comment on her blog and ask for one. The thing with the jeweller's loupe as an easy add-on macro lens is a good tip, and surely someone who has loose stones will already have a decent loupe. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
If you/her find/take better FREE images of Yogos, we'll use them. As for "FAs need to have photos that are better than this" where's that from? I think you're interjecting your personal view. All Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_criteria says about images is "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Licensing is the only real concern, not quality. Also, note your gf's pics were taken much further away than ours were, which makes it much easier. PumpkinSkytalk22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Seconding that. We're talking about FAC, not WP:FPC, and for that the photos are good enough. If better-quality photos are available then by all means add them, but if not these are better than nothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine we'll ever see a Yogo sapphire personally, as we're not in the USA. The silver hallmark photos though are from even closer than the gems, and sharpness really matters for reading those.
The biggest problem with the gem photos seems to be a lack of lighting. There's only one shadow on some, so I suspect a single artificial light. The EXIF suggests that light levels were simply inadequate: for File:PurpleYogoSapphire2.jpg then f2.8 at 1/8s is far too dull, it's prone to shake and an aperture of f2.8 is (as here) going to have unusably little depth of focus. On File:Point-19 carat diamond cut blue Yogo sapphire.jpg the f number is unreadable, but if 800ASA had gone down to 1/60s I suspect that aperture had also opened up too far, giving the lack of depth of focus that's really obvious on this photo. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Did you read the bit where I wrote, "the gem photos here are really poor quality"? I mean, really poor quality. These three gem photos are below any reasonable standard for FA quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. But you obviously don't get what we said and asked WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT PHOTOS IN A FA HAVE TO MEET ANY PARTICULAR LEVEL OF (your) PERCEIVED LEVEL OF QUALITY. If you care so much about this, go find or buy some Yogos and have your perfect gf photograph them.PumpkinSkytalk01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:FA "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Misplaced Pages has to offer" These photos just aren't at that level and as FA is the highest quality label we have to offer, then we shouldn't compromise it. These aren't historical images. They certainly wouldn't pass the replaceability test for non-free fair-use, they could be re-photographed.
They need to be re-shot, with better lighting. That will allow the aperture to be stopped down, which will fix the depth of focus problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
They're not claimed as fair-use, so the replaceability test (and the historical, and all of the non-free criteria) are not relevant in this case. Opposition to the promotion of an article at WP:FAC is required to be actionable according to the FA criteria, which don't mention image quality at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I usually ignore the FA stuff - so no comment there. However, the first impression I recall on looking over the article was: the gem images are very poor quality with the appearance of snapshots lacking any attempt at proper focus. Now, I understand they is all we got - and maybe FA criteria wonks don't care, but they are an embarrassment. So rather than arguing and shouting - make some effort at improvement. If someone has access to some good gemstones - get a decent camera and take better pictures. FA or not the article needs higher quality images. Vsmith (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone want to loan me their digital SLR? (I don't have any friends with one who live close enough and/or will do it for free) I have a point and shoot that does have a marco feature, I will attempt to play with it and see if I can shoot a gem with it, but if it can't do it, then what we have are users with equipment problems. Montanabw01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked a few images, but yes, the quality is low. You can make good images with point-and-shoot camera: (i) play with reflections by shooting at different angles/illumination. (ii) reduce shaking by all means (a tripod or any solid support with a timed shoot), or simply practice how to hold and shoot with minimal shaking (sort of self-control and choice of proper grip, don't hold the camera with fingertips). Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Some point and shoots will perform better, especially for macro, than some other DSLRs. Getting some more light in there really is worth the effort though. I mostly use some 12V small-capsule halogen desklamps, because they're cheap (Ikea $5), the heads are adjustable, and I've had them for a few years. Modern LED torches are pretty good too. Draping thin white fabric over a simple frame of coathanger wire makes a diffuser - or you can buy such a thing ready-made for $10 (Hama, via eBay). Diffusers are really important for metals and glass, not so much for small gems. The trick of holding (or taping) a jeweller's loupe over the front element of the lens works better than its budget has any right to. Mostly it's about the lighting though. Give it a go. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Misplaced Pages has to offer" it says ARTICLE not PICTURES, just like Nikki said. Like I said, fly your gf over and I'll gladly let her take her superb pics. As for the ones I took, I TRIED THE BEST I CAN but you obviously don't give a shit about that so I don't give a shit any more. PumpkinSkytalk01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it does say that. The images you currently have are illustrative, and unless there's some policy that I haven't yet seen that's brought up against them, I'd say their fine. From what I've read, the policy is that higher quality images are better and should be strived for. In other words, if a superior image can be found, it should replace some of the current ones, but right now I feel like the current ones are adequate. Misplaced Pages:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature might be useful. In particular, it says "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used. Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article." So I'm all for improving the images. I have little resources that I could contribute, but I'm all for it. In my opinion, File:Yogo1ct.jpg is the worst offender here, but even that serves its purpose. I now have an understanding of how difficult it is to acquire such images, and I would recommend that you use this argument if it's brought up in a FA review. You've already stated that you and Montanabw have done the best they can, and I sure appreciate it since I had no idea what a Yogo sapphire actually looked like before. Let's continue the search for better images, but I think the text should be the focus, at least for now. Jessemv (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. These are really beautiful gems, and the poor quality pictures here actually serve to misinform the reader as to their true appearance. As I've said elsewhere, I am biased here as I'm used to seeing professional-level pictures, but anyone taking photographs should be aware that out-of-focus images need redoing. If an argument can be made that redoing the images is not possible, then fine, but if it is possible there is some really good advice on amateur photography (in the sense of not using professional equipment) being provided here (look around as well for advice on how to best photograph items in display cabinets). In other words, using out-of-focus images here fails to show the true beauty of these gems. The deletion request was not the best move, but can those who are upset here please look past that and see that they are getting good advice on photography. The text of the article is great, by the way. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
One more thing to think about. A really great image will draw in a lot more readers, especially if this article gets through FAC and ends up on the main page one day. Think about it. Do you want readers looking at the main page blurb and the image and thinking "that blue blob doesn't look very exciting", or do you want readers going "wow, what a great picture of a really beautiful gem, I'll go and read that article". Admittedly, they might then just spend all their time looking at the images, and not reading the article, but good images do draw readers to articles and hold them there. And conversely, poor images can be off-putting. As I've said elsewhere, this article does have some good images. Don't let a ruckus over the one that is really blurry distract from that, or the good work being done here. How much does it really cost to take a deep breath, say you are working towards getting better images, and to thank people for the helpful advice provided here? Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's extremely verbose Mr Carcharoth. Yea good images are good but not everyone is a good photographer. To argue to remove them and have none is plain silly and inane. YOu also may feel free to buy a Yogo and take a photo of it. PumpkinSkytalk10:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
We have to address the crown jewels of England/Europe/Princess Di's ring thing. I can't now recall which source says it's mostly all a myth, but I think we have to find it and add to what we have now something to the effect that "most of these claims are not verifiable and many are no doubt a myth." I dug and dug for verification and found nothing online. Somewhere I did see a web page putting out an oriental source of the Princess Di/Kate engagement ring sapphire, which is definitely too dark and too big for a Yogo (probably heat-treated, nyah, nyah, nyah...!)
Is anyone close enough to DC to pop a photo of the Conchita butterfly in the Smithsonian, or any of the other Yogos? It would be really cool if it could happen.
The article relies heavily on Voynick, which is fine, but if we can back up some of the cites to the book with those other quality peer-reviewed articles that are online, it might help avoid a reviewer complaining that they can't verify the material independently.
If possible, yes, but Voynick is by far the most accurate and detailed source. I only found one (likely) error - the size of the Princess Di stonePumpkinSkytalk00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I will try to get the Conchita butterfly image this coming weekend. (They close at dusk every day, and I'm not off work by then.) - Tim1965 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Citation formatting should be a bit more consistent - this is my nitpick area at FAC ;-). Templates sometimes cause glitches like doubled periods, be consistent about whether you include "US" for US locations, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Pls advise what I missed. If there is an issue with ref 5(USGS coords), I don't know how to fix it.
There are a few inconsistencies in the prose. For example, would you prefer to refer to companies as singular or plural entities? Should cuts and carat measurements be hyphenated or not? Should mine names be in quotation marks or not? Was the mining firm English or British? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:Yogo1ct.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Filed by Andy Dingley, whose reason was "This is currently in use on a WP Featured Article candidate. Is this some sort of joke?". First, it's not at FAC. Second him not liking the image and thinking it's a piece of crap is not a valid reason to delete from Commons. Totally bogus deletion request. Image is properly licensed, that's all that's needed to stay on commons.PumpkinSkytalk02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think it was probably in part due to frustration from the reaction he was getting here. What started as a reasonable comment on the image quality (see some other people's reaction elsewhere, such as here) has led to what is essentially bickering. There is some good advice being given here and the way some people have reacted to the image criticism is itself an over-reaction. Everyone needs to calm down a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a cheap shot, because I'm all about cheap. These images could be fixed for cheap too, but PumpkinSky just isn't listening to that.
I filed it, because when PUMPKIN SKY switched to ALL CAPS and WP:IDHT, then clearly the message isn't getting through. The fact that he's the photographer of one of (the better) images seems to have blinkered his view to any comment on them. That's a case of WP:OWN, so it's time to throw it up to a bigger audience for comment. The images here are mostly OK for general use, but just not up to FA standard. This particular image though is just a blob, not a gem. No criticism of the photographer intended (deliberately, I haven't even looked who it is), but cellphone cameras just don't work this close up.
I waste too much time on WP, and I'm tired of having to explain why to people who think "that joke encyclopedia" would be a waste of anyone's time. Getting the project out of this impression means having quality articles. If FA is our gold standard for quality, then we have to bring those articles up to that standard, not water-down the standard because we won't re-shoot an image. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Andy: we understand that you feel the image is of poor quality; you're welcome to that opinion, and you're welcome to suggest ways in which image quality might be improved. However, nominating the image for deletion in the manner that you did constitutes a WP:POINT violation, because "is this a joke?" is not a valid reason for deletion, either here or on Commons. An unfounded deletion discussion, especially on a different project (with no relation to our FAC process), is also not a valid way of gaining broader input on an issue. The thread at WT:FAC is a better approach, and you should wait for consensus to form there before taking the issue to another forum- and you should be prepared to accept consensus, even if it's against you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
When I dropped across this article (which is a great article BTW, and deserves to be brought up to FA status) the first thing I noticed was that the images needed work, so I tried to offer advice - because I think I've the experience that's needed here, in how to get an acceptable image with no budget. The photographers still have access to the stones, right? Let's just fix this thing and make a great article. PumpkinSky's response "I don't need this crap." though was hardly receptive to change.
Then I saw this image - this one is in a whole different ballpark. I really don't believe it falls within the project scope, even for something at Commons. Yes, my nomination was sarcastic. Voting to keep this at Commons is, IMHO, defending the indefensible, but PumpkinSky's response was to focus on the nomination (and yes, that nomination doesn't stand up to scrutiny), dispute my own edit history at Commons, and still to claim that this image meets the Commons goal of being a broadly educational image. An image that others have independently described as, "Looks like a raspberry tart or something".
Andy, if it's so cheap and easy, who don't you go buy and have have your expert gf photograph it? has it ever occurred to you that the way you brought this up and attacked everyone is part of the problem and such behavior is a major reason shy away from FA and wiki? Don't even try to being to pawn all this off on me. PumpkinSkytalk22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Will the equipment to the job?Geez Andy, what's going on here is that you just roared in here with no history on the article and started blasting away. You failed to read the rest of the page where I SAID I want to get a better image, but I have to consider other people. Have a little fricking patience. For gawd sake, I'm only going to bother the people at the store who have to let me photograph a $5000 gem I have no intention of buying only ONE MORE TIME, and it has taken me a bit to see if I can use a macro feature on the camera I have (which is a point and shoot, sorry, but I don't have friends who have a digital SLR to loan me) and so if you think the image to the left, if I did it with a Yogo, would be adeaquate, I can give it a shot, but I'm not going to bust my ass to go through this again. Montanabw22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Three main things; I took out two images which were not of the requisite quality to illustrate an encyclopedia article; I corrected US$ to $ (on an American article, there is little chance of the symbol being confused with the Canadian or Zimbabwean dollar); I tidied up the writing in various low-impact ways (seasons should not be used to denote time as they are relative, "a number of" is best avoided as zero, pi and negative nine are all perfectly good numbers, "words-as-words" are italicized but not capitalized, and Paris doesn't need to be linked). It's a pretty good article. I may have more suggestions later. --John (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The US$ thing is an ongoing war amongst the wiki-gods, who are we to question :-P whatever they want this week, we'll do. And probably change it again next week. I agree that the teardrop photo is probably the best we have, though the other round Yogo (the one above the purple one) could also work if we really had to flip images. The square-cut one is an unusual cut for a Yogo, in fact, the first emerald-cut I've ever seen, and I've seen these in jewelry stores for decades...very cool, but not for the lead image. Montanabw23:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep different reviewer's are totally inconsistent. The FA cabal can write very well but I don't play the flip flop game, changing things back and forth--you're right on that, I let them duke it out. And yes, a pic with the rich cornflower blue should be in the infobox and for what we have, that's the pear.PumpkinSkytalk23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The pear is the best we have, good color. The one you suggest will look small in an article due t all the white space in it and if you crop it you get this, it blurs. It's color isn't quite as good as the pear either.PumpkinSkytalk01:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd take the pear over the square. I think the pear works as the lead for now as the best image we have available. The diamond cut and the pear are about equal in my mind, each having different issues. The pear has a dark background and it doesn't look as bright and shiny, but at least it's in focus. The diamond cut is brighter and sinier but has the one side that was out of focus, which seems to be viewed as more problematic by the techs. We have a technology limitation here. Comments on the cubic zirconia shot and if that level of image quality would work here or not? Montanabw19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
If you really feel you must, then I would favor USD over US$. A better solution is to just put the (US) in parens the first time used and then not worry afterwards.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, did this ever drift off topic, from Yogo sapphires from Montana to turtles to free video software. I apologize for getting carried away before, especially to Andrew. I've tried some of the suggestions for reshooting the Yogos I have access to and would like to see what others think. Keep in mind I'm a complete amateur and don't have fancy equipment. These were done with a loupe, digital camera, and changing angles of the stone and lighting. There are many more pics of these two stones that I simply deleted. As different as they may look all the pear shots are the same stone and likewise with the purple stone. The purple stone often comes out looking blue depending on lighting, flash, etc. For both stones, the new shots were all done without flash as all the ones I tried with flash looked really bad. I tried to get these to display in a gallery but it didn't work.PumpkinSkytalk23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to shoot them that close? Your camera may not be focusing well enough that close. Try pulling back , possibly putting a second, larger, less reflective object near the gem (that you can cut out later) to help with focusing. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This is probably best discussed on the article talk page, rather than here (please feel free to move this comment if you move this section over to there). On looking at those, my advice would be to experiment more. Try different distances (sometimes it is better to keep the camera a good distance away to ensure the image is in focus, and crop the image in close as required) and different lighting, but always ensure the camera is rock-steady as if you've turned the flash off an automatic camera will lengthen the exposure time - if there is a timer function, use that to trigger the exposure to avoid the movement caused by pressing the button. Eventually you will get something that is reasonable (close-up work like this is not easy). Let me fix the gallery and then say which one I think is best. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, of that bunch B and E have the most potential. Is your digital camera fully automatic or can you set aperture and shutter speed. If so I'd recommend a makeshift tripod and long exposure and narrow aperture....Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
B of the pear shape would be OK if the stone weren't dirty. I'm sorry, PurpleSky, I've been there, but there are issues with each of them, either the dirt or glare or fuzziness.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in re-shooting these. Of the pears, I think B is clearly the sharpest. I'm puzzled a bit by the colour changes from A-B to C-D-E. Which are the more realistic? Did you change the type of lighting used? Looking at the EXIF, they're still a wide-open aperture of f2.8, so if you can get any more lighting in there, the aperture will stop-down and the depth of field (and so overall sharpness) will increase still further. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Since we're voting, I think B and E are the best. I would choose B over E though. Both do serve as excellent images of what Yogo sapphire actually is. Well done! Jessemv (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The big thing about Yogos is that they are light and brilliant. The purple one, for example, looks "right" in the original image, and in the rest is uncharacteristically dark and look like obsidian. Of the shots of the pear-shaped Yogo, B is the only one that's close, the rest make it look too dark and muddy. It's tough to shoot these! Montanabw17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
4 is best but concede tehre are depth of field problems like the others. Have you tried setting up a shoot outside and using sunlight? I sympathise with the effort - you would not beleive how many images I chucked chasing this goddamn bird in a wet forest to get the images I used for the article....and most mushroom articles one needs to get on one's hands and knees to get a good photo of the gills without knocking the mushroom over....Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd do the shoot again for these, none of them are great. Andy mentioned above that the lighting seemed to change. That can sometimes be because someone stands where they are casting a shadow without realising it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
B and 4 (maybe 5) get my vote. None are perfect, but you can at least discern faceting of the aluminum oxide now.
I suggest for any of these, try the WP:Graphics Lab to fix them up. They are super fast, super good, and super nice (opposite of me!)
I think we should not have these discussions all the time. That would be an FAC-T distraction. But I think having it once...is very useful. since there is an issue of a lot of FAC writers kind of gaffing off images as a concern. It's educational for them.
Except that none of them look like a yogo, Focus better, but brilliance and true color gone. I'd keep the original purple one. Montanabw17:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
OK sapphire fans, first I washed them, then I took these with my small 6" tripod, loupe, outdoors with overcast skies, and same digital camera. This time I picked the best shot (good ones were easier this time) and uploaded different crops to show how the more I crop them, the blurrier they get. PumpkinSkytalk01:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I advice giving to graphics lab (do you know how to use that, they rock!) and having them work on them. They may be able to play with the background or the like to get more impressive appearance without hurting authenticity. not dissing, they are better shots, just GL will help!
I asked the Featured Pics boys to stop by, but they did not. Maybe a personal outreach to JJ HArrison or J Milburn would help. I know people usually help most with talk page requests.
Keep after it man. You are a hero! REally awesome work. We will get something great. Article will really benefit from super photos.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think for both, a crop mid-size between the largest and second largest will yield a large enough image with (hopefully) not-too-obvious blurring. It is a bit of a shame they're not more....sparkly...but I think they are definitely better. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Much better. However, the pear does suffer from blurriness when cropped. The purple is not bad in crop 2, but starting to blur a bit. A good reflective light microscope would sure help to get a decent sized image w/out the cropping which brings out the focus problems. Magnify then photograph, rather than trying to magnify the photo by cropping. Do you have access to a college or high school biology department, they often have good camera equipped dissection 'scopes. Have any teacher or student friends who could help with that? Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Crop 1 on the pear looks pretty good, way better color. Crop 1 or 2 on the purple, good, though not very purple. I know the blur police don't like the original purple, but IMHO that's the one that looks like a Yogo. Montanabw01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Crop 1 on the pear looks pretty good, way better color. Crop 1 or 2 on the purple, good, though not very purple. Montanabw01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well off-topic
P.s. This is kind of a segue, but fits into the FAC writers should care about the images meme, I just got a picture of an HF burn. Took me 4 different donation attempts (and even finding people to ask for an image was tricky). Most are much easier than that. But if you are never writing to ask for an image donation, never had to deal with OTRS saying the signoff was not good enough yet...well you are not really doing all you can.
What template (serious)? I just send them an email. Volunteers take care of it after that. My job is to find the image on the net...and find an email and a name of a person to ask for the image from. Then write them a nice note and ask for it. First couple times, I dorked it up for Commons, but the volunteer still stepped in and just emailed the donor. They were all very smooth actually.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done 2 OTRS' on Commons. I found instructions on Commons. I found the photo, sent the person an email, they answered, and I forwarded it to the commons otrs email, and they did it quickly. Never heard about an OTRS form before.PumpkinSkytalk03:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I explain briefly what they are doing and provide a link that explains the creative commons license. They reply; I forward that to OTRS.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Solicited Photo Advice
To be blunt, the biggest barrier here is equipment so I'm going to describe what I'd consider best practise, and just do what you can. Buy (very cheap on ebay) or make a light tent and light it up. Halogen work lights are a good, cheap way to get a lot of light. You should vary the amount of light on each side until it looks right (by altering the physical distance of the light sources). A small piece of white or black plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate) or HDPE, is probably the best background material, you can buy small scrap pieces for very little. Paper is going to show too many fibres and stuff at this scale. I'd then photograph it on a tripod, focus stacking using a macro lens and/or extension tubes (depending on how small it is). Chances are you might know someone with the right equipment. Using your current camera: Improving the lighting will help the sharpness etc with your current camera quite a bit, because the shutter speed is probably low enough for motion blur at the moment. You need to put the gem at the minimum focus distance of the camera, it will be blurry if you go too close. Make sure your camera is in macro mode (usually a flower symbol). JJ Harrison (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
What does Voynick say exactly regarding "9, 12 or 18 carat"? The Daily Mail (and virtually everyone else) say the ring is 18-carat, the gem 12. It is also generally accepted to be a Sri Lankan stone. DrKiernan (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you toss us some URLs that we can use and will pass WP:RS? I saw news stuff, but not sure what would pass WP FAC muster. Generally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, though I suspect on something like this, it's gospel! LOL! Montanabw17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we say how many carats have been extracted? It makes more of a point for the reader if we give him something that tells him how much has come out versus how much remains. TCO (Reviews needed) 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Feedback (TCO mini review)
I am liking this article. Something about the topic; with the combination of science, art, and geography; is cool. Don't worry...there are so many articles on Wiki that if you want me to stay away from it...I can and will. But I want to read through and give some feedback, vice just plunging in and editing more.
My initial take is pretty close to TK's. It's still aways from FA qual (and will be real work to get it there). It's not just going to be comma fixing, needed. It's clearly GA+ in terms of your love and research into the topic. But maybe not totally nailed yet in terms of all sources checked. And lots of places to make the writing more strongly structured and clip excess words.
P.s. Please don't let the feedback bug ya (or even tell me ahead and I won't make it). I really think the one who does the heavy lifting of putting the first draft together is the HERO.
Done. Jessemv (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently in the article in the infobox
Reshoot A
Reshoot B
Reshoot C
Reshoot D
Reshoot E
Currently in the article
Reshoot 3
Reshoot 4
Reshoot 5
Original
Crop 1
Crop 2
Original
Crop 1
Crop 2
Crop 3
