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. Montanabw(talk)21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [no date on brochure to define "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 [sic].
"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. Montanabw(talk)22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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... Montanabw(talk)22:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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! Montanabw(talk)02:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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! Montanabw(talk)02:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. [2],[3], [4]Montanabw(talk)03:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)00:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) Montanabw(talk)17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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"
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Citation overkill
" 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
"... 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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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,[14] very rarely reddish." How about "other than blue: almost always purple, and very rarely reddish.[14]"?
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[19] 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! Montanabw(talk)22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)01:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sapphiremine.com/ worked in late Oct. Removed.
Montana Gem. Removed as others refs say same. Made it an ext link.
Perhaps reliable for general and gemological information (what/where) like history/locations/gems, thinking of them as a gemology company with some history [8]. I would try to have better sources for scientific (geological) facts and analysis. Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(ec) A FAC page contains direct links to checking tools like [9] (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)18:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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). Montanabw(talk)16:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Montanabw(talk)20:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Montanabw(talk)23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... Montanabw(talk)19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [magazine]. 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. Montanabw(talk)20:15, 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:[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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(talk) 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). Montanabw(talk)21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:FA "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)01:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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. Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 $5000 gem I have no intention of buying only ONE MORE TIME, and it has taken me a bit to see if I can use a macro feature on the camera I have (which is a point and shoot, sorry, but I don't have friends who have a digital SLR to loan me) and so if you think the image to the left, if I did it with a Yogo, would be adeaquate, I can give it a shot, but I'm not going to bust my ass to go through this again. Montanabw(talk)22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three main things; I took out two images which were not of the requisite quality to illustrate an encyclopedia article; I corrected US$ 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)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)23:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Montanabw(talk)19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! Montanabw(talk)17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thought it might be a long shot. I've never tried photographing faceted gemstones that way and getting diffuse lighting to avoid unwanted reflections might be a problem. Vsmith (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Montanabw(talk)01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Crop 1 on the pear looks best, and Crop 3 on the purple. I take Crop 1 on the pear rather than Crop 2 since Crop 2 seems blurry in the thumbnail. Crop 1 on the purple is too small IMO. I don't remember actually seeing an actual yogo, so I don't know exactly what color they are without being influenced by image color bias. Still, it looks fine to me. In the article, we'd want the object to fill the frame and thus illustrate a yogo without a big border. When you click on Crop 3 for more detail it seems obviously blurry. Maybe you could reupload PurpleYogoSapphire6C.jpg with a slightly smaller version to avoid that, but keep the thumbnail the same size in the article. I personally think these images are really nice and significantly better than before. Well done! Jessemv (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And we do all this because we work for WP and make the big bucks? LOL! Actually, JJ, note my test photo of the cheapo cubic zirconia above. I have no access to a digital SLR to have lenses to stack, I only have a super-macro setting on a digital SLR -- and I have a different gem to shoot -- Other than adding more light, this is the limit of my equipment and I am going to be required to shoot at a jewelry store with nice owners but they DO have other customers and they aren't going to leave a 1-carat gem unattended! Should I even bother?? Montanabw(talk)04:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask the store owners to help, they may be able to provide equipment or advice for making a good picture. Explain the situation and the chance to get their gemstone seen by so many worldwide. We can't advertise for them, but their assistance could be noted on the image page. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the point. They are not going to have the equipment (nice quirky folks, but not techies). The point is if my best ability is so crappy that I'll be wasting my time even trying with what I have. Montanabw(talk)18:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! Montanabw(talk)17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
The answer to all our questions about the various UK jewels is probably in this reference guide? Tough as it is to prove a negative, the above guide will probably do the trick. Also, we'd love to find a source better than The Daily Mail to prove that Princess Di/Kate Middleton's engagement ring was, in fact, an 18-carat Sri Lankan sapphire. Anyone able to dig? I also found the 18 carat ref in CBS news and the Huffington Post if that helps. Montanabw(talk)19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not convinced by the 18-carat claim, as I think that's confusion with the 18-carat gold that the ring is made from (though I appreciate the claim is made). DrKiernan (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that will help because it is not from the Royal Collection or the Collection of the Queen. It was bought by Charles from the Garrards catalog in 1981, and is part of the Wales' private estate. DrKiernan (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've a book or two on Diana here so I will see if they have anything. One of them is shortly after the marriage so might be a bit more useful. RafikiSykes (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 18 carat claim is problematic also, even the Daily Mail itself -- highly reliable source that it is -- says both 12 and 18. But the site that I found pointing that out, and mentioning that 9 is possible, probably won't pass RS. (Pumpkin, did you say Voyich mentioned the engagement ring?) The guide to the Royal collection might help with the claims of Yogos being in the crown jewels or royal collection, a claim which is, at best, dubious, though if one turned up, it WOULD be uber-cool! Rafiki, if you've got the goods on the engagement ring, go for it! The point on all of these is that, for a change, we probably need to DISPROVE the claims of promoters, else we will potentially have editors in the future wanting to reinsert the claim that various jewels are Yogos, which is on some of the commercial web sites and even some non-commercial ones. Montanabw(talk)00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for disproving rather than proving sources then the BBC says the official line from Garrards is that the source of the stone is a secret[14]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got URLs for either of those? With sources, we could add a sentence saying, "the LA TImes claims the gem is a 9-carat Yogo sapphire, but source X claims it is of Sri Lankan origin. However, the BBC, citing a source from Garrads is that the source of the gemstone is a secret." That would add to the fun of this little section! Montanabw(talk)17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, but if you want to do up a quote with a proper cite to date and maybe even a direct quote, we can refine from there and plop it in based on AGF.
The Los Angeles Times describes the ring as a nine-carat sapphire, and quotes Intergem president Dennis Brown as saying the gem may have come from a British-owned Yogo mine. Sanko, John S (United Press International) (3 February 1984). "Princess Diana sets of jewelry trend". Los Angeles Times. p. F12. Retrieved 12 January 2012.(subscription required)
Oh Rafiki! That one is a dandy! LOL! Everyone: Will it pass WP:RS for an FAC? It is a personal web page (3rivers is or was an Montana-based internet provider) but I think they nailed it. PumpkinSky, does their cite to Voyich check out? Montanabw(talk)17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same edition of the Voynick book. It essentially says what Baker claims. To quote specifically on page 163 - "...the most admired sapphire of the 1980s was the magnificent nine-carat stone set in the engagement ring ... presented to Lady Diana Spencer". Note Voynick does NOT claim it is a Yogo. This is in a passage discussing the overall sapphire market of the 1980s. Quoting specifically from page 203 - "By 1918, Yogo sapphires appeared in the personal gem collections of the Duchess of York, Princess Mary and Queen Victoria of England, and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. Historians also believe that Yogo sapphires, possibly misrepresented as "orientals", were acquired for the British Crown Jewel Collection. In 1920, Johnson, Walker and Tolhurst, Ltd., presented four cut Yogos, thirty roughs, and specimens of dike rock matrix with visible imbedded sapphires to the British Museum of Natural History in London, where they are still exhibited today." Now my view is that there is no doubt Yogos made it to Europe. My !vote is for Diana's ring being a 9-carat Sri Lankan sapphire in an 18 carat gold setting and surrounded by diamonds. Considering the trade known to have existed and that shipments of Yogos were sent to England by the Yogo English Mine, it's certainly possible if not probable European Royals have/had some Yogos. Can this part about Royals owning Yogos or being in Crown Jewel Collections be conclusively proven? IMHO neither way can we say for sure without more info. I'm going to tweak what the article says on this now. If anyone disagrees, feel free to edit. IMHO the teamwork shown on this article is wiki at its best. PumpkinSkytalk01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leary of using Baker's website. While he's an expert, if we use his site, we'll no doubt have to defend it. Maybe we can find a book he wrote or something. PumpkinSkytalk01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the reference guide mentioned by Montanabw makes no mention of Yogos; it mentions the provenance of two other sapphires, one Burmese and one Sri Lankan. It also does not discuss the engagement ring, although it has a general note to consult a reference from Garrards for gems obtained after the mid-1800s. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is as good as I can get, I ain't a-taken' any more. This gem is a .65 carat AAA gem, the 1 carat was not available. But this one is worth $3300, according to the owners. I'd be glad to send anyone the original images if someone wants to dink with them further. I can also crop them even tighter, but maybe you all play with them first and see if that works for you. Yogo2783, the one on the far right, is probably my favorite, but everyone weigh in, I did a tight crop of that one to see what could be done at uber-max crop. Montanabw(talk)01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And this is as tight a crop as I can get, I think, FYI.
Yes the cropped on the far right (Yogo2783) is excellent! I also like the one between the tweezers (or whatever that is) because you get a sense of its size, especially in the full image. The one on the far right is amazing! Jessemv (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jessemv. Yogo 2783 and its crop are the best so far. Still not professional quality (remind me to link to some really amazing gem pictures some time, or look at the sharpness of some of the gem pictures on Commons), but that was never the aim and this one is far better than the ones above. Many thanks, Montana for doing this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I would have cropped it though, to maybe half of the current border. Otherwise it looks too small in a thumbnail. Images in your last set were better IMO though. Still, considering how difficult it must be to capture a quality images of a yogo, this is another example of your excellent work. Seriously, this article's quality will really improve as a result, and I already see you've used some of them already! Jessemv (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After considerable photo trials, we've come up with these for the pear and purple Yogos. Not pro level, but the best I've come up with so far, and just before the (cough) silly (cough) Great Wiki Blackout of Jan 2012! Hope you enjoy these photos:
Oh yes these are really good! A bit difficult to choose, but I'd say the purple one is maybe better. Hurry, you have less than five hours left! Time is almost up! Cut the blue wire, no the red, no... :D Jessemv (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, natural sunlight and angles seem to be the keys. both are in the article as there's space for both. I want to keep both in, pear - for the unusual shape and purple because purple Yogos are VERY rare. PumpkinSkytalk01:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have the photos settled, some thoughts on final cleanup:
1. I am concerned that the idea that Yogo is a Blackfoot word is dubious. However, I believe I can find A Blackfoot dictionary locally at the library or via interlibrary loan and will attempt to clarify this. It definitely doesn't mean "blue" and I am suspicious that again we have a marketing ploy.
2. I'm comfortable with the current version of the royal gems claims, but a question on that very helpful Los Angeles Times cite: I know we CAN use it, but will we have headaches citing to a subscription site and thus, do we need to cite to the hardcopy version (weird, but I've run into this with a couple scientific journals at other FA articles)? Nikki, any way you can copy and paste the text of that article into an email to me or PumpkinSky so we can triple check it?
3. I'll do a copyedit run, I haven't for a while, will put in hidden text at stuff I think might want to be looked at, but I'm not sure what to do, myself.
4. We probably should re-tweak the lead when everything else is finished to be sure it lines up with the final article. At present, are there any claims in the lead not backed by a citation later in the article?
5. Not sure how to get a legal copy of an artwork off the web (have had requests at WikiProject Dallas and WikiProject Texas for a couple months, to no avail), but if we could, I think "A Quiet Day in Utica," by Charlie Russell, would be a cool addition to the article, as several of the early players are portrayed in it. It isn't in Montana, so I can't go and get a photo. Here's a link to the museum where it's at, in Fort Worth, Texas. Wouldn't kill an FAC, but JMO, it's a fun addition.
"but will we have headaches citing to a subscription site?" Look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_to_sources. I might have the same problem on the Folding@home article, where 99% of the journal citations are through subscriptions. But those subscriptions are most likely available through a library (especially one at a university) so how is that different than citing a book? My understanding of policy is that a citation is still valid under those conditions. Also think of a deadlink. If a reference goes away, is the content relying on that deadlink completely invalid? No. Of course, its always proper to provide references to available sources, and I fully believe subscription sites are just fine. As I'm on a university network, I can probably look up that subscription site information if you want. Let me know. Jessemv (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I'm very impressed with the quality of the article. It certainly is reliable and has high-quality writing. Well done! A couple things that caught my eye:
The Etymology section is rather short, and contains only four sentences. I would also suggest expanding "some debate about this" by illustrating the debate to some degree.
History section: "Mining of Yogo sapphires has been sporadic because they are difficult." I'm confused. What does this mean? If I understand correctly, perhaps "Mining Yogo sapphires is exceptionally difficult and remains sporadic." would work or something like that. (this suggestion was applied Jessemv (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
1940s–1970s: "Montana sapphires were heavily mined during World War II for industrial uses." Really? What industrial uses were they put to? This is surprising to me, but I don't doubt the statement. (fixed! Jessemv (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
1980s and beyond: "In 1992 Roncor found an 11 carat rough." This is out of chronological order. I suggest moving more towards the middle of the paragraph. (this was just fixed, it's much better now! Jessemv (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
And that's basically it. Why? Because the quality of the text is really impressive! Your hard work and dedication is very evident. :D Jessemv (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And "to its confluence with" was recently removed. Can this be put back? I really like the way it sounds, and "confluence" is a high-quality word that you'd probably find in an encyclopedia. Considering PumpkinSky's devotion and investment into the article, I didn't want to just put it back. Why was it removed? Jessemv (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph of the Yogo area is based on a map on p. 116 of the Voynick book. If I scan it into digital form, would that be a) better than the county map currently in the location section and b) a valid use of fair use -- and someone help write a good fair use rationale that will stick? PumpkinSkytalk21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can get a custom map made that will be free. Just need to sweet-talk one of the graphics superstars into helping us. If the map is intricate enough (and takes a lot of research work), may even be a Featured Picture (see [15]). Also, playing the whole "going into an FA" card will help the graphics person to feel that his time spent is justified. That book will be helpful as a source for the mapmaker to look at, but we should also add anything else that we want in such a map (from other sources). IOW, we will naturally end up with an even better (at least in terms of tailoring) map than a simple tracing of the start image because of the collaboration of article writer and graphics maker. BTW, I do NOT think this is overkill. I think we have a LOT of discussion of intricate geography and a detailed map will really support that text and make it easier on the reader.
I think the county map is very sparse. All it tells you is the spot in Montana, but lacks the rivers or towns or the like. Could go embedded in the bottom of the infobox though (since pictures in infobox are restricted in size, whereas a detailed map may end up being displayed large, in article.
They are not "mine", I just have a huge value for their contributions. Leave a note with Fallschirmjaeger and let him know what you are trying to do. If he can't help, I will suggest another. I urge you to be involved at least in terms of proofing the final product and/or if there are other things you want added to the map (things in article that are not in Voynik). It won't be much work for you, man. You're just leveraging an expert to contribute to the article. Is a really fun interaction.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I'll be able to help you out, just gonna need a few more precise details as to what exactly it is you are after, i.e. a full colour map or line drawing etc and what should be included. Seeing the scan would be a good starting point. Fallschirmjäger✉20:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just emailed you. Please email me back and I can send you the map from the book, which is a line drawing. The map is very accurate as to scale and locations. Anything to add to it to make it prettier than just some black lines would be good. And of course it needs to look good in the same size space as the current state map in the article.PumpkinSkytalk21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Gauthier MS thesis I referred to earlier has a more detailed map of the dike geology which shows more mining locations. Probably more detail than needed, but the mines and topography might be useful. Gauthier gives credt for it to an earlier work by a J. P. Dahy in 1991 published in
Dahy, J. P., 1991, Geology and igneous rocks of the Yogo sapphire deposit, Little Belt Mountains in Guidebook of the Central Montana alkalic province, D W Baker and R B Berg, eds; Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special Publication number 100, pp 45-54
I haven't found online access to it, but might be available to a local Montana resident. It was preceded by another MS thesis by Dahy for the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology in 1988 - haven't found that online either. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the location map is from Voynick, I was refferring to the detailed geologic map on p. 20 section 2.4.2 the "Yogi Dike Description". Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is much more detailed, probably too much so for our purposes but that and the Voynick one would give a graphics person plenty to work with. PumpkinSkytalk02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the infobox is really needed. I suspect many of the physical properties are identical to sapphire gems in general or even just aluminum oxide. Not a push as I know Wikians feel more comfortable with boxes. But some articles (like art) tend not to have them. I love technical detail for a hard core chemical article, but I just feel that this is not mostly about that and they can get that at Al2O3 or regular sapphire article.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just aquired a copy of Voynick and have been doing some reading. I noted the captions on historic images in the book and the article were quite similar - so loaded the Milly Ringold image and found the source of the caption. The image description on the file page is copied from the source and the caption in the article copies from that. Seems that we need to credit the bigskyjournal.com page as a reference for our image caption and maybe use caution about copying directly their text. See the copyright notice at the bottom of their page, the image may be "in the public domain", but their description of it surely isn't.
Our caption for that image "Millie Ringold, c. 1900. The structure in the background is a waterwheel used to power a crusher at Yogo City's Weatherwax Mine" the source caption: "The structure in the background is a waterwheel that was used to power a crusher at Yogo City's Weatherwax Mine." I'm no copyright expert, but that seems to be problematic. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we want to avoid that problem. I'm no expert on this either so someone who is please help fix this? I'll take a stab at it but could such a person follow behind to ensure we're okay on this?PumpkinSkytalk01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl is knowledgeable and has assisted me with copyright questions previously. You might ask her to take a look and give us some advice. I'm sure she would be willing to help or to clarify the situation for us if she has time. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The caption was a bit close, so I've adjusted it. You could source it to Big Sky if you chose, but as it stands I wouldn't say it's mandatory to do so. The text used in the image description is more problematic and should probably be removed and possibly revdeleted (it's hosted at Commons, so I'm not sure what their procedure is; copying image descriptions directly from a source is unfortunately not uncommon). Were there any others that were of concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have Voyick, so when I do another round of copyedits, if something just sounds "off" I'll do a reword. Or, if there is anything too close a paraphrase, tag it and I'll figure out an "untainted by access to the original" way to say it. Let me know. Montanabw(talk)02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so via my watchlist I just learned that PumpkinSky has been blocked for sockpuppetry, which based on my experiences with him, is really unfortunate. I also read Montanabw's response on this page, which was well written and I really agree with. PumpkinSky is currently the primary editor of this article with 454 edits, to Montanabw who's in second place with 37. This article is really, really close to FA. Why did the issue have to erupt now?! :( So, my question is, so now what's the plan? We need a new leader I guess. :D Jessemv (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about that (Montanabw is an excellent candidate, besides an excellent editor, IMO). What I do know is that the External link section was an impediment: please see the recent history for edits and explanations. I note that many of Pumpkin's articles contained EL sections full of spammy links masquerading as valid external links, and sometimes such spam links were used as inline references (see this edit, for instance). Jesse, I saw the GA review, and I think you did a good job esp. if it was your first. However, please don't forget to look at all sections of the article, including the EL section. This one needed serious pruning. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Montanabw's request on my talk, I've started checking the Voynick references in the article against the book. Found a few problems and fixed a couple minor ones. More later. Vsmith (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finished checking. Ref use verified with couple of caveats. A few instances of close paraphrasing need fixing and a couple of the ref usage didn't support the text or was on pages outside the range given, etc probably due to re-editing paragraphs or some such. Plan a fixing session on the minor stuff later. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Applied some fixes, minor page # changes and removed a couple of specific refs as failed verification. There are a few places with rather problematic close wording to the book and I've noted those in my analysis here. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we independently verify everything, all will be well. I've yet to do my long-promised overall copyedit anyway, so if you catch stuff, flag it and I'll do a rewrite of each bit as needed if the fix is not straightforward. We may have to support Voynick with some of the commercial sites that we don't like as well, but given the circumstances, having an online link anyone can view, backed by Voynick, might be advisable (I suspect most of the commercial sites used Voynick anyway...) Montanabw(talk)19:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some browsing around and Voynick appears to have currency, but still, one book reference strikes me as thin. But hey, I'm not an FA reviewer and I don't want to add to the agony. Good luck all, and Montana, always a pleasure to see you. Have you become a dental floss tycoon yet? Drmies (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does rely heavily on Voynick, but Voynick is quite reliable and is a source for finding other material. Don't know if that's a problem with FA folks, but it is a solid source - even if it lacks web access. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was indeed my first GA review. I made some mistakes that I'll try not to make again, (being too picky about wording/phrasing for one thing) and I'll try to pay more attention to the EL section. I generally stop looking at the page by that point, but it's something I guess I underestimated. Thanks for pointing it out. I had a look at a slightly older version of the page and the ELs weren't all that great and should be fixed before FA. Jessemv (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm popping the external links here -- I was the one who added some of them. I think a couple need to go back in: The two Tiffany Iris Brooch links. The Claudiaeneler page shows the entire brooch, with stem, the "Bedazzled" page shows detail of the brooch in the header. As any available images are copyrighted (as is, I think the entire work, though maybe not if Pauling is deceased) and this is probably the most famous piece of Yogo Sapphire jewelry in existence, I feel some way for readers to see what it looks like is nice. As for the rest, I'm keeping them here as they might be backup refs to Voynich. I added a couple more possibilities. Montanabw(talk)19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that Endler site--I assume the brooch is the plant-like object toward the bottom? There are no captions for the images, and you'll have to agree with me that the rest of the page is not what we would ordinarily link to. Is the image so necessary that we have to add such links? Drmies (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
when I did more looking, I think endler swiped the photo from the Walters exhibit page. The video I just added is probably the best, it's from the Walters museum, shows the whole brooch as it was placed in the exhibit with the narrator explaining it was the Tiffany brooch of Pauling, made of "Montana" sapphires (grrr) and a detail of the brooch is also used as the header for the whole web site on the "bedazzled" exhibit. If you agree, feel free to pop it back in somewhere, (Boy that thing is beautiful, too... wow) Montanabw(talk)22:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to find good links or fix the links, put tags on the ones you can't fix so we can figure out what to do with them. How the heck do we get linkrot in just a couple months anyway? Sheesh!! Montanabw(talk)19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the discussion back here. I think we need VSmith or someone to clarify the strike and dip compass orientation stuff. I read the wikilinked article and I still don't quite get it. I read it a while back and tried to reword it, but it still confuses me -- I presume that the 75-degree orientation has something to do with the line of the deposit underground at an angle (hence the technical terminology but I can speak as a minerology noob and admit it's confusing me. Can we clarify that? Montanabw(talk)17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a stab at rewording that later as it reads a bit awkward now and the linked article is a bit technical p'raps :). Vsmith (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Went from the old version, which was "incomprehensible technical language" to the current one, which was my "person knowing nothing of the topic attempts to reword incomprehensible technical language and fails." LOL! What we need is "translation from technical language into plain English by someone who understands the topic AND can explain it to a fifth-grader." ;-) Montanabw(talk)23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully more understandable by non-geologists now. Yelp at me if anything bothers you 'bout it. Also should we mention the parallel barren dike just to the north? I'm thinking about working a bit on the sentences following this part based on Delmer L. Brown's work, as the wording is "less than ideal" to me eye. Need to dig into Voynick again as that's the source. Specifically: "the amount of rough sapphires was inconsistent..." and "...the dike's erosion was minimal and recent" bothers me. Back later. Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say go for it. I'll look at your changes and make any tweaks if I think they are needed, or stick in hidden text for small comments. Is the barren dike relevant in some way? If so, include it, but the relevance hurdle is my main concern. Montanabw(talk)17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fiddled a bit with the location section wording. The section appears to be based on measurements/interpretations of the small scale map in Voynick (p. 116). Seems perhaps the USGS 7.5' quadrangle maps could be used for checking here ... thinking. Does the Etymology section belong here (in location) or should it be moved to history? Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been following this article for a while now, I don't think it's appropriate for me to put this in the peer review, so I'm placing it here. I've read the article very carefully, but haven't checked any of the refs. Still, I think there's a pretty good chance that the writing will pass at an FAC, for I find it very detailed, concise, and generally professional. I am impressed! Some thoughts:
Lead: "carats" is stated twice: "...28,000,000 carats (5,600 kg) carats..." --FIXED, caused by convert template
Lead: Contains five paragraphs. WP:LEAD says "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs". I guess you need to merge or cut some material out.
Mineralogy and Geology: "...the most thorough scientific exploration to date..." What date? You can't guarantee that this statement in the article will remain true over time. FIXED, changed to "up to that time"
Montana sapphires: "Collins sent the sapphires to..." begins in present tense, doesn't end that way. I have a hard time with tenses, so maybe I'm wrong here. Still, you might want to double-check. FIXED, minor ce
1940s–1970s: the last couple of paragraphs have visible wiki-syntax in place of blue citations! FIXED, dang how'd that happen?
1980s and beyond: "rocked the gem trade" That is the second time I've read that pun, the first was in the lead. Try a synonym; maybe "shook", but there might be something better. KINDA LIKE THAT ONE
1980s and beyond: There's a space before a citation: "...and closed in 2004. [82]" FIXED
1980s and beyond: No space after comma: "...Sapphire Village,but..." FIXED
It says, "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs." I can review and trim, but it's silly to take out a random paragraph break that improves readability. Montanabw(talk)21:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. I guess I just want you guys to feel prepared. I have a feeling this might be brought up in a FA review. As long as you can defend it with policy, things should be fine. See the Virus article; it's FA status and has way more than three paragraphs. Jesse V. (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got the Blackfoot language dictionary, no "Yogo." If anyone is interested, this is an Algonquian language, by the way. Put a serious analysis into a note within the article. Went through the entire "y" section, and zilch for anything related blue, sky or romance. For fun, I noticed a few words might be screwed up by English speakers and pronounced "yogo," so I'm noting the here with meanings, but all of this is OR or SYNTH, so just here for everyone to have fun with the concepts: "yo'ko means "head off" or "turn back" (Which, to my ear, might give the "going AWOL or going over the hill" theory some vague mistranslated merit, but that is just a wild guess on my part) "yoohto" means "hear", "yoohkiit" means "different," "yoohko" means "await" or "to wait for," "yoohk" means at or by an entrance, and "yo'ki means to shut or close. "yo'kaa" means "sleep," "Yoohsini" means "to knock senseless." My favorite, "yaoo" is an exclamation of woe, akin to "oh no! Not again!" Going down the rabbit hole a little farther "moto" means "spring" (the season) Montanabw(talk)22:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did we miss this? Sketch of the Tiffany Iris Brooch! Too late to add to article?
WOW. Let's swap out the conchita with this for now, but still try to settle the conchita issue and put it back in when settled? I'll let Tim now. PumpkinSkytalk20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Location map of the Yogo mine area from 1902 USGS topographic map
How about using this corner of a 1902 topo sheet to suppliment the location description. It shows Yogo Creek, Yogo Peak, Yogo townsite, Utica, Judith River and its Middle Fork and the location of the mine. It is a redo of an earlier 1897 map. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yogo sapphire within a lamprophyre matrix, Yogo Gulch, Montana. On display at the Mineral Museum, Montana Tech, Butte, Montana
Was over at the mineral museum in Butte, where they have several yogos of various sorts. Got this one, worth adding or is (cell phone camera) quality too low? Hard to say when I will get there again and if I'll happen to have a better camera if I do... feelings not hurt if deemed too pixellated. Montanabw(talk)17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda like it, though I wish it were slightly less blurry. But something just occurred to me... where would we put? We're about to the point that if we add a pic, we have to remove one too.PumpkinSkytalk23:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it would be ideal for the mineralogy/geology section as it is a rough in matrix of the dike, and would better illustrate that section than the cut gem images - maybe replace the purple (move elsewhere?). But it is rather blurry .. well very blurry at full resolution. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep the purple gem, because it's a purple gem and a good quality shot. We probably could toss File:Point-19 carat diamond cut blue Yogo sapphireCROP.jpg as the weakest of the gem shots and move either the pear or the purple gem down there, leaving room for this one in the mineralogy section. However, I took this shot with my cell phone and I do agree it's not the greatest. If the consensus is that it's not a good enough photo, I may eventually get to that museum sometime again in the next few months, I will probably be going to Butte a fair bit between now and fall. If everyone thinks that it is useful to show how hard it is to get Yogos and its educational usefulness outweighs its technical flaws, I'll still try to upgrade it later. Montanabw(talk)22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many gemologists consider them among the finest[dubious – discuss] sapphires in the world
"many gemologists" makes me want to ask who in particular, or at least get a citation
"among the finest" X "in the world" sounds like weasel words,
so we get left with
"gemologists consider them sapphires"
I think that sentence could go, in fact I'm sufficiently convinced by writing this out that Im going to remove it, feel free to add it back if you think I have erred. EdwardLane (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the lead is a summary, it's explained much more in the body. As of changes, on a TFA run I always wait til the run is over and then decide what to do.PumpkinSkytalk10:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on progressing the article. I appreciate having more images in there and also researching more content (probably not easy, given the niche nature of the topic). Also, this is an interesting example of a new Wiki article that actually sort of has decent viewership, but is not a new event (in other words, you filled a gap).
Lead is one of the most important parts of the article and could use some work to be better (to make the gem shine!)
(numbered comments, being edited in, please reply below by number, not interposting)
1. It feels "long". I would not begrudge a country, for instance, 4 medium-long paras, but this is a much less notable topic. Maybe part of it is the writing, too, but I bet if you just put an artificial restriction on yourself to cut 25% of the text (forcing yourself to prioritize), that it will lead to something more interesting to read.
2. First sentence is too long. Be more simple and direct and you will entertain the reader more. Like a punch. In the face. ;-) Srsly, leave the pigeonfeet stuff for some other sentence in the lead.
Consider: "The Yogo sapphire is a type of corundum gemstone, found only in Yogo Gulch, in Montana." Then, probably get into the color stuff and the difference with other sapphires (not just color, but price, expert praise) pretty quickly. This sort of thing orients the reader. The details of mountains and Indians can come in a later lead para that talks about the location and the geology and such.
3. I don't think you need to mention the town, state, and country. (why not the continent, world, solar system, galaxy?) Also wikilinking the various parts is deprecated (wl Des Moines, Iowa entirely, not part by part). Also, I think the vast amount of people will have heard of Montana. Even furriners. I mean they watch cowboy movies and such. Plus there is the Wikilink for those who goofed off in grade school geography class.
4. Don't link multiple terms that are not separated by at least a comma. "dipping resistive igneous dike". The reason is that you can't tell if the entire term is wikiliked or what. Pick the most important thing to link to. Probably igneous dike. From there, the reader can get to the other terms or to an understanding of types of dikes. If not, then maybe consider simplifying the technical discussion in lead to use less words that need wl-definition.
5. Last two sentences in first para feel a little unrelated to the rest of the para. Might be better if we looked at the lead organization again.
Too much traffic to even look at a serious rewrite today. It passed Featured Article in its present form and conforms to WP:LEAD. We can reassess once it's off the main page and everything quiets down.
I still would like a diagram of an igneous dike (or even of this one)
Details of geometry/geology really need a picture to rapidly understand concepts. Imaging trying to describe to someone in text what a square knot is...versus having some explanatory diagram.
an example of an explanatory diagram, showing geometry to help the reader understand
Do a Google images shearch on "igneous dike" for a few good diagrams (I think an explanatory diagram is better than some photo). You could show a normal dike and the dipping sort. I quite like the ones with the volcanos. It's like sex appeal to a nerd.
Get someone on Wiki to draw the diagram from scratch. I advise reaching out to User:Jkwchui who is both a scientist and graphic artist, but there are other superstars out there too. If you are nice to the image people, it is amazing what you can get as a result.
"I advise reaching out to User:Jkwchui", also the Graphics Lab. I mean when I had 3 peeps fighting over who gets to help me, I sorta think there is still spare capacity to help other people. ;-)
Sky,
1. You gotta ask the right way, man. Little outreach and humor and such will get people to go through fires for ya. This is not just some grunt work you are outsourcing. Kiss a little ass. Reach out to the dude on the other side of the modem with raport.
2. And care about the output...have a vision of what you are trying to accomplish. The image people love working with article writers who have a concept of how images actually convey information to readers. Images are not just random raisins in the pie! They are pedagical tools...and for complex geometric (or scientific) items are extremely powerful compared to pure text in making the content accessible to non-technical readers.
3. Images are also incredibly high view within articles.[citation needed] Make the place people put a lot of eyeball time on, be something we make look good. That is why you rightly got pushed to get BETTER with the original gem images. A sparkling article without beautiful pics of items that are primarily famous for their appearance)?
We will take a look at further improvement next week when the dust settles. Today, as I am sure you know, any serious work is interrupted by vandal patrol. I haven't bothered to review diffs, but the edit summaries alone suggest that vandals with a scatological bent are afoot. (big sigh, TFA is not a vacation day!)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think some table of images, could be interesting. Allows comparing the yellow, blue, and purple next to each other visually. As it is now, you just have the pics embedded through out the article, sometimes in sections where you are really not talking about the picture's topic. Also, if you do it centered, it allows you to fit more pictures in. And I think the reader appreciates the break from text.
Of course, this is still not common practice on the Wiki, so am in no way saying this is policy. Just a TCO thang (you wouldn't understand). ;-)
Another idea which would be cool would be to show a typical Yugo versus a typical Montana sappphire. I know MontanaBW had comments about the difference in our article talk, so showing that with photos could be good content. It's high gain because it orients the reader. Helps him distinguish things.
To expound: I am not talking about a simple gallery to squeeze more images in. But of a layout to allow side by side comparison (a common thing in layouts). For instance, showing front and back of a coin side by side. Or showing three stages of development of an insect in sort of triptych. In this case, I'm not even sure it is how we want to go...am just tossing out the idea. But you can think of a lot of ideas: comparison of yellow, blue and purple Yogos. Comparison of a Montana saph with a cornflower Yogo. The artificial light comparison, etc. The benefit of the side by sides is that the intent is to allow the eye to compare back and forth.
BTW, I think you are completely justified in removing my other goofy remarks, have right on your side...I was treating the talk page too much like a chat room. And of course I am breaking rules by violating my block. But this one thing where you dismiss my comment and then close it, is a mistake.Ask you respectfully to unhide, please. Even if I'm wrong and that is not the direction to take the article, it is on topic to discuss that sort of thing. And I'm not even imposing it, just raising it as an idea.
BTW, I did find this interesting shot of a Montana saph (not a Yogo) and I wonder if it is showing a stereotypical example...is showing what MBW thinks of when she says she recognizes differences.
"Sapphires are a color variety of corundum, a crystalline form of aluminium oxide (Al2O3).[14] Corundum is one of the hardest minerals, rating 9 on the Mohs scale.[15] Corundum gems of most colors are called sapphires, except for red ones, which are called rubies.[16] The term "Yogo sapphire" refers only to sapphires from the Yogo Gulch.[17] The cornflower blue color of the Yogo results from trace amounts of iron and titanium.[11] Yogo sapphires are unique in that they are free of cavities and inclusions, have high uniform clarity, lack color zoning, and do not need heat treating because their cornflower blue coloring is uniform and deep.[18] Unlike Asian sapphires, they maintain their brilliance in artificial light.[19] Yogos present an advantage to gemcutters:[20] since they are found as primary constituent minerals within an igneous bedrock rather than in sedimentary alluvial deposits where most other sapphires are located,[5][18] they retain a perfect or near perfect crystalline shape, making cutting much easier, as does their lack of inclusions, color zoning, or cloudiness.[20] Yogos also exhibit a triangular pattern on the basal plane of the flattened crystals,[21] with thin rhombohedral crystal faces, a feature absent in sapphires from other parts of Montana.[22][23][24]
I was wondering what the topic of this para is, but I guess it is "science of how Yugo's differ from other sapphires". It sort of reads a little "dense" or as if stray facts were thrown together. Maybe cutting it in two would help it.
Another idea, could we see a picture of an Asian sapphire and a Yugo under artificial light (to see the noted difference)?
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
And this is as tight a crop as I can get, I think, FYI.
![[13]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yogo1ct.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Painted_Turtle_Distribution_alternate.svg){kind=link}
