Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bismuth

Bismuth
Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2010 at 02:51:37 (UTC)
 * Reason:Here's yet another awesome image by Alchemist-hp.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bismuth
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
 * Creator:Alchemist-hp


 * Support as nominator --~  Nerdy Science  Dude  02:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Support --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose there are too many color artifacts visible in the shadows. Not the best compared to other elements I've seen. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose because I now created an account. The unwelcoming of anonymous users was a disgrace though. Jó Kritika (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support that is the most ridiculous (to be read retarded) oppose ever. Even if the color artifacts were actually visible (I personally cannot see them) I think these images should get auto-promote just to encourage the author to continue submitting images that are otherwise almost impossible to get without a ton of money just for the actual samples. Nergaal (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous? i don't think so. Maybe the mentality you expressed. Look at the top right sample, it clearly has red artifacts. 70.170.117.40 (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yee to anonymous comments! Where on the right top sample? Try to point out better. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has significant chromatic noise for sure; whether there is also oxidation happening is hard to say. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nergaal: I don't think we should auto-promote just to encourage the author. The image should be judged on its technical quality and encyclopedic value alone. Besides, I think that Alchemist-hp already knows our great appreciation for his photos of chemical elements. Also, you should refrain from insulting others (even people who have not registered) by calling their opinions "retarded". (Although I personally don't see any significant colour artifacts except some chroma noise in the shadow region.) Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Of course. But we do also have another FP for this element (File:Bi-crystal.jpg) but that illustrates oxidation and isn't indicative of the actual metals color. Plus it's not up to his new level of standard. I don't think we should demote the old FP either since it is still very nice and illustrates Bi oxidized. Oh... and we can ignore anonymous ip opposes per rules, so I'm striking it. If you want (talking to the IP) to really oppose, create an account to do it. — raeky  t  05:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IPs are welcome to comment though, and you should have struck the vote only. I've fixed it.   Mae din\ talk 12:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thank you. — raeky  t  18:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the quality seems good enough despite the presence of a small amount of image noise in the shadow regions. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Not Alchemist-hp's best, but certainly worthy of FP. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1 - How about this image as a replacement for the current Bismuth FP. It shows both the natural and oxidized states and doesn't have that horrible unreadable scale plastered onto it. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? This is a total other image! I think you are confusing!? The cube is the same but the crystals are different. The "Alt 1" can be also a FP candidate? You can nominate it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the inbox image and the FP for the element be unoxidized completely... It's a little misleading of the crystals are oxidized but the cube isn't. A compromise in my book would be a picture of both oxidized and unoxidized crystals together with the cube. So I don't like the alternative, so Oppose it. — raeky  t  05:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt 1 is a completely different image and should have a separate nomination. It looks colourful and eyecatching though, and I might support it if it was nominated separately. Purpy Pupple (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Colorful and eye-catching isn't important for a technical image, accuracy and educational value is the most important, oxidized metal (specifically if we already have a FP showing it) is less EV then unoxidized. If this Alt 1 image was D&R for the existing oxidized image, that might be supportable, but to support this over unoxidized isn't good imho. — raeky  t  08:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I wouldn't support the Alt over the unoxidized one. Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess I should take it to D&R instead of here. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support it as a D&R, I like a 1cm3 cube of the metal as a natural scale for the picture than an artificial scale anyway, which will be consistant with all the recent metal FPs. — raeky  t  09:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Alt 1 Since bismuth oxidizes so easily, including the colorful, common appearance not only makes sense, but is attractive. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Greg L, bismuth oxidized only if it is very hot >= 300°C, not at room temperature. Purpy Pupple wrote it too: "Alt 1 is a completely different image and should have a separate nomination." ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The fact the editors of the article have chosen to use an unoxidised sample in the infobox is telling. Oppose ALT1 for now, but I certainly have no objection to it being given its own nomination. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to agree on the basic facts before we cast our votes on what image best balances aesthetics and encyclopedic value. According to the Bismuth article, here, “Bismuth is a brittle metal with a white, silver-pink hue, often occurring in its native form with an iridescent oxide tarnish showing many colors from yellow to blue.” Assuming our Wikipedia is correct (who ever heard of Wikipedia being wrong?) I supported the image showing the iridescent form too. I suspect the significance of 300 °C is that is the temperature at which the natural oxidation process occurs in just seconds. I had researched bismuth when working on the Kilogram article because bismuth was the element used in an Avogadro-based atom-counting approach because, like gold, it has only one naturally occurring isotope (which is very slightly unstable). But bismuth was only used for cheap initial experiments because it oxidizes so terribly easily. Gold would have been the only semi-practical solution for atom-counted kilograms. Greg L (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you oppose the use of the current lead image? I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is customary on FPC that Alts are alternatives for consideration for voting purposes. I don’t know who placed Alt 1 here, but it is here and I have thrown my support behind it in preference over the original. I had accidentally struck my vote in support of Alt 1; I’ve corrected that and continue to support it. Why Alt 1? Because bismuth in its native form often has an iridescent oxide passivation ranging from yellow to blue. For this reason, I find that Alt 1 is not only beautiful, but has high EV because it is more useful and practical; if someone were to stumble across bismuth in its natural state, readers of Wikipedia who are exposed to this picture will be more likely to recognize the element. The high-res version of the photo is just gorgeous. P.S. Having worked as a fuel cell engineer, where electromotive potential and galvanics are a big deal, I just pulled out my custom pocket-sized periodic table from my wallet and flipped it over to look at the galvanic potential of bismuth. Oxygen has a one-volt cathodic advantage over bismuth, so it certainly should naturally oxidize. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)