Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Uranium Billet

Uranium
Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 05:16:51 (UTC)
 * Reason:Another very unlikely element anyone outside of a controlled government facility would have access too, Uranium-235, meets technical standards, provides excellent value to multiple articles.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Uranium-235, Uranium, 2000s commodities boom
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science
 * Creator:United States Department of Energy


 * Support as nominator --— raeky ( talk 05:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It has only such flaws that are practically necessary in such an image of something illegal for the general public to own. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per above. -- Jack ?! 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs to be brighter. Greg L (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? It looks pretty bright to me.. -- Jack ?! 22:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's something wrong with it colour-wise, I think. Doesn't look right to me... J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably just an effect from the big orange gloves, everything else looks right to me, the gloves are probably not very standard material thus doesn't look like orange rubber gloves you'd be familiar with. — raeky ( talk 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- mcshadypl T C  00:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Uranium-235 is an isotope of the element uranium. Individuals can own pure uranium at least in the United States, even this isotope (but only in very low purity.) A picture of metallic uranium would not necessarily be hard to obtain but an image of the important isotope would be, although any difference in appearance would likely be psychological, not genuine. Rmhermen (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uranium has different control regulations in different countries, buying the ore would be legal in most places, but buying the metal might not be. And buying highly enriched definitely wouldn't be legal anywhere. And yes, the visual difference between Uranium-238 and Uranium-235, would be, well, there is no difference as far as I'm aware. In the The Periodic Table of Videos video for Uranium they talk about the strict government controls and regulations they have to abide by to use it, but I'm not familiar with the details of the UK's law on it. — raeky ( talk 06:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the fact that there is no visual difference is important; we shouldn't use the same picture for both. J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: What's 2068? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume for security purposes, like tracking, it's a serial number. — raeky  T  12:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for me a high EV VI, but not FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC) --> why not: weak support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only 4.5 of 5 required supports. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)