Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Eu-Block.jpg

Europium

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 02:39:53 (UTC)

Reason

There are some minor technical issues; however, Europium is exceptionally reactive, and can only be seen in anything resembling purity as we get here: In a glove box, in an atmosphere made up entirely of a noble gas, in this case, argon. As the issues with this image are only those necessary to taking this image, I believe that the exceptional difficulty of getting this image at all, combined with the image... actually being quite good, make this FP-worthy.

Articles in which this image appears

Europium

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Alchemist-hp

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If this is the best Alchemist can do, then this is the best anyone can do. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image in the infobox is of similar purity, and while it's not as good as this one, I think it proves that a better shot is at least possible. Quality can probably be improved and composition (especially background) can definitely be improved. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not pleased to be the one to say it, but this one's just not quite there. A damn difficult element to photograph, no doubt about that, and I've no doubt that this image is a fantastic addition to the article, but I don't think it is feature worthy. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: This is one of Alchemist-hp's earlier photographs, before he perfected his technique. I don't think the drawbacks of this image are due to the element itself; with another sample, I'm sure Alchemist-hp could produce his usual excellent work. (Not to imply that it would be trivial for him to do so, only that this one isn't up to par and could be.)
  talk 11:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It was for me only a single and very rare chance in the past to take a photo from a large, clean and high purity (and very expensive) Europium sample. I think this is a very valued photo, but not a futured?!? I can't take a similar and better photo today, sorry. My current samples are only a small pieces under argon in glas vials (=ampoules). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist-hp (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given that this sort of photograph entails such extraordinary technical effort, you deserve an “A” for effort. I liked the image because europium looks so cool. Notwithstanding the herculean effort, the word seems to be developing that the end result is not FP quality as far as the technical aspects go. Indeed, when I zoom all the way, it is not in sharp focus at the back of the sample. That was something I was willing to forgive because it has to be in a glove box under argon. I can understand the reasoning of those who object. I know it seems a bit like “Go stand 1000 feet from ground-zero at the Trinity test explosion and take the picture again (and then run really fast).” Like I said: it’s way-cool. Moreover, you should get ten barnstars for making Wikipedia the beneficiary of your extraordinary efforts. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support from the creator too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For what it's worth. — raekyT 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 04:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]