Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oxygen glowing

Oxygen glowing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 09:06:08 (UTC)

Reason

Very encyclopedic. As all these gases are transparent in their unexcited state, this is the best way to get an image for them. Given the subject, the resolution is ample. Similar to the old Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases. It's just that this one (by the same author) wasn't yet uploaded when that FPC took place.

Articles in which this image appears

Oxygen

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science

Creator

Jurii

• Support as nominator --
  talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn support, see below. Oppose until true colour of O₂ glowing is found out here.
  talk) 11:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Small and still not sharp. It also misses the
  color profile, which would be important in such a case. --Niabot (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Um...care to explain to non-photo-savvy folk like me?
    talk) 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The first point is the size of this image. In comparison to other images it is small. It only has about 1 MP (1000x1000 px), but is still unsharp. Since a standard camera was used, we could expect at least 4-6 MP. On to of that the image is somewhat blurry, which reduces the effective resolution/quality even further. The second point is the color. A colorprofile embedded inside the image guarantees the correct colors on calibriated displays. In this case it is of importance, since pure gasses have their characteristic color spectrum. This would be the only usefull information for the reader, since anything else is in the dark. --Niabot (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gabeguss (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — raekyt 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Personally, I don't see what more resolution would add in this case. It's a pretty undetailed subject. Cowtowner (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cowtowner. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose this is a fake. We don't see glowing oxygen becouse simply in the main glowing "water = moisture" from inside of the wall of the tube. The tube wasn't dry or not dry enough before filling with the ultrapure oxygen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we hear more about this? I'm not sure I understand. Also, I see you've taken other similar pictures of different gases, and they look different from those we have previously featured; for example, your
    Chick Bowen 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is simple: this isn't a manufacturer sample. Amateur work: "take a test tube, fill it with low pressure oxygen gas and melt it close". Ready is the fake sample. All the glas that you see and know contains moisture at the surface. You have now a closed test tube with oxygen gas inside and a lot of moisture from the glas wall. If you now use a high frequency high voltage power supply then it is more easy to ionize the water then the oxygen gas inside in that glas ampoule/vial. It is important for an oxygen sample to have realy dry test tube. The test tube must be first heated off, for several hours and >= 450°C. I hope you can understand it now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC) P.S: and sorry for my bad english.[reply]
      • You know, that doesn't mean it's "fake", just unprofessional. "Fake" would mean those artist's impressions and photomontages.
        talk) 04:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I think what Alchemist meant (if I may) was not fake as in deliberately deceptive, but false: that is, that we are not seeing what we think we are.
          Chick Bowen 04:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• Comment. I was invited here and my first comment (from a public terminal) is do not close this nom as successful until there is a solid proof there is no water in there. Minor contaminations do change discharge color a lot, so as gas pressure and electrical parameters of the discharge. We need to dig into literature and have a proper evidence on the color of the oxygen discharge (or/and a discharge spectrum - intensity vs. wavelength). I'm afraid image alone can't be such an evidence. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  @Materialscientist: your are right with: "... gas pressure and electrical parameters of the discharge ...", but it is simple: take a photo of his spectrum and you can see the water spectrum lines ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks ('twas I asked MS to comment here). Oppose on this basis.
    Chick Bowen 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Is it possible for me to change my vote to "oppose" even though I am the nominator...? And what about the H, He, N, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe images: will they also have to be "de-featured"?
      talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If you look at the Oxygen page it has a spectrogram (on the right) of Oxygen with lines in the blue and purple which line up with the color in this image. Any water vapor in the tube would be split into Hydrogen and Oxygen and the Hydrogen spectrum would contribute to the color, but unless there was extreme contamination probably not a lot. The image is still a great image to draw you into reading the Oxygen article which itself is excellent. Could the caption be changed to reflect the fact it may not be "ultrapure" Oxygen?Gabeguss (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This: "Any water vapor in the tube would be split into Hydrogen and Oxygen" is false or not realy right. You have not a Chemical decomposition because only a ionization. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I can confirm that at least some of Alchemist-hp's tubes are good. I've seen some of the noble gases glowing before and the colours match perfectly, so I definitely have good reasons to change my vote like this, even though I nominated this picture in the first place.
  talk) 14:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If you are indeed withdrawing your support, you might want to strike it out up top (<s></s>) to make it clear for the closer.
    Chick Bowen 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]