Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bromine vial in acrylic cube.jpg

File:Bromine_vial_in_acrylic_cube.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:47:30

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not very sharp, but printed the quality is good nevertheless. →Diti the penguin — 09:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality-wise, this cannot compete with the silver photo above. But I am also a little concerned about EV: This cube is an object created as a way to display bromine in the physical world (i.e. a "hands-on" object). I'm not sure that a photo of such an object is adequate to illustrate the element. It might illustrate "acrylic cube", but for that the picture IMO is not crisp enough. -- JovanCormac 10:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• To Alchemist-hp: Btw I think your project to upload a pretty picture for every element is a great idea. Hopefully, we will soon have photos like your silver and tungsten ones for all elements. -- JovanCormac 10:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  not tungsten. It is titanium ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, you're right. Got it wrong. -- JovanCormac 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• it is simple: bromine is a dangerous and toxic element. If you like to show it to other peoples then you must have a glas vial. Only a glas vial (=ampoule) is a fragile item. It is important to seal it. The best method is to embed it in acrylic. It is very dificult to take from an unvisible item a picture. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • please look also at the german discussion side.
    • I did, and now I know about the problems of handling bromine which makes taking an "open" shot of it difficult. But I still think a shot like this with less "packaging" would be better, and I agree with others on the discussion page that the scale is irrelevant for a liquid. -- JovanCormac 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • yes the scale is irrelevat only for a liquid, but not for an acrylic cube with a vial including a liquid ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - assuming that the ampoule is orange so that it is visible inside the cube, what color is the bromine? It appears black but maybe it is a different color. Please state its color in the description. Downtowngal (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bromine is a dark brown liquid (up to black if the thickness is large). The bromine vapour is orange-brown. You see both. Please look also for the properties at the linked image describtions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support —kallerna™ 10:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Question When you say glass vile, and later, the vapour is Orange brown, which is what we see. What colour is the glass of the vile. Is it coloured or clear? Julielangford (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The glas vial ( = glas ampoule) is absolutely clear and transparent. You see the bromine vapor above the liquid bromine. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well that is truly amazing. Definitely has my support. Julielangford (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What is the scale on the right for? Has bromine size? --Chrumps (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • the scale is a size for the item: the acrylic cube and for the bromine vial. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • However, the size of the acrylic cube is absolutely unimportant here. Right? --Chrumps (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • only for the acrylic cube yes, but not for both. I set the scale discreetly on the right side for your imagination. Pozdrawiam serdecznie, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't agree. The scale could be helpful in illustrating a size of atoms, bacteria, galaxies etc. but not for metal spheres or acrylic cubes :) Herzliche Grüße, --Chrumps (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, now we know our opinions ;-) Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• I think for all the scientific objects it is better to have a scale for a size comparison. Still better then coins or other things ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)