Talk:Yogo sapphire

Guild of copyeditors

Several good reviewers have basically said "it's good and should go to FA, but it's not quite ready, so with that and a recommendation on my talkpage, I've listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Yogo_sapphire. Hopefully it will get a another pre FAC review soon and better photos will appear. PumpkinSky talk 03:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Reshoot of Yogo sapphires

Wow, did this ever drift off topic, from Yogo sapphires from Montana to turtles to free video software. I apologize for getting carried away before, especially to Andrew. I've tried some of the suggestions for reshooting the Yogos I have access to and would like to see what others think. Keep in mind I'm a complete amateur and don't have fancy equipment. These were done with a loupe, digital camera, and changing angles of the stone and lighting. There are many more pics of these two stones that I simply deleted. As different as they may look all the pear shots are the same stone and likewise with the purple stone. The purple stone often comes out looking blue depending on lighting, flash, etc. For both stones, the new shots were all done without flash as all the ones I tried with flash looked really bad. I tried to get these to display in a gallery but it didn't work.PumpkinSky talk 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to shoot them that close? Your camera may not be focusing well enough that close. Try pulling back , possibly putting a second, larger, less reflective object near the gem (that you can cut out later) to help with focusing. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is probably best discussed on the article talk page, rather than here (please feel free to move this comment if you move this section over to there). On looking at those, my advice would be to experiment more. Try different distances (sometimes it is better to keep the camera a good distance away to ensure the image is in focus, and crop the image in close as required) and different lighting, but always ensure the camera is rock-steady as if you've turned the flash off an automatic camera will lengthen the exposure time - if there is a timer function, use that to trigger the exposure to avoid the movement caused by pressing the button. Eventually you will get something that is reasonable (close-up work like this is not easy). Let me fix the gallery and then say which one I think is best. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

When I take them from farther away, they appear too small and get fuzzy when cropped. PumpkinSky talk 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Pear-shaped Yogo

• 
  Currently in the article in the infobox
• 
  Reshoot A
• 
  Reshoot B
• 
  Reshoot C
• 
  Reshoot D
• 
  Reshoot E

• Reshoot B gets my vote, maybe Reshoot E. Can someone photoshop out the cotton fibers in the way in E? PumpkinSky talk 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, of that bunch B and E have the most potential. Is your digital camera fully automatic or can you set aperture and shutter speed. If so I'd recommend a makeshift tripod and long exposure and narrow aperture....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It has manual, so I can play around with settings but may not get far tonight. PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

B of the pear shape would be OK if the stone weren't dirty. I'm sorry, PurpleSky, I've been there, but there are issues with each of them, either the dirt or glare or fuzziness.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd time you called me purplesky, not pumpkinsky ;-) Are they are least better than what's in the article? I can clean B. PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, sometimes the mind does tricks on you, PumpkinSky.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your efforts in re-shooting these. Of the pears, I think B is clearly the sharpest. I'm puzzled a bit by the colour changes from A-B to C-D-E. Which are the more realistic? Did you change the type of lighting used? Looking at the EXIF, they're still a wide-open aperture of f2.8, so if you can get any more lighting in there, the aperture will stop-down and the depth of field (and so overall sharpness) will increase still further. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

B is the most realistic in color vis a vis natural light. I do have a tiny tripod and can try again, probably tomorrow. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I like B best here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since we're voting, I think B and E are the best. I would choose B over E though. Both do serve as excellent images of what Yogo sapphire actually is. Well done! Jessemv (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment: The big thing about Yogos is that they are light and brilliant. The purple one, for example, looks "right" in the original image, and in the rest is uncharacteristically dark and look like obsidian. Of the shots of the pear-shaped Yogo, B is the only one that's close, the rest make it look too dark and muddy. It's tough to shoot these! Montanabw^(talk) 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Purple Yogo

• 
  Currently in the article
• 
  Reshoot 3
• 
  Reshoot 4
• 
  Reshoot 5

• Reshoot4 gets my vote. PumpkinSky talk 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

4 is best but concede tehre are depth of field problems like the others. Have you tried setting up a shoot outside and using sunlight? I sympathise with the effort - you would not beleive how many images I chucked chasing this goddamn bird in a wet forest to get the images I used for the article....and most mushroom articles one needs to get on one's hands and knees to get a good photo of the gills without knocking the mushroom over....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can try outside, and manual settings. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd do the shoot again for these, none of them are great. Andy mentioned above that the lighting seemed to change. That can sometimes be because someone stands where they are casting a shadow without realising it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

B and 4 (maybe 5) get my vote. None are perfect, but you can at least discern faceting of the aluminum oxide now.

I suggest for any of these, try the WP:Graphics Lab to fix them up. They are super fast, super good, and super nice (opposite of me!)

I think we should not have these discussions all the time. That would be an FAC-T distraction. But I think having it once...is very useful. since there is an issue of a lot of FAC writers kind of gaffing off images as a concern. It's educational for them.

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• all are adequate and better. Um, I've forgotten now - I think B or D, & 4 or 5. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that none of them look like a yogo, Focus better, but brilliance and true color gone. I'd keep the original purple one. Montanabw^(talk) 17:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We definitely need to get both color and focus right.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Round 2 of reshoot

When it stops raining and such I'll do some outdoor shots and try the other suggestions. PumpkinSky talk 00:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK sapphire fans, first I washed them, then I took these with my small 6" tripod, loupe, outdoors with overcast skies, and same digital camera. This time I picked the best shot (good ones were easier this time) and uploaded different crops to show how the more I crop them, the blurrier they get. PumpkinSky talk 01:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I advice giving to graphics lab (do you know how to use that, they rock!) and having them work on them. They may be able to play with the background or the like to get more impressive appearance without hurting authenticity. not dissing, they are better shots, just GL will help!

I asked the Featured Pics boys to stop by, but they did not. Maybe a personal outreach to JJ HArrison or J Milburn would help. I know people usually help most with talk page requests.

Keep after it man. You are a hero! REally awesome work. We will get something great. Article will really benefit from super photos.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think for both, a crop mid-size between the largest and second largest will yield a large enough image with (hopefully) not-too-obvious blurring. It is a bit of a shame they're not more....sparkly...but I think they are definitely better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better. However, the pear does suffer from blurriness when cropped. The purple is not bad in crop 2, but starting to blur a bit. A good reflective light microscope would sure help to get a decent sized image w/out the cropping which brings out the focus problems. Magnify then photograph, rather than trying to magnify the photo by cropping. Do you have access to a college or high school biology department, they often have good camera equipped dissection 'scopes. Have any teacher or student friends who could help with that? Vsmith (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to ask about the microscope thing, not that I can think of.PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thought it might be a long shot. I've never tried photographing faceted gemstones that way and getting diffuse lighting to avoid unwanted reflections might be a problem. Vsmith (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pear Yogo

• 
  Original
• 
  Crop 1
• 
  Crop 2

Purple Yogo

• 
  Original
• 
  Crop 1
• 
  Crop 2
• 
  Crop 3

Comments

Crop 1 on the pear looks pretty good, way better color. Crop 1 or 2 on the purple, good, though not very purple. I know the blur police don't like the original purple, but IMHO that's the one that looks like a Yogo. Montanabw^(talk) 01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Crop 1 on the pear looks best, and Crop 3 on the purple. I take Crop 1 on the pear rather than Crop 2 since Crop 2 seems blurry in the thumbnail. Crop 1 on the purple is too small IMO. I don't remember actually seeing an actual yogo, so I don't know exactly what color they are without being influenced by image color bias. Still, it looks fine to me. In the article, we'd want the object to fill the frame and thus illustrate a yogo without a big border. When you click on Crop 3 for more detail it seems obviously blurry. Maybe you could reupload PurpleYogoSapphire6C.jpg with a slightly smaller version to avoid that, but keep the thumbnail the same size in the article. I personally think these images are really nice and significantly better than before. Well done! Jessemv (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Crop 1 on the pear looks pretty good, way better color. Crop 1 or 2 on the purple, good, though not very purple. Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well off-topic

P.s. This is kind of a segue, but fits into the FAC writers should care about the images meme, I just got a picture of an HF burn. Took me 4 different donation attempts (and even finding people to ask for an image was tricky). Most are much easier than that. But if you are never writing to ask for an image donation, never had to deal with OTRS saying the signoff was not good enough yet...well you are not really doing all you can.

HF burns, not evident until a day after

-TCO TCO (Reviews needed) 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have done it for some unusual birds, mushrooms and plants. Can be quite trying to ensure correct OTRS template is filled out....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What template (serious)? I just send them an email. Volunteers take care of it after that. My job is to find the image on the net...and find an email and a name of a person to ask for the image from. Then write them a nice note and ask for it. First couple times, I dorked it up for Commons, but the volunteer still stepped in and just emailed the donor. They were all very smooth actually.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done 2 OTRS' on Commons. I found instructions on Commons. I found the photo, sent the person an email, they answered, and I forwarded it to the commons otrs email, and they did it quickly. Never heard about an OTRS form before.PumpkinSky talk 03:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I explain briefly what they are doing and provide a link that explains the creative commons license. They reply; I forward that to OTRS.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Solicited Photo Advice

To be blunt, the biggest barrier here is equipment so I'm going to describe what I'd consider best practise, and just do what you can. Buy (very cheap on ebay) or make a light tent and light it up. Halogen work lights are a good, cheap way to get a lot of light. You should vary the amount of light on each side until it looks right (by altering the physical distance of the light sources). A small piece of white or black plastic, such as Poly(methyl methacrylate) or HDPE, is probably the best background material, you can buy small scrap pieces for very little. Paper is going to show too many fibres and stuff at this scale. I'd then photograph it on a tripod, focus stacking using a macro lens and/or extension tubes (depending on how small it is). Chances are you might know someone with the right equipment. Using your current camera: Improving the lighting will help the sharpness etc with your current camera quite a bit, because the shutter speed is probably low enough for motion blur at the moment. You need to put the gem at the minimum focus distance of the camera, it will be blurry if you go too close. Make sure your camera is in macro mode (usually a flower symbol). JJ Harrison (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll see what I can come up with. PumpkinSky talk 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And we do all this because we work for WP and make the big bucks? LOL! Actually, JJ, note my test photo of the cheapo cubic zirconia above. I have no access to a digital SLR to have lenses to stack, I only have a super-macro setting on a digital SLR -- and I have a different gem to shoot -- Other than adding more light, this is the limit of my equipment and I am going to be required to shoot at a jewelry store with nice owners but they DO have other customers and they aren't going to leave a 1-carat gem unattended! Should I even bother?? Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not ask the store owners to help, they may be able to provide equipment or advice for making a good picture. Explain the situation and the chance to get their gemstone seen by so many worldwide. We can't advertise for them, but their assistance could be noted on the image page. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the point. They are not going to have the equipment (nice quirky folks, but not techies). The point is if my best ability is so crappy that I'll be wasting my time even trying with what I have. Montanabw^(talk) 18:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Royal engagement ring

What does Voynick say exactly regarding "9, 12 or 18 carat"? The Daily Mail (and virtually everyone else) say the ring is 18-carat, the gem 12. It is also generally accepted to be a Sri Lankan stone. DrKiernan (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you toss us some URLs that we can use and will pass WP:RS? I saw news stuff, but not sure what would pass WP FAC muster. Generally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, though I suspect on something like this, it's gospel! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Voynick doesn't say "9, 12, or 18". It's that different sources report those different sizes. IOW, there's confusion on itPumpkinSky talk 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

carats versus dollars

Can we say how many carats have been extracted? It makes more of a point for the reader if we give him something that tells him how much has come out versus how much remains. TCO (Reviews needed) 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback (TCO mini review)

I am liking this article. Something about the topic; with the combination of science, art, and geography; is cool. Don't worry...there are so many articles on Wiki that if you want me to stay away from it...I can and will. But I want to read through and give some feedback, vice just plunging in and editing more.

My initial take is pretty close to TK's. It's still aways from FA qual (and will be real work to get it there). It's not just going to be comma fixing, needed. It's clearly GA+ in terms of your love and research into the topic. But maybe not totally nailed yet in terms of all sources checked. And lots of places to make the writing more strongly structured and clip excess words.

P.s. Please don't let the feedback bug ya (or even tell me ahead and I won't make it). I really think the one who does the heavy lifting of putting the first draft together is the HERO.

TCO (Reviews needed) 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. Better to fix before FAC rather than during from what I'm told. PumpkinSky talk 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DEFINITELY! FYI, no way I will be able to do photos on the gem I can get at until Wed or Thurs at the earliest. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Di and Kate

The answer to all our questions about the various UK jewels is probably in this reference guide? Tough as it is to prove a negative, the above guide will probably do the trick. Also, we'd love to find a source better than The Daily Mail to prove that Princess Di/Kate Middleton's engagement ring was, in fact, an 18-carat Sri Lankan sapphire. Anyone able to dig? I also found the 18 carat ref in CBS news and the Huffington Post if that helps. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced by the 18-carat claim, as I think that's confusion with the 18-carat gold that the ring is made from (though I appreciate the claim is made). DrKiernan (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth pointed out that we could get this via Interlibrary loan: http://www.worldcat.org/title/ancient-and-modern-gems-and-jewels-in-the-collection-of-her-majesty-the-queen/oclc/62761758&referer=brief_results examples here]. Anyone want to take a shot at it? Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that will help because it is not from the Royal Collection or the Collection of the Queen. It was bought by Charles from the Garrards catalog in 1981, and is part of the Wales' private estate. DrKiernan (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've a book or two on Diana here so I will see if they have anything. One of them is shortly after the marriage so might be a bit more useful. RafikiSykes (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the 18 carat claim is problematic also, even the Daily Mail itself -- highly reliable source that it is -- says both 12 and 18. But the site that I found pointing that out, and mentioning that 9 is possible, probably won't pass RS. (Pumpkin, did you say Voyich mentioned the engagement ring?) The guide to the Royal collection might help with the claims of Yogos being in the crown jewels or royal collection, a claim which is, at best, dubious, though if one turned up, it WOULD be uber-cool! Rafiki, if you've got the goods on the engagement ring, go for it! The point on all of these is that, for a change, we probably need to DISPROVE the claims of promoters, else we will potentially have editors in the future wanting to reinsert the claim that various jewels are Yogos, which is on some of the commercial web sites and even some non-commercial ones. Montanabw^(talk) 00:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the LA Times said the ring was 9-carat gem in 18-carat gold, and also suggested that it might be a Yogo. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

IOW, the sources conflict and no one really knows, except maybe His Royal Gemologist.PumpkinSky talk 03:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for disproving rather than proving sources then the BBC says the official line from Garrards is that the source of the stone is a secret[1]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Got URLs for either of those? With sources, we could add a sentence saying, "the LA TImes claims the gem is a 9-carat Yogo sapphire, but source X claims it is of Sri Lankan origin. However, the BBC, citing a source from Garrads is that the source of the gemstone is a secret." That would add to the fun of this little section! Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here if you have ProQuest access. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't, but if you want to do up a quote with a proper cite to date and maybe even a direct quote, we can refine from there and plop it in based on AGF.

The Los Angeles Times describes the ring as a nine-carat sapphire, and quotes Intergem president Dennis Brown as saying the gem may have come from a British-owned Yogo mine. Sanko, John S (United Press International) (3 February 1984). "Princess Diana sets of jewelry trend". Los Angeles Times. p. F12. Retrieved 12 January 2012.(subscription required)

All books I have checked so far just say 18ct gold ring with oval sapphire and 14 diamonds. On royal jewel sites a lot of people are mentioning and quoting a text "The Myth of Princess Di and Yogo Sapphire by. David W. Baker." http://web.archive.org/web/20090312100256/http://www.3rivers.net/~dbaker/diana.htm RafikiSykes (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh Rafiki! That one is a dandy! LOL! Everyone: Will it pass WP:RS for an FAC? It is a personal web page (3rivers is or was an Montana-based internet provider) but I think they nailed it. PumpkinSky, does their cite to Voyich check out? Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cce-mt.org/Breaking%20News/Archived%20News/doctor_baker/baker_obituary/baker_obituary.html This is the persons obituary and though yogo article is hosted on their own webspace all their details in the obit would make them seem to me an expert. The reason its on webarchive is presumably his site was taken down after he died.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080720155515/http://www.3rivers.net/~dbaker/pubs.htm His proffesional information listing names some of his books that might be of use for the wider article.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the same edition of the Voynick book. It essentially says what Baker claims. To quote specifically on page 163 - "...the most admired sapphire of the 1980s was the magnificent nine-carat stone set in the engagement ring ... presented to Lady Diana Spencer". Note Voynick does NOT claim it is a Yogo. This is in a passage discussing the overall sapphire market of the 1980s. Quoting specifically from page 203 - "By 1918, Yogo sapphires appeared in the personal gem collections of the Duchess of York, Princess Mary and Queen Victoria of England, and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. Historians also believe that Yogo sapphires, possibly misrepresented as "orientals", were acquired for the British Crown Jewel Collection. In 1920, Johnson, Walker and Tolhurst, Ltd., presented four cut Yogos, thirty roughs, and specimens of dike rock matrix with visible imbedded sapphires to the British Museum of Natural History in London, where they are still exhibited today." Now my view is that there is no doubt Yogos made it to Europe. My !vote is for Diana's ring being a 9-carat Sri Lankan sapphire in an 18 carat gold setting and surrounded by diamonds. Considering the trade known to have existed and that shipments of Yogos were sent to England by the Yogo English Mine, it's certainly possible if not probable European Royals have/had some Yogos. Can this part about Royals owning Yogos or being in Crown Jewel Collections be conclusively proven? IMHO neither way can we say for sure without more info. I'm going to tweak what the article says on this now. If anyone disagrees, feel free to edit. IMHO the teamwork shown on this article is wiki at its best. PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm leary of using Baker's website. While he's an expert, if we use his site, we'll no doubt have to defend it. Maybe we can find a book he wrote or something. PumpkinSky talk 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, the reference guide mentioned by Montanabw makes no mention of Yogos; it mentions the provenance of two other sapphires, one Burmese and one Sri Lankan. It also does not discuss the engagement ring, although it has a general note to consult a reference from Garrards for gems obtained after the mid-1800s. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OK peeps, here y'all go

This is as good as I can get, I ain't a-taken' any more. This gem is a .65 carat AAA gem, the 1 carat was not available. But this one is worth $3300, according to the owners. I'd be glad to send anyone the original images if someone wants to dink with them further. I can also crop them even tighter, but maybe you all play with them first and see if that works for you. Yogo2783, the one on the far right, is probably my favorite, but everyone weigh in, I did a tight crop of that one to see what could be done at uber-max crop. Montanabw^(talk) 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  And this is as tight a crop as I can get, I think, FYI.

I think the cropped one is very good.PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes +++++++ much better. Cropped one please. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes the cropped on the far right (Yogo2783) is excellent! I also like the one between the tweezers (or whatever that is) because you get a sense of its size, especially in the full image. The one on the far right is amazing! Jessemv (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jessemv. Yogo 2783 and its crop are the best so far. Still not professional quality (remind me to link to some really amazing gem pictures some time, or look at the sharpness of some of the gem pictures on Commons), but that was never the aim and this one is far better than the ones above. Many thanks, Montana for doing this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin, as lead editor, you do the honors ... and thanks to Tim for getting the detail of the Conchita gem. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you, My Fine Fair Lady Montanabw! PumpkinSky talk 22:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Clear and beautiful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, truly awesome!! Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear Yogo pic

This is my latest attempt, taken outdoors. Maybe I should sent the stones to Montanabw for getting their portrait taken:

• 

PumpkinSky talk 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I would have cropped it though, to maybe half of the current border. Otherwise it looks too small in a thumbnail. Images in your last set were better IMO though. Still, considering how difficult it must be to capture a quality images of a yogo, this is another example of your excellent work. Seriously, this article's quality will really improve as a result, and I already see you've used some of them already! Jessemv (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest pear and purple photos

After considerable photo trials, we've come up with these for the pear and purple Yogos. Not pro level, but the best I've come up with so far, and just before the (cough) silly (cough) Great Wiki Blackout of Jan 2012! Hope you enjoy these photos:

• 
• 

 : Montanabw's help was invaluable on this. PumpkinSky talk 01:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Better! especially the purple one. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes these are really good! A bit difficult to choose, but I'd say the purple one is maybe better. Hurry, you have less than five hours left! Time is almost up! Cut the blue wire, no the red, no... :D Jessemv (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, natural sunlight and angles seem to be the keys. both are in the article as there's space for both. I want to keep both in, pear - for the unusual shape and purple because purple Yogos are VERY rare. PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful shots! Dreadstar ☥ 04:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

By jove, I think we've got it! Halleulajah! Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Splendid! (See my talk for more words.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Final cleanup

Now that we have the photos settled, some thoughts on final cleanup:

• 1. I am concerned that the idea that Yogo is a Blackfoot word is dubious. However, I believe I can find A Blackfoot dictionary locally at the library or via interlibrary loan and will attempt to clarify this. It definitely doesn't mean "blue" and I am suspicious that again we have a marketing ploy.
• 2. I'm comfortable with the current version of the royal gems claims, but a question on that very helpful Los Angeles Times cite: I know we CAN use it, but will we have headaches citing to a subscription site and thus, do we need to cite to the hardcopy version (weird, but I've run into this with a couple scientific journals at other FA articles)? Nikki, any way you can copy and paste the text of that article into an email to me or PumpkinSky so we can triple check it?
• 3. I'll do a copyedit run, I haven't for a while, will put in hidden text at stuff I think might want to be looked at, but I'm not sure what to do, myself.
• 4. We probably should re-tweak the lead when everything else is finished to be sure it lines up with the final article. At present, are there any claims in the lead not backed by a citation later in the article?
• 5. Not sure how to get a legal copy of an artwork off the web (have had requests at WikiProject Dallas and WikiProject Texas for a couple months, to no avail), but if we could, I think "A Quiet Day in Utica," by Charlie Russell, would be a cool addition to the article, as several of the early players are portrayed in it. It isn't in Montana, so I can't go and get a photo. Here's a link to the museum where it's at, in Fort Worth, Texas. Wouldn't kill an FAC, but JMO, it's a fun addition.

All I can think of, comments or additions from anyone else below are welcome! Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Good ideas. All Charlie Russell's art is PD, see Tim1965's talk page. PumpkinSky talk 22:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the Utica painting.PumpkinSky talk 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"but will we have headaches citing to a subscription site?" Look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_to_sources. I might have the same problem on the Folding@home article, where 99% of the journal citations are through subscriptions. But those subscriptions are most likely available through a library (especially one at a university) so how is that different than citing a book? My understanding of policy is that a citation is still valid under those conditions. Also think of a deadlink. If a reference goes away, is the content relying on that deadlink completely invalid? No. Of course, its always proper to provide references to available sources, and I fully believe subscription sites are just fine. As I'm on a university network, I can probably look up that subscription site information if you want. Let me know. Jessemv (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Subscription sites are fine, as are foreign language sources. You can also request something from a subscription site (such as JSTOR) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎.PumpkinSky talk 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff. Like how you all are powering this interesting combination of finery, Rocky Mountain history and geology along!TCO (Reviews needed) 03:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Cowboys and ex-slaves!! Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

So far, I'm very impressed with the quality of the article. It certainly is reliable and has high-quality writing. Well done! A couple things that caught my eye:

• The Etymology section is rather short, and contains only four sentences. I would also suggest expanding "some debate about this" by illustrating the debate to some degree.
• History section: "Mining of Yogo sapphires has been sporadic because they are difficult." I'm confused. What does this mean? If I understand correctly, perhaps "Mining Yogo sapphires is exceptionally difficult and remains sporadic." would work or something like that. (this suggestion was applied Jessemv (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC))
• 1940s–1970s: "Montana sapphires were heavily mined during World War II for industrial uses." Really? What industrial uses were they put to? This is surprising to me, but I don't doubt the statement. (fixed! Jessemv (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC))
• 1980s and beyond: "In 1992 Roncor found an 11 carat rough." This is out of chronological order. I suggest moving more towards the middle of the paragraph. (this was just fixed, it's much better now! Jessemv (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

And that's basically it. Why? Because the quality of the text is really impressive! Your hard work and dedication is very evident. :D Jessemv (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We're doing more research on the etymology. Made the ce changes. PumpkinSky talk 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you, and good luck. Jessemv (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And "to its confluence with" was recently removed. Can this be put back? I really like the way it sounds, and "confluence" is a high-quality word that you'd probably find in an encyclopedia. Considering PumpkinSky's devotion and investment into the article, I didn't want to just put it back. Why was it removed? Jessemv (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Because it's in the clause right before that, so it'd be in the same sentence twice. Which way do people think is better?PumpkinSky talk 21:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. How it is right now is fine actually. Jessemv (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo map

The paragraph of the Yogo area is based on a map on p. 116 of the Voynick book. If I scan it into digital form, would that be a) better than the county map currently in the location section and b) a valid use of fair use -- and someone help write a good fair use rationale that will stick? PumpkinSky talk 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We can get a custom map made that will be free. Just need to sweet-talk one of the graphics superstars into helping us. If the map is intricate enough (and takes a lot of research work), may even be a Featured Picture (see [2]). Also, playing the whole "going into an FA" card will help the graphics person to feel that his time spent is justified. That book will be helpful as a source for the mapmaker to look at, but we should also add anything else that we want in such a map (from other sources). IOW, we will naturally end up with an even better (at least in terms of tailoring) map than a simple tracing of the start image because of the collaboration of article writer and graphics maker. BTW, I do NOT think this is overkill. I think we have a LOT of discussion of intricate geography and a detailed map will really support that text and make it easier on the reader.

I think the county map is very sparse. All it tells you is the spot in Montana, but lacks the rivers or towns or the like. Could go embedded in the bottom of the infobox though (since pictures in infobox are restricted in size, whereas a detailed map may end up being displayed large, in article.

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Voynick map is simple but detailed. The trick is getting one of your graphics guys to do it and how long it'd take. PumpkinSky talk 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not "mine", I just have a huge value for their contributions. Leave a note with Fallschirmjaeger and let him know what you are trying to do. If he can't help, I will suggest another. I urge you to be involved at least in terms of proofing the final product and/or if there are other things you want added to the map (things in article that are not in Voynik). It won't be much work for you, man. You're just leveraging an expert to contribute to the article. Is a really fun interaction.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be able to help you out, just gonna need a few more precise details as to what exactly it is you are after, i.e. a full colour map or line drawing etc and what should be included. Seeing the scan would be a good starting point. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 20:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just emailed you. Please email me back and I can send you the map from the book, which is a line drawing. The map is very accurate as to scale and locations. Anything to add to it to make it prettier than just some black lines would be good. And of course it needs to look good in the same size space as the current state map in the article.PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I got your email cheers, I've replied to it so hopefully you will be able to use my email address to send the attached files. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Gauthier MS thesis I referred to earlier has a more detailed map of the dike geology which shows more mining locations. Probably more detail than needed, but the mines and topography might be useful. Gauthier gives credt for it to an earlier work by a J. P. Dahy in 1991 published in

Dahy, J. P., 1991, Geology and igneous rocks of the Yogo sapphire deposit, Little Belt Mountains in Guidebook of the Central Montana alkalic province, D W Baker and R B Berg, eds; Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special Publication number 100, pp 45-54

I haven't found online access to it, but might be available to a local Montana resident. It was preceded by another MS thesis by Dahy for the Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology in 1988 - haven't found that online either. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a PDF of the Gauthier MS thesis that I can email to people. It map is virtually identical to the Voynick one. PumpkinSky talk 01:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes the location map is from Voynick, I was refferring to the detailed geologic map on p. 20 section 2.4.2 the "Yogi Dike Description". Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That is much more detailed, probably too much so for our purposes but that and the Voynick one would give a graphics person plenty to work with. PumpkinSky talk 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sent Fallschrimjager both files. PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A simpler alternative might be to just see if we can swipe a chunk from a USGS map or something... ask Mike Cline, he's the maps guy. Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox needed?

I wonder if the infobox is really needed. I suspect many of the physical properties are identical to sapphire gems in general or even just aluminum oxide. Not a push as I know Wikians feel more comfortable with boxes. But some articles (like art) tend not to have them. I love technical detail for a hard core chemical article, but I just feel that this is not mostly about that and they can get that at Al2O3 or regular sapphire article.TCO (Reviews needed) 04:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I really like the info box. No article really needs one, not even sapphire or a hardcore science one, but they are useful and functional for any article. So yes keep it. PumpkinSky talk 04:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the infobox is nice, sort of professionalizes a wiki article, the Wikigods like them, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Historic image captions - source?

I just aquired a copy of Voynick and have been doing some reading. I noted the captions on historic images in the book and the article were quite similar - so loaded the Milly Ringold image and found the source of the caption. The image description on the file page is copied from the source and the caption in the article copies from that. Seems that we need to credit the bigskyjournal.com page as a reference for our image caption and maybe use caution about copying directly their text. See the copyright notice at the bottom of their page, the image may be "in the public domain", but their description of it surely isn't.

Our caption for that image "Millie Ringold, c. 1900. The structure in the background is a waterwheel used to power a crusher at Yogo City's Weatherwax Mine" the source caption: "The structure in the background is a waterwheel that was used to power a crusher at Yogo City's Weatherwax Mine." I'm no copyright expert, but that seems to be problematic. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we want to avoid that problem. I'm no expert on this either so someone who is please help fix this? I'll take a stab at it but could such a person follow behind to ensure we're okay on this?PumpkinSky talk 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is knowledgeable and has assisted me with copyright questions previously. You might ask her to take a look and give us some advice. I'm sure she would be willing to help or to clarify the situation for us if she has time. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know her, but I'm sure she's fine. Nikkimaria has helped with this article before, so I'll ask her. PumpkinSky talk 02:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some appropriate policy pages are Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism and Wikipedia:When to cite. Note that it says "Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information." But we should try to avoid plagiarism of course, I'm just noting the policy. Jessemv (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The caption was a bit close, so I've adjusted it. You could source it to Big Sky if you chose, but as it stands I wouldn't say it's mandatory to do so. The text used in the image description is more problematic and should probably be removed and possibly revdeleted (it's hosted at Commons, so I'm not sure what their procedure is; copying image descriptions directly from a source is unfortunately not uncommon). Were there any others that were of concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed all the historic (B&W) captions in an effort to play it safe. PumpkinSky talk 10:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have Voyick, so when I do another round of copyedits, if something just sounds "off" I'll do a reword. Or, if there is anything too close a paraphrase, tag it and I'll figure out an "untainted by access to the original" way to say it. Let me know. Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Now what?

Ok, so via my watchlist I just learned that PumpkinSky has been blocked for sockpuppetry, which based on my experiences with him, is really unfortunate. I also read Montanabw's response on this page, which was well written and I really agree with. PumpkinSky is currently the primary editor of this article with 454 edits, to Montanabw who's in second place with 37. This article is really, really close to FA. Why did the issue have to erupt now?! :( So, my question is, so now what's the plan? We need a new leader I guess. :D Jessemv (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know about that (Montanabw is an excellent candidate, besides an excellent editor, IMO). What I do know is that the External link section was an impediment: please see the recent history for edits and explanations. I note that many of Pumpkin's articles contained EL sections full of spammy links masquerading as valid external links, and sometimes such spam links were used as inline references (see this edit, for instance). Jesse, I saw the GA review, and I think you did a good job esp. if it was your first. However, please don't forget to look at all sections of the article, including the EL section. This one needed serious pruning. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Montanabw's request on my talk, I've started checking the Voynick references in the article against the book. Found a few problems and fixed a couple minor ones. More later. Vsmith (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Finished checking. Ref use verified with couple of caveats. A few instances of close paraphrasing need fixing and a couple of the ref usage didn't support the text or was on pages outside the range given, etc probably due to re-editing paragraphs or some such. Plan a fixing session on the minor stuff later. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Applied some fixes, minor page # changes and removed a couple of specific refs as failed verification. There are a few places with rather problematic close wording to the book and I've noted those in my analysis here. Vsmith (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if we independently verify everything, all will be well. I've yet to do my long-promised overall copyedit anyway, so if you catch stuff, flag it and I'll do a rewrite of each bit as needed if the fix is not straightforward. We may have to support Voynick with some of the commercial sites that we don't like as well, but given the circumstances, having an online link anyone can view, backed by Voynick, might be advisable (I suspect most of the commercial sites used Voynick anyway...) Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy moly, there's a lot of Voynick in there, and not a lot of anything else... Drmies (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I did some browsing around and Voynick appears to have currency, but still, one book reference strikes me as thin. But hey, I'm not an FA reviewer and I don't want to add to the agony. Good luck all, and Montana, always a pleasure to see you. Have you become a dental floss tycoon yet? Drmies (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It does rely heavily on Voynick, but Voynick is quite reliable and is a source for finding other material. Don't know if that's a problem with FA folks, but it is a solid source - even if it lacks web access. Vsmith (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed my first GA review. I made some mistakes that I'll try not to make again, (being too picky about wording/phrasing for one thing) and I'll try to pay more attention to the EL section. I generally stop looking at the page by that point, but it's something I guess I underestimated. Thanks for pointing it out. I had a look at a slightly older version of the page and the ELs weren't all that great and should be fixed before FA. Jessemv (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links section

I'm popping the external links here -- I was the one who added some of them. I think a couple need to go back in: The two Tiffany Iris Brooch links. The Claudiaeneler page shows the entire brooch, with stem, the "Bedazzled" page shows detail of the brooch in the header. As any available images are copyrighted (as is, I think the entire work, though maybe not if Pauling is deceased) and this is probably the most famous piece of Yogo Sapphire jewelry in existence, I feel some way for readers to see what it looks like is nice. As for the rest, I'm keeping them here as they might be backup refs to Voynich. I added a couple more possibilities. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Biography of George F. Kunz
• Birth of a Yogo sapphire (photo sequence showing cutting of 7.73 rough to a 2.62 carat finished gem)
• Development of Montana Sapphire Industry
• Gem Gallery's Yogo history
• JSTOR article from Montana Magazine about Charlie Russell and Jake Hoover
• Mt. Lily Gem's Yogo information
• Tiffany Iris Brooch image
• Tiffany Iris Brooch image

• Alternative image of Tiffany brooch
• And a video that notes the brooch (cool!)

• Sure, but that Endler site--I assume the brooch is the plant-like object toward the bottom? There are no captions for the images, and you'll have to agree with me that the rest of the page is not what we would ordinarily link to. Is the image so necessary that we have to add such links? Drmies (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

when I did more looking, I think endler swiped the photo from the Walters exhibit page. The video I just added is probably the best, it's from the Walters museum, shows the whole brooch as it was placed in the exhibit with the narrator explaining it was the Tiffany brooch of Pauling, made of "Montana" sapphires (grrr) and a detail of the brooch is also used as the header for the whole web site on the "bedazzled" exhibit. If you agree, feel free to pop it back in somewhere, (Boy that thing is beautiful, too... wow) Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

History

The history seems to end abruptly in 2008. However the current owner ended abruptly in the mine in 2012. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120321/NEWS01/203210311/Great-Falls-Yogo-mine-owner-killed-mining-accident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.110.165.221 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Deadlinks, etc

Just ran WP:Checklinks on this article and found several issues including a couple of deadlinks. result Jesse V. (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to find good links or fix the links, put tags on the ones you can't fix so we can figure out what to do with them. How the heck do we get linkrot in just a couple months anyway? Sheesh!! Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

More improvements

Moving the discussion back here. I think we need VSmith or someone to clarify the strike and dip compass orientation stuff. I read the wikilinked article and I still don't quite get it. I read it a while back and tried to reword it, but it still confuses me -- I presume that the 75-degree orientation has something to do with the line of the deposit underground at an angle (hence the technical terminology but I can speak as a minerology noob and admit it's confusing me. Can we clarify that? Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Will take a stab at rewording that later as it reads a bit awkward now and the linked article is a bit technical p'raps :). Vsmith (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Went from the old version, which was "incomprehensible technical language" to the current one, which was my "person knowing nothing of the topic attempts to reword incomprehensible technical language and fails." LOL! What we need is "translation from technical language into plain English by someone who understands the topic AND can explain it to a fifth-grader."  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully more understandable by non-geologists now. Yelp at me if anything bothers you 'bout it. Also should we mention the parallel barren dike just to the north? I'm thinking about working a bit on the sentences following this part based on Delmer L. Brown's work, as the wording is "less than ideal" to me eye. Need to dig into Voynick again as that's the source. Specifically: "the amount of rough sapphires was inconsistent..." and "...the dike's erosion was minimal and recent" bothers me. Back later. Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say go for it. I'll look at your changes and make any tweaks if I think they are needed, or stick in hidden text for small comments. Is the barren dike relevant in some way? If so, include it, but the relevance hurdle is my main concern. Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Montanabw.PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fiddled a bit with the location section wording. The section appears to be based on measurements/interpretations of the small scale map in Voynick (p. 116). Seems perhaps the USGS 7.5' quadrangle maps could be used for checking here ... thinking. Does the Etymology section belong here (in location) or should it be moved to history? Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tks. I'd leave it where it is. PumpkinSky talk 01:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts and some minor issues

As I've been following this article for a while now, I don't think it's appropriate for me to put this in the peer review, so I'm placing it here. I've read the article very carefully, but haven't checked any of the refs. Still, I think there's a pretty good chance that the writing will pass at an FAC, for I find it very detailed, concise, and generally professional. I am impressed! Some thoughts:

• Lead: "carats" is stated twice: "...28,000,000 carats (5,600 kg) carats..." --FIXED, caused by convert template
• Lead: Contains five paragraphs. WP:LEAD says "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs". I guess you need to merge or cut some material out.
• Mineralogy and Geology: "...the most thorough scientific exploration to date..." What date? You can't guarantee that this statement in the article will remain true over time. FIXED, changed to "up to that time"
• Montana sapphires: "Collins sent the sapphires to..." begins in present tense, doesn't end that way. I have a hard time with tenses, so maybe I'm wrong here. Still, you might want to double-check. FIXED, minor ce
• 1940s–1970s: the last couple of paragraphs have visible wiki-syntax in place of blue citations! FIXED, dang how'd that happen?
• 1980s and beyond: "rocked the gem trade" That is the second time I've read that pun, the first was in the lead. Try a synonym; maybe "shook", but there might be something better. KINDA LIKE THAT ONE
• 1980s and beyond: There's a space before a citation: "...and closed in 2004. [82]" FIXED
• 1980s and beyond: No space after comma: "...Sapphire Village,but..." FIXED

That's about all I can find. And by the way, this article contains 5973 words. Good job! :D Jesse V. (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, check out: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Yogo_sapphire These suggestions are from an automated script, so not all of them apply. Still, I think you should make sure everything in there is addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Done except I don't see what is triggering the ref/punct thing. PumpkinSky talk 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It says, "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs." I can review and trim, but it's silly to take out a random paragraph break that improves readability. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

True. I guess I just want you guys to feel prepared. I have a feeling this might be brought up in a FA review. As long as you can defend it with policy, things should be fine. See the Virus article; it's FA status and has way more than three paragraphs. Jesse V. (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Got the Blackfoot language dictionary, no "Yogo." If anyone is interested, this is an Algonquian language, by the way. Put a serious analysis into a note within the article. Went through the entire "y" section, and zilch for anything related blue, sky or romance. For fun, I noticed a few words might be screwed up by English speakers and pronounced "yogo," so I'm noting the here with meanings, but all of this is OR or SYNTH, so just here for everyone to have fun with the concepts: "yo'ko means "head off" or "turn back" (Which, to my ear, might give the "going AWOL or going over the hill" theory some vague mistranslated merit, but that is just a wild guess on my part) "yoohto" means "hear", "yoohkiit" means "different," "yoohko" means "await" or "to wait for," "yoohk" means at or by an entrance, and "yo'ki means to shut or close. "yo'kaa" means "sleep," "Yoohsini" means "to knock senseless." My favorite, "yaoo" is an exclamation of woe, akin to "oh no! Not again!" Going down the rabbit hole a little farther "moto" means "spring" (the season) Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wabbitt whole? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

MTBW -- many thanks for the excellent work! Br'er - excellent joke there!PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lookee here!

Did we miss this? Sketch of the Tiffany Iris Brooch! Too late to add to article?

WOW. Let's swap out the conchita with this for now, but still try to settle the conchita issue and put it back in when settled? I'll let Tim now. PumpkinSky talk 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. But I agree, let's fight for Conchita also, as it's a nice photo and not just a drawing. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Added.PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Location map

Location map of the Yogo mine area from 1902 USGS topographic map

How about using this corner of a 1902 topo sheet to suppliment the location description. It shows Yogo Creek, Yogo Peak, Yogo townsite, Utica, Judith River and its Middle Fork and the location of the mine. It is a redo of an earlier 1897 map. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My only concern here is it's so big it will either take up too much room or if we make it small it won't look good.PumpkinSky talk 02:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It sure is cool, though. Can we run it at the end of a section as a banner, sort of like the photo at the end of hay? Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Location map of the Yogo mine area from 1902 USGS topographic map

That could work out ok.PumpkinSky talk 22:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dust settles, now..?

Yogo sapphire within a lamprophyre matrix, Yogo Gulch, Montana. On display at the Mineral Museum, Montana Tech, Butte, Montana

Was over at the mineral museum in Butte, where they have several yogos of various sorts. Got this one, worth adding or is (cell phone camera) quality too low? Hard to say when I will get there again and if I'll happen to have a better camera if I do... feelings not hurt if deemed too pixellated. Montanabw^(talk) 17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I kinda like it, though I wish it were slightly less blurry. But something just occurred to me... where would we put? We're about to the point that if we add a pic, we have to remove one too.PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems it would be ideal for the mineralogy/geology section as it is a rough in matrix of the dike, and would better illustrate that section than the cut gem images - maybe replace the purple (move elsewhere?). But it is rather blurry .. well very blurry at full resolution. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to keep the purple gem, because it's a purple gem and a good quality shot. We probably could toss File:Point-19 carat diamond cut blue Yogo sapphireCROP.jpg as the weakest of the gem shots and move either the pear or the purple gem down there, leaving room for this one in the mineralogy section. However, I took this shot with my cell phone and I do agree it's not the greatest. If the consensus is that it's not a good enough photo, I may eventually get to that museum sometime again in the next few months, I will probably be going to Butte a fair bit between now and fall. If everyone thinks that it is useful to show how hard it is to get Yogos and its educational usefulness outweighs its technical flaws, I'll still try to upgrade it later. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious in Lede

does this sentence say anything meaningful?

Many gemologists consider them among the finest[dubious – discuss] sapphires in the world

"many gemologists" makes me want to ask who in particular, or at least get a citation "among the finest" X "in the world" sounds like weasel words,

so we get left with "gemologists consider them sapphires"

I think that sentence could go, in fact I'm sufficiently convinced by writing this out that Im going to remove it, feel free to add it back if you think I have erred. EdwardLane (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As the lead is a summary, it's explained much more in the body. As of changes, on a TFA run I always wait til the run is over and then decide what to do.PumpkinSky talk 10:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pumpkin. Also, suberp article! :)--GoP_T^C_{N 15:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)}

Thank you. Glad you liked it. PumpkinSky talk 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on progressing the article. I appreciate having more images in there and also researching more content (probably not easy, given the niche nature of the topic). Also, this is an interesting example of a new Wiki article that actually sort of has decent viewership, but is not a new event (in other words, you filled a gap).

64.134.165.46 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC) (TCO)

Thank you. Glad you liked it. PumpkinSky talk 18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead could benefit from a rewrite

Lead is one of the most important parts of the article and could use some work to be better (to make the gem shine!)

(numbered comments, being edited in, please reply below by number, not interposting)

1. It feels "long". I would not begrudge a country, for instance, 4 medium-long paras, but this is a much less notable topic. Maybe part of it is the writing, too, but I bet if you just put an artificial restriction on yourself to cut 25% of the text (forcing yourself to prioritize), that it will lead to something more interesting to read.

2. First sentence is too long. Be more simple and direct and you will entertain the reader more. Like a punch. In the face.  ;-) Srsly, leave the pigeonfeet stuff for some other sentence in the lead.

Consider: "The Yogo sapphire is a type of corundum gemstone, found only in Yogo Gulch, in Montana." Then, probably get into the color stuff and the difference with other sapphires (not just color, but price, expert praise) pretty quickly. This sort of thing orients the reader. The details of mountains and Indians can come in a later lead para that talks about the location and the geology and such.

3. I don't think you need to mention the town, state, and country. (why not the continent, world, solar system, galaxy?) Also wikilinking the various parts is deprecated (wl Des Moines, Iowa entirely, not part by part). Also, I think the vast amount of people will have heard of Montana. Even furriners. I mean they watch cowboy movies and such. Plus there is the Wikilink for those who goofed off in grade school geography class.

4. Don't link multiple terms that are not separated by at least a comma. "dipping resistive igneous dike". The reason is that you can't tell if the entire term is wikiliked or what. Pick the most important thing to link to. Probably igneous dike. From there, the reader can get to the other terms or to an understanding of types of dikes. If not, then maybe consider simplifying the technical discussion in lead to use less words that need wl-definition.

5. Last two sentences in first para feel a little unrelated to the rest of the para. Might be better if we looked at the lead organization again.

64.134.165.46 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I still would like a diagram of an igneous dike (or even of this one)

Details of geometry/geology really need a picture to rapidly understand concepts. Imaging trying to describe to someone in text what a square knot is...versus having some explanatory diagram.

an example of an explanatory diagram, showing geometry to help the reader understand

Do a Google images shearch on "igneous dike" for a few good diagrams (I think an explanatory diagram is better than some photo). You could show a normal dike and the dipping sort. I quite like the ones with the volcanos. It's like sex appeal to a nerd.

Get someone on Wiki to draw the diagram from scratch. I advise reaching out to User:Jkwchui who is both a scientist and graphic artist, but there are other superstars out there too. If you are nice to the image people, it is amazing what you can get as a result.

64.134.165.46 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)