Talk:Glass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleGlass is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2004Featured article reviewKept
July 21, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 17, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
October 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 15, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
November 10, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017[edit]

I understand that Glass is NOT a solid, is liquid, but at our atmospheric temperature it solidify. 104.36.138.18 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but just what did you wish to change? Vsmith (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"Yes,..."?
Why did Vs say that, rather than "No, but in accordance with your request via the title of your talk-contrib immediately above, specifically what did you wish to change or have changed?" ??
--Jerzyt 20:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading image[edit]

Image at Glass#Structure is misleading and wrong - silicon is shown as 3 coordinate - even as a 2d projection this error is not acceptable.5.198.10.236 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That is the conventional way of representing a continuous random network that you would find in all sources from Zachariasen's original model. Polyamorph (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lime[edit]

change ((lime)) to ((Lime (material)|lime)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:F5D7:5960:169F:B409 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. By the way, links use brackets: [[...]], rather than parentheses: ((...)). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

sustained glass production in South asia is earlier than Mesopotamia, Egypt[edit]

The Late Harappan faience beads in the pot were made in unique shapes and with different coloring than during the Harappan period. Azure blue faience beads may have been intended to replicate lapis lazuli, while the bright turquoise colored faience of the Late Harappan period is extremely compact and glassy. A red-orange colored glass bead that looks very much like imitation carnelian was also found in the pot and represents the earliest glass in the Indus Valley. The pot was found in levels dating to before 1700 BC and possibly even as early as 1900 BC. On the basis of this well dated bead and numerous other surface finds that appear to date to the Late Harappan period, we can say that glass production in the Indus valley is an indigenous development and slightly earlier than glass production documented in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The earliest sustained glass production in Mesopotamia is around 1600 BC and in Egypt it appears around 1500 BC (Moorey 1994: 190 ff).

Bead Technologies at Harappa, 3300-1900 BC: A Comparative Summary JONATHAN MARK KENOYER 115.135.118.112 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glass/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


Plan[edit]

This is a promising and well-structured article of a good length on a major topic.

However I note that the previous review failed because many citations were missing. They still are. I also notice that many book citations are lacking a page= (or pages=) parameter. I'd also note that the structure with "History of silicate glass" in the middle, and a bizarre list subsection "Chronology of advances in architectural glass", is curious, followed as it is by a list of "Other types", with a "Gallery" section which again is historical, though dates and provenance will be needed for each image (e.g. the Uranium glass cake stand is apparently by Adolf Patera, 19th century). The history should clearly cover all types of glass at least briefly, and the images should be close to the text that they illustrate, so quite a bit of new writing and some restructuring will be necessary.

However, before I go into any kind of detail on this review, I would like to know nom's intention and plans for filling these gaps, e.g. to work on it step by step each day for ten days, and to see this plan being put into action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have attempted to elicit a response. I am happy to review this if and when you (or anyone else, actually) feel like having it reviewed and choose to reopen it. Until then, this is closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap:, I'm not the GA nominator, but I'm happy to help address some of these issues. Was your intention that you want them addressed before you continue your review? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would be best. The GA instructions make it clear that reviewers can quick-fail a nomination if many citations are missing, for example. I suggest you check and update the article against this and the earlier review, then nominate it and ping me, and we should be able at that point to complete the GA process without much complication. I'm happy to work through things at GAN but there's not a lot of point starting with known problems. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi @Chiswick Chap:, I've re-nominated this article for GA review. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Hello. The reason why your comments failed to elicit responses was that the writer of a large part of this article (it was a major tidy-up, really) had got pissed off, and gone on Sabbatial.
I'm back. The bits that you are likely to delete are pobably mine. Go ahead. You might feel like changing the form of the whole article. Be my guest!
My main area of expertise is architectural history.
If you delete the section n developments in building glass, the best thing to do, so that no-one gets cross, is to reformulate it into a list with boxes and pictures, as a separate article specifically of list form. There are peopl who love making lists, and once you have done it, others will add to it.
I don't think it is quite ready for a GA review yet.
Amandajm (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Amandajm: The article is already under review, you are commenting on a closed review page. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Glass/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

Well, first of all, many thanks for the effort to improve this article.

Two critical items remain from the previous GAN:

  • There are quite a few apparently uncited statements, such as paragraphs that end without a ref.
  • Several citations to books do not have page references: they all need 'em.

Specific comments[edit]

  • "Although glass is generally corrosion-resistant[69] and more corrosion resistant than other materials," needs rephrasing.
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Other properties - paragraph on tensile strength should mention glass fibre, explaining briefly why it is so strong.
  • Soda-lime-silicate glass is transparent, easily formed, and most suitable for window glass (see flat glass) and tableware.[85][86][87][88][89][90] - why does this simple statement need six citations? And the (see flat glass) needs to go.
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The Glass art section should have a gallery like the other sections with a small number of images chosen to illustrate the range of types of glass art discussed - I see Cameo glass, Art Nouveau, Tiffany, glass sculpture, installation art, "use of stained glass" (in modern art, presumably) and so on, so all those should be represented.
  • Glass art: also missing is discussion and illustration of "vitreous enamels" which are mentioned in the lead and in "lead glass" but not explained anywhere. We ought to have examples at least of Cloisonné and Champlevé enamels as major techniques, of course there are many others.
  • The paragraph on Waterford crystal ... Depression glass seems out of place in Glass art as it is about tableware. Same goes for the following paragraph about bowls, vases, bottles, except for the brief mention of sculpture and installation art: i.e. the section must be focused on "Glass art". I suggest you read that article and ensure that what we have here is a brief precis of it, suitably cited. By the way, why do we have both "Glass art" and "Art glass"? They seem to be substantial WP:FORKs. Anyway, for this GAN you need to summarize all the "Main articles" in this section.
 Comment: Glass art, Art glass, and Studio glass all seem to be content forks. Polyamorph (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Talking of which ... there isn't a section on Tableware, nor even a more general one on Uses, which would include tableware, window glass, insulators, enamelled baths and so forth. This does seem necessary: it will obviously be a bit of a "link farm", and it should therefore be in "summary style" written as a brief overview of the many existing articles on all the relevant topics, richly linked and briefly cited to general sources.
  • "Behaviour of antique glass" seems a bit out of place: I think it is essentially an aside or footnote to "Physical properties". It's interesting but a bit verbose; I suggest it be moved and shortened a bit under a heading on "supposed flow" or something of that sort. The last sentence doesn't belong at all and is uncited, so we can file that under "R".
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Museums" doesn't seem to fit here at all. Since it's a sub-heading of "Glass art" I'd suggest it belongs in that article, i.e. we chop it.
 Done (section already exists in Glass art. Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The gallery in the "Colour" section needs to be chosen to illustrate the section, i.e. we should have examples of Sulphur-tinged yellow glass, Iron II and Chromium III green glass, etc. Clearly Cobalt can produce blue, so that needs to be mentioned and cited in the text. i.e. text and gallery should match and should make "the main points" per the GA criteria. So, how d'you make red glass? - example and ref, please.
 Comment: with images we are limited by what is available in commons. I have added some new images and explanation, hopefully this is good enough? Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It's splendid, a huge improvement in clarity and simplicity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 147 is to Lulu, a self-published source: needs replacing.
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Colloidal glasses" is basically off-topic for this article as the matter is at best "glass-like". Perhaps "Colloid" is a See also item.
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There is something very wrong with the photo of "Quartz sand". Why not use File:Quartz sand.jpg which looks like what it is.
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

This article is much improved from its previous state, good work. Some material still needs to be cut, and a small amount needs to be developed. Some citations need work. Once that's done, this will be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Chiswick Chap: I'll start working through your comments, starting with the low hanging fruit. What is the timescale for this to be done? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Officially it's a week, but let me know if you need longer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on a couple of papers IRL at the moment, so it is likely to take me longer than 1 week to address everything. Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Understood. Let's aim at 2 weeks then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully that will be do-able! Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've no idea about the transclusion tricks. Normally it sets itself up automatically, but I foolishly used the mobile app which of course made a horlicks of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, I managed to transclude the page in Talk:Glass, but then it wouldn't allow the review page to be edited by clicking the section edit button. So I reverted myself. I've been working on colour this evening, still a bit more to be done on that section. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)