|Gloss (optics) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Gloss (optics) and Gloss (paint) articles really describe two aspects of the same phenomenon, the former with theoretical and the latter with practical application. They would be best treated in a single article, particularly because both are rather stubby. I plan to perform the merge soon, unless anyone has an objection. No such user (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is a good idea, for exactly the reason you say. The optics article is theoretical and mathematical. Paint is paint. I can't imagine it being a very long article, but it would seem to be of a kind with articles on actual substances applied to surfaces. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Cynwolfe, pretty much. Paint and optics are different things, albeit related ones. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Why does Matte redirect here?
- I fixed it by redirecting to wiktionary definition of matte. The Matte article got moved to wiktionary then bizarrely redirected to this page. Bhny (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The visual evaluation of the gloss of a surface is a complex interaction between the observer’s eye and the surface of the object. This process depends on a number of psychophysical factors that can affect visual perception including age, gender, mood and day of the week amongst others.
First of all, this is a wild-sounding statement that will eventually crumble under discussion.
Second, there is a lack of coherence between the two sentences -- a "complex interaction" between the eye and the object would be a physical interaction, and thus not subject to the psychological factors mentioned in the next sentence. The "complex interaction" sentence should be re-phrased so that psychological effects are not excluded from the get-go, and then the massive psychological dependence of the second sentence will not come as such a shock.
A more trivial point -- it may be complex, but it's not a true interaction -- it's a one-way deal, the eye does not send signals back to the viewed object. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)