Talk:Mineralogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Mineralogy was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Comment[edit]

As not being at all knowledgable in this area, shouldn't this be article be filed under mineral instead, and information on the science itself be placed here? A little linking shouldn't hurt either. Otherwise a fine article indeed, jam packed with fact :-) --Anders Törlind

Is the above comment still relevant? The page it refers to seems to have been modified to describe the science, not just minerals. --David R Dick

List of good books?[edit]

Does anyone else think that a list of good books in the subject of mineralogy would be a good idea? --David R Dick

Yes, as long as it contains Putnis' "Introduction to Mineral Sciences", which is a wonderful text book!

Earth science?[edit]

I think that mineralogy is not only an "Earth science" anymore. Maybe something about mineralogy of other Solar System planets, asteroids and meteorites could be mentioned by somebody who knows more on this topic. Jan.Kamenicek 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Geology Project. Please Help[edit]

If you are interested, please sign up to help establish the Geology Project. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Geology. Solarapex 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there an interest in starting a page for J.F. Henckel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annlanding (talkcontribs) 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

I pretty much added the entire history section, which has beefed up the article quite a bit from where it was before. Historical background for mineralogy is important, but if someone could clarify and expand upon the modern mineralogy section, that would be great too.--PericlesofAthens 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added all the subsections to 'Modern Mineralogy'. The article is looking very good, I think good enough for featured article status. What do others here think?--PericlesofAthens 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold[edit]

I've placed this article's Good Article nomination on hold, for minor breaches of the manual of style, and because it doesn't read very comfortably in places. The criteria are available here.

It could relatively easily be brought up to speed by addressing the following points:

  • The Lede section is very short for an article of this length. Expand?
  • The quotes from Shen Kuo are very long. Is this necessary? Are they really adding to the article? Truncate if possible.
  • Lists - remove or expand as per MOS advice
  • Scope of article - whilst it's reasonably broad in its coverage, it goes into perhaps uneccessary detail in the history section, whilst brushing over Modern Mineralogy. These should be contracted and expanded appropriately.
  • References are restricted to the historical section. Try to incorporate more into 'Modern Mineralogy'.
  • Jargon-watch - there's a lot about in the Modern Mineraology section, even for someone who's au fait with the subject. Rewrite this in a sense that's more accessible for the casual reader.

Those criticisms aside, the writing style on the whole is very good, and the article is nearly there... I'm afraid it just needs a few loose ends tying off!

All the best, Verisimilus T 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got rid of the quotes of Shen Kuo, converting the info of them into summarizing, single-sentence prose.--PericlesofAthens 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

GA failure[edit]

The points above were not all addressed. Feel free to resubmit the article once they have all been met. Verisimilus T 09:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Hope diamond[edit]

Dear Editors,

Today I spent some time, reading various existing Wiki’s articles, and I found the photo of The Hope Diamond in the article ‘Mineralogy’.

As this diamond already has been cut and set into a pendant, it is very strange to see this image in the article ‘Mineralogy’: it will be more appropriate to use this photo for the articles ‘Gemmology’ or ‘Jewellery’, but not for ‘Mineralogy’, as 'Hope' on this photo represents not a mineralogical sample with natural surface, but already processed (cut into gem) mineral carbon.

To represent The Hope Diamond properly, as a mineral in the article ‘Mineralogy’, it's necessary to display the photo of the rough diamond, from which 'Hope' was cut into a brilliant. In connection with what was said above, I’m considering the photo of The Hope Diamond in the article ‘Mineralogy’ as a mistake. Can someone of my colleagues-Wikipedians have a look at this article and tell me what they are thinking about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineralogy

Regards, ChrisChris Oxford (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a good point. All of the crystals in that infobox seem to have been chosen because they are pretty. No harm in that, all other things being equal, but maybe the collection should have a more informative theme like the most common minerals on Earth. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, I would be inclined to go further. This page is about mineralogy, not minerals, so a picture of something related to the study would be more appropriate. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: see User_talk:Chris_Oxford#Help me! for the comments by Huon and DESiegel. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Editor Huon for good advise and for spotting the right articles for the photo of Hope Diamond. In my view it’s absolutely correct. By the way, there is the photo of Hope Diamond in the article Diamonds, and I agree, that this is rather more suitable place for ‘Hope’, than the article Mineralogy.


I fully agree with Editor DES that the diamond after cutting into brilliant remains the same hardest naturally-occurring mineral form of carbon, but I will try to explain why I am confident, that regarding the image of Hope Diamond my opinion is correct: I realize, that Gemmology is the branch of the Mineralogy, but still they have specific purposes and separate directions, where one object is studied under different angles. Gemmology is about natural AND MAN-MADE gems, whereas the Mineralogy studies only naturally formed (as result of geological processes) minerals. Gemmology generally — it's about a specific stage of presentation of minerals - the stage, when the minerals have been processed, one way or another (cut, polished, tumbled), and also about study of gems’ properties and qualities, acquired after processing the raw materials into gemstones, which can be used commercially in jewellery production. Certainly, gemmologist should also be well versed in matters of Mineralogy, but Gemmology and Mineralogy are two different, albeit related, branches of science, and in my view, each of them should be illustrated in accordance with their differences.

Thanks for reply, RockMagnetist, I totally respect your point of view: mineralogy is the science, so, its demanding the preciseness and accuracy of definitions and descriptions of the studied objects and correct presentation of their visual appearance, as without such an approach is impossible to create a proper system of the study.

P.S. Just a moment ago I looked at the article Mineralogy again and noted, that one of the Editors, who obviously has agreed with my arguments, has already removed the discussed photo. Thanks - now Mineralogy looks like a serious article, without photos “chosen because they are pretty” (as Editor RockMagnetist aptly remarked), but not completely pertinent to the case.

Great thanks to all editors who responded.

Best regards, Chris Oxford. Chris Oxford (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: You're welcome. That editor was me. The picture was the least of the problems with this article. It was way out of date, basing much of its content and organization on an encyclopedia from the early 20th century. So I have added some decent sources and started to rewrite the content. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Discussion.[edit]

Dear Editors,

I’m inviting those of you, who are considering Mineralogy, as one of important and endlessly interesting fields of science, which deserves to the nth degree to have its own Wikipedia Mineralogy Barnstar, to visit a following section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards

This section is not visited very often by Wikipedians, and the authors of new Barnstars usually invite for discussion those Editors, who are interested in the related fields of science, art, etc. I have uploaded the Mineralogy Barnstar today and will be very glad to know your opinion; if you will find the introduced design as a good one, please, give your support in the section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards; for that you will need to write: “Support -” and to give a short comment.

I have tried numbers of combinations of colours for the Mineralogy Barnstar, which should sound compatible with the colour of amethyst crystal in the centre, and I decided to chose this version, as a golden colour on the points matched comfortable with the colour of the base of the crystal, and red colour isn’t in conflict with purple. I excluded such colours, as blue and green, as they will optically reduce the brightness of purple, and to attract the attention of observers to the mineral in the centre, it was chosen not to employ busy multicolour design for the points of Barnstar . Using the Original Barnstar as a base, I tried to make design simple in colouring and outlines. A single crystal of amethyst, looking as “a little light”, which comes from the “darkness of the past geological eras”, helps to represent appropriately the assents of idea.

To be completely precise, I should mention here, that the idea to introduce Mineralogy Barnstar belongs to me and I done my best to arrange design of the Barnstar’s points in harmony with the image of mineral in the centre, but the idea to use this photo has been given to me by the one of the most respected Wikipedians, who decently decided to present me with all author’s rights for this design, as I have done the rest of this work, but I feel, that it should be told.

The author of the photo of amethyst is Parent Géry.

Your opinion will be greatly appreciated.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)