User talk:Ditaylor/draft Gloss

To Do

Hi Dave (and Andrew?), I have made a start on getting the article into a decent format. List of things to do:

~~Get paragraph etc formatting right~~ (note I think you can only have 2 layers of heading and subheading so I have just bolded the headings you wanted as 1.1.1 etc.)
Upload pictures (I could have done this but I don't know what copyright tags you want to use on them)
~~Put in picture links~~
~~Put in article links~~
~~Sort out references~~
~~Put in equations~~

Can you please check what I've done (particularly that I am linking to the relevant articles) and I guess we can discuss what else needs doing after the pictures and equations go in JMiall 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have carried on with various edits including copying across various bits from the original article that had got missed out (interwiki-links, equations, etc), including fixing the TeX of the equations so that sin and cos were right. I think that the article is very nearly there, in fact I think that some time after we decide that we are happy with this article and copy it to the main namespace we should put it up for peer review, this will give it more exposure and improve it and you never know, it might eventually get up to featured article status. Anyway, things still to do:

upload images
sort out image tags (filename, size & positioning)
uncomment some of the categories & interwiki links at the bottom (I didn't want any links to this page yet, if they would have been generated) JMiall 18:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equations

Hi,

Andrew here. Looks great James.

I think we shoudl change a couple of the equation notations: Refractive index should be 'n' not 'm' Angle for incidence should be 'θ' not 'i'.

Unfortunately the equation images previously used are rendered obselete!

I note also two hanging definitions (gloss meter and goniophotometer) - are we doing these too then?!

A

The equation images are rendered as the page is generated from TeX code. All we need to do is change the code. In general some people like red links, some people don't. I thought that these two things were possible subjects for encyclopedic articles, we don't necessarily have to write the articles as somebody else might come along and do that for us (maybe unlikely on a subject like this though). If we thought that there should be articles (eventually) but thought that our page on gloss was the best place for the information (for now) we could take out the links and put redirects on those pages to our article, eventually this article could gather up info on gloss meters etc and when it got too big we could move it to its own article. ps you can sign your name (or in your case IP address) and time of writing using 4 tildes JMiall 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the m's in the equations to n's. Without redoing Figure2 we can't change i to

\theta

. Also it seems to be usual to bottom post around here so I've reordered things slightly. JMiall 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Questions

I've reread the article and had a bit of a think about it here's some questions and improvement suggestions etc.

Why may we think of gloss as a mirror-like reflection if we haven't been told what gloss is yet?
Why aren't mirrors particularly glossy? (things appear superimposed on their surfaces quite well)
Why are 6 different ways of describing gloss needed?
Why is gloss paint / varnish etc actually glossy?
Can we have a scale of the glossiness of different materials
How do you decide to use the mirror or non-mirror gloss scale for any surface?
The old gloss article mentions that the SGU scale is linear with reflected intensity, this seems to have got lost in this version.
What angular width do you measure the reflectance over?
Is the glass in the definition of 100 SGUs in air? Why that wavelength of light and refractive index? Is there anything special about them?
We find out later on in the article that gloss is defined for a transparent flat surface. Should this be said before definitions of 'what flatness is' are introduced? If not then the surface roughness section needs an intro explaining why it is being mentioned.
What is the visual assessment scale on fig3
I think that we should take out the redlinks and then put redirects to this page from 'gloss meter', 'goniophotometer', 'SGU', 'Specular Gloss Unit', 'Glossiness' and anything else you can think of. A redirect from 'glossy' already exists.
Why are there a lot of industrial standards for gloss measurement?

Some of those questions may not be answerable I suppose in a short article, but some might. Sorry for the large number... JMiall 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]