Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Neon sign
- Reason
- Technically very good photo, encyclopedic. Featured picture on the Commons.
- Articles this image appears in
- Neon signneon when excited by an electric charge. If the image description page and caption could make this connection, and have better documentation, I would consider supporting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No "wow"... Also, if the sign would contain neon, the color should be red, not blue-green... --Janke | Talk 12:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- That statement is incorrect according to Neon. Other colours can be created using mercury vapour and phosphorus, never mind the possibility of using a coloured enclosure that effects the appropriate spectral correction (but would produce additional heat). Samsara (talk •</****Very well put. Given that, should we change it's caption in the article gallery? All it says now is "Neon" and that sounds pretty deceiving to me. --84.90.46.116 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (Of course it'd help to know actually what element was used in there! )
- Above comment was me... didn't know i wasn't in :\ -~-Mad Tinman T C 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understood my first reply. You do still need Neon, but you may also need to have other reagents present as well. All I'm saying here is straight from the Neon article.Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) See below Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- That statement is incorrect according to Neon. Other colours can be created using mercury vapour and phosphorus, never mind the possibility of using a coloured enclosure that effects the appropriate spectral correction (but would produce additional heat). Samsara (talk •</****Very well put. Given that, should we change it's caption in the article gallery? All it says now is "Neon" and that sounds pretty deceiving to me. --84.90.46.116 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (Of course it'd help to know actually what element was used in there! )
- Oppose, in addition to comments above, the Neon letters itself are way overlit. Personally, I think (even though the size is a bit small), Image:NeTube.jpg is an example of a much better image showing this topic. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's neon gas. If you check Neon sign, neon gas produces reddish-orange colors. Who knows what in this? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-02 18:49Z
- See my earlier comments above. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just re-read the various articles about Neon, Mercury etc., and it seems that while it's somewhat ambiguous in the Neon article, it may be true that mercury can produce the appropriate glow without any kind of interaction with neon. If anybody knows the details of this, can they please go and make the corresponding articles a bit clearer. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll Actually Support this.. Neon tubes ARE bright, which the image shows, and it clearly shows the neon tube w/o any disturbing bg.. And i just love this pic.. have has it as wallpaper for weeks now :) Yzmo talk 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The main concern here is the encyclopedic value of the image. It creates the misleading idea that it's Neon gas in there, while neon gas doesn't produce that colour (this illusion, imo, negates the encyclopedic value). Given the way the gallery is set up in the Neon Sign article, which I agree with, this light sign would be far more encyclopedic if it demonstrated the element in it used. --Mad Tinman T C 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)