Jump to content

Talk:Logan Sapphire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo request

[edit]

okAccotink2 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk05:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Sapphire
Logan Sapphire
  • ... that the egg-size Logan Sapphire (pictured) glows reddish-orange under ultraviolet radiation? Source: "The sapphire is [...] about the size of a large chicken egg" [1]; "Under longwave ultraviolet radiation the stone fluoresces a moderate reddish-orange." [2]

5x expanded by DanCherek (talk). Self-nominated at 03:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is eligible due to recent 5x expansion – DYKcheck doesn't agree, but nominator's character count appears accurate. Long enough and within DYK-relevant policies. Hook is interesting and of appropriate length, and the image is both free and clear. Looks good to me! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the hook, with the image, to Prep 7Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Logan Sapphire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, I'll review this article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very long article so not a ton of comments here, but the article is quite good quality-wise regardless. Placing on hold. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • link Carat (mass) in first sentence
    Done. DanCherek (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel as though it would sound more natural to say "The Logan Sapphire has been on display in the National Gem Collection of the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., since [year]", as opposed to using "As of" (same thing for the second-to-last sentence of the article), though if you disagree, then "As of" should use {{As of}} rather than plain text.
    I like that, changed to "since 1971". DanCherek (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description

[edit]
  • I'd link carat here too
    Done. DanCherek (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it had not previously undergone heat treatment" → link Heat treating
    Done. DanCherek (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Logan Sapphire is one of the largest faceted blue sapphires in the world" → does this mean it has the largest faces? This is a bit unclear
    No, this was meant to convey that of the faceted blue sapphires in the world, it is one of the largest of them (so referring to the entire gemstone). This was a little tricky, but I switched "faceted" and "blue", so that it now reads "one of the largest blue faceted sapphires in the world" – does that extra separation between "largest" and "faceted" help? DanCherek (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The diamonds were likely taken from an antique bracelet or necklace." → This sentence is unsourced; if it uses Ref 2 at the end of the next sentence, just use Ref 2 here again
    Yep, ref 2 (source: "A close examination of the setting reveals that the round diamonds surrounding the sapphire likely were part of an antique necklace or bracelet that was repurposed to make the sapphire brooch/pendant.") → re-added the footnote as suggested

History

[edit]

References

[edit]

Everything looks good here - formatting is good too.

Images

[edit]

Hi PCN02WPS, thanks for the review! These comments were helpful, I've responded to each of them above. Let me know if you have any additional feedback or comments! DanCherek (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, this one looks good to me! I'm happy with the changes and I don't see anything else that would warrant fixing so I'm happy to give this a pass. Well done! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.