Talk:Azurite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Azurite is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage. | ||
|
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:
|
|||
The chemical composition is correct, but this is even better: 2CuCO3.Cu(OH)2, Basic Copper(II) Carbonate
Contents |
[edit] Mineral Template
I've noticed that on other mineral pages there is a common template. Could we get that put in here? 169.241.28.71 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Eventually someone will get to including the template. SauliH 14:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Caption under powerdered azurite
The caption underneath the photo of powdered azurite has been edited in an unsatisfactory manner. It seems there are two threads, one stating that azurite as a pigment will discolor in the air over time, which is true. The other thread says no, changes in color are the result of how finely the powder is ground. That is also true, but it is non-sequitur to the first assertion which it claims to refute. At the time of use the color (with respect to deepness of color, but not hue) is determined by particle-size. After use, if the painting is not so thoroughly lacquered or laminated as to seal off atmospheric oxygen, the color will become more green in time, just as smelt-blue becomes more black. This consequence of particle-size is not unique to azurite. According to a book by Helen Rossitti of Oxford, almost any mineral pigment will, as you grind it finer and finer, become whiter and white, more pastel, as you grind smaller and smaller particles. Nor can it be ruled out that the grinding processes catalyzes the oxidizing process, so it may also be true that longer grinding makes azurite not only more pastel but more green-tinged as well.64.131.188.104 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
- I think I'm the culprit for implying that the pictured powder (notably not protected from weathering in that instance, as would be the case in pigments) showed weathering into malachite. I added that comment on the basis that in my own experience that if I ground small, high-purity synthetic crystals of azurite, the resulting powder would be a lighter shade of blue. This is entirely in keeping with the streak test for azurite, which also gives a light blue result. I never noticed any immediate tendency towards greening for powerdering fresh, pure azurite, although I've certainly notices greening over time of samples left in the open. I will readily bow to anyone with actual experience making preparing pigment mixes, however. Terry Bollinger 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tumbling Azurite
Does anyone have any experience with tumbling azurite? I certainly don't. The comments about it taking a "fine polish" and (especially) a "dazzling display of colors" (all blue??) after tumbling both seem a bit off when starting with a soft, all-blue stone. I mellowed the display-of-colors part some, but as I noted, tumbling azurite is not something I every would have tried in the first place, so I can't claim first-hand experience. Anyone? Terry Bollinger 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Massive reduction in Azurite article
For the record, I think the Dec 31, 2007 reduction went way too far. Changing the tone of an article is one think; removing lots of non-trivial content is not the same thing at all. I've yet to undo anything anywhere in Wikipedia, though, as I'd rather see what others think.
Opinions, anyone? Anyone for a compromise? I could, for example, undo the changes and try my own edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Bollinger (talk • contribs) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's the entrails that were removed. My apologies for not being more consultative - I erred in that regard. The graphics were so awful and the chemistry was so wobbly and infantile, that I wielded the knife swiftly, perhaps too fast. For the readability of this talk page, I will remove the long excerpt below in a few days after others have looked it over.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah... "wobbly and infantile"? Gee, thanks.
My original text diagrams -- I had no graphical tool -- were very carefully cross-checked and cross-referenced, and intended to provide accurate specifics about the actual ligand configurations in azurite (and malachite). After all, one cannot apply ligand theory very well if one does not know what the ligands are, yes?
If there were errors, please state precisely what those errors were. Or even better, _correct them_.
The graphics versions of the my diagrams were added much more recently. Their creator was even kind enough to correct one of them after I pointed out that one ligand was missing from it. It was my hope that someone would at some point editing out my old text figures and integrating the new ones in, while keeping specifics intact.
Regarding the discussion about the difference in color between azurite and malachite: I would note that this is probably the first question that pops into the heads of most geology or chemistry students when they find out that the two minerals are very nearly identical in composition. Having an accurate -- and I believe it is -- discussion of how different ligand configurations enable such drastic color changes not only provides insights into ligand theory, but also helps prevents odd misunderstandings based on, for example, an incorrect assumption that there has been a valence change. (That was a real assumption in an earlier reference that I edited out of the article.)
Once again: Unless you have specifics on some serious errors on my part, I would ask that you be so kind as to undo your initial massive reduction of the article.
If you do, I will re-edit the original article for tone, integrate the improved graphics, and use your edits as a guide for compressing the article. (I was a senior editor for a technical magazine for six years; I have some skills there.) Lastly, you could edit as you see fit; I think you would find far less reason to do so by that point.
128.29.43.1 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(That was me; somehow I got auto-logged out. Terry Bollinger (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
-
- Terry go ahead and reinstate what you think should be in there, I had already inserted what I considered to be a concise version of what I saw as the useful content. The more I read the content below, the more I am convinced that it is inappropriate, 3rd-rate, and, yes, an infantile (or maybe 19th century-ish) view of the chemical bonding and optical properties. Nice pictures can be generated from the atomic coordinates and there are some people in WE-chem who are very skilled at this, see sphalerite. Using ChemDraw, the prevailing drawing standard around here, it would be virtually impossible to depict, in a chemically acceptable way, the 3-d structures of extended solid phases as complex as this material. If you want to explain what carbonate is, just link to carbonate. Good luck improving the article, I'll come back after a while.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I largely agree with Smokefoot's removal of content. I tagged the subsection as being of inappropriate tone for Wikipedia - it read like a high school textbook and was far too long in getting across its points.
- I'm reluctant to make criticisms, because I would be gutted if I put time and effort into writing a long section in an article, and then had almost all of it removed. But for the sake of the quality of the article, it has to be done.
- Read it below. Most of it should not be reintroduced. Phrases like "it is reasonable to assume" and "thus would presumably help" made me think of OR, and stuff like "The trivial difference in composition between azurite and malachite raises an interesting question: How can such a small change in ratios produce such a drastic color difference?" is written in lecture or textbook style. It's NPOV to describe a question as interesting!
- Also, there's no need to describe what a coordination compound is, we can just link to complex (chemistry). Some of the explanations are long winded or miss the point, such as "precise distribution of charge that selectively captures particular colors", which avoids the key point that the redistribution of charge removes degeneracy or changes the ordering of the energies of the Cu d orbitals. Just having charge at specific points in space, without the involvement of orbitals, would not explain what happens. Some bits are irrelevant, e.g. "result in long, archaic-sounding names".
- This whole section could be quite succinctly summarised, as Smoke has done. It still needs references, though, to validate the assertion that ligand field theory is an appropriate explanation of the colours of malachite and azurite.
- Perhaps the one point we could retain from Terry's work below is that malachite and azurite have Cu in different coordination environments, and thus have different colours. But again it would need a reference, preferably a recent one from a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Situations of this kind must occur frequently in mineralogy, so let's try and find an expert who can write what we want to say clearly, succinctly and with insight.
- Terry, it's great that you took the time and effort to create this content. Head on over to WP:CHEMISTRY if you want to find more chemical writing to get involved in. Just remember that everything we contribute to Wikipedia is subject to criticism, review, further editing or even removal, all for the sake of getting our articles to meet the criteria for outstanding encyclopedia articles. Don't get downhearted about it!
My wrap up: I concur the point about a need for current references on color issues; mine were the best I could derive online at the time. I am still baffled at the removal of the links to the visualizations. I found multiple sites that provided some help there, but that was the cleanest one I could find. And in case there is any question: I have absolutely no knowledge of the creator of that site, his school, or (other than using them) the visualization tools he (she? I don't even know) used. It was purely a Google search process, one on which I spent some significant time.
Regarding archaic terminology: I put in the best available terminology I could find at the time, derived entirely and by my choice from some silly thing called "Wikipedia". I even noted how bizarre the names were, but stuck to them because the whole point of Wikipedia is supposed to be good cross referencing, yes? My hope was that experts with degrees in geology or chemistry would come in and update such items with new info and new references. I would still like to see that happen, since they give very specific information about Azurite.
While I can understand it the tone issue, I cannot concur that me commenting on how some aspect of Azurite is "interesting" is NPOV. The problem is that if one takes that level of interpretation -- that _any_ expression of relevance of a topic to answering questions that someone might have -- then the very existence of an article could be viewed as NPOV because it indicates someone, somewhere found the topic "interesting" or "relevant." As an avid fan of the writings of Richard Feynman, I find it very sad to think that almost none of his popular works on physics would have made the cut for use in Wikipedia. They are quite littered with expressions of interest, fascination, surprise, and enjoyment at the way the physical world is put together. I have without a doubt been influenced by reading far too many of his works, and freely admit to it.
I do concur that somewhere else is the best place to discuss it in that level of color issues in detail. Specifics on Azurite coordinate complexes belong here, however, if properly referenced. Again, I did the best I could with what I could find online at that time, which was well before the creation of many of the new oversight groups.
The multiple positive remarks are appreciated. However, I would also ask that you (Smokefoot) please reconsider the intent, versus the letter, of the no personal attacks policy. I am referring in particular this sentence: "... Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." The proposition that "infantile" is fine as a description of a Wikipedia contribution and is not a remark about the mental capacities of the author of that article can certainly be made, but I rather doubt most contributors to Wikipedia who are hit with that kind of description of their contributions would concur. A better approach would be to say that it is "factually incorrect" (but mine was not, I gather?) or "would be far more understandable if presented using improved graphics".
There is also the very real risk that once such a "hot" word is used, the contributor will focus on that from then on, and pretty much ignore all other comments, even positive ones. I am a case in point, and freely admit it, although I also am trying very hard to keep my focus on better approaches. The remark hit harder in my case given that no one seems to be disputing the facts of what I added -- and I started from an article that had very few facts in it -- but rather my lack of nice graphical tools and my reliance on Wikipedia itself for the aged terminology I used.
In any case, the Azurite article is now fully yours. I will not interfere with it anymore.
Sincerely, Terry Bollinger (my real name, incidentally)
