Talk:Contarex
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Contarex issues
[edit]Hallo Jan von Erpecom,
I can see at once that you are highly knowledgeable about historic cameras, and that you have taken great care to be accurate and clear in articles such as Contarex.
However, ... there are some issues about the construction of Contarex (article) that I believe need attention. I hope you won't mind if I'm very brief about them.
1) The lead section should summarize the rest of the article, without adding claims of its own. (Therefore, it generally does not need to be cited.) However the lead in Contarex talks about Zeiss Ikon - not the subject of the article - and talks about other cameras. This may be good for background but is certainly not what should be in a lead (WP:LEAD).
2) Good sources are named in references 1..5, but these are not used in most of the body of the article, which remains uncited (WP:V).
3) Articles are supposed to avoid describing instructions (WP:HOWTO), but a substantial part of the article is very close to being instructional.
4) The article style is largely that of an expert explaining a complex topic, as when a skilled engineer gives a technical but "chatty" talk: in short, it feels like 'original research' (WP:OR). It feels very far from the usual tone of the encyclopedia, where each fact is neutrally stated (WP:NPOV), and supported by a citation.
I believe these issues apply also to other articles such as Nikon F, Exacta, Kine Exacta, and no doubt many others, so I suspect this list of issues will seem somewhat unwelcome, for which I apologize. However, given the accumulation of Wikipedia policies in recent years, it is probably appropriate to consider them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'v provided new txt as pr above.--Jan von Erpecom 14:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contarex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006175942/http://contarex.photomoritz.com/crex_lenses.html to http://contarex.photomoritz.com/crex_lenses.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Need some current and period data
[edit]Cameras like these and their bits are commanding pretty good prices, and it would be helpful if there were some links or other data to collector type pages, with maybe a chart to excerpt key data like "sold new in 1960, for $80. Current collector value lists from $128 to $899." Perhaps there could be or is a Wikipedia project for collector photography or related to standardize this? I'm sure there is precedence. Comments? --Xgenei (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)