Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canon T90/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WikiProject Photography and Morven. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though informative, this article has a few issues:
- 1a. A few minor problems; the tone is rather inconsistent and needs to be made more professional.
- 1c. It has a glaringly short "Notes" section, with only 13 inlines, and many sections do not have citations. It would be good to incorporate some of the references from the "References" section as inline citations.
- 2b. A bit too many sections.
This article was promoted back in 2005, when the standards were lower, so it needs a major rewrite to bring it up to 2008 FA quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Is that last line a piece of boilerplate? Three criticisms does not equal 'major rewrite' to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be working on the references to get them to 2008 standard, though; this was what was the standard in 2005 when only major sections or controversial points got inline refs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many sections? I'm not sure I agree; they're all multiple paragraphs and I think combining any would reduce the readability of the text. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs a bit of MoS cleanup after you finish the citing work, but I don't see the "too many sections" issue at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and organization (2). Marskell (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. The references have seen no improvement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you guys hold off for a little? I'm in the middle of a very busy couple of weeks at work, which should slacken off about the middle of next week; students return on Monday, and we have a lot of preparation. After that, I should be able to improve this. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove.Most certainly agree with King of Hearts (talk · contribs). The article could also do with some more secondary sources, instead of such an over-reliance on primary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- For factual information on operation, any secondary source is going to be itself sourced from those primary sources and will therefore gain nothing except distance from the facts. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. Relying so heavily on primary sources instead of secondary sources opens the article up to risk that whichever Wikipedia editor used those primary sources made personal inferences into those sources. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so for some facts, but really, the operation of a camera? Are you serious? Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Otherwise we risk venturing into WP:OR violation territory. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore all rules is there for a reason. How you could possibly think that different interpretations on the working of a camera, of all things, could be significant enough to violate the OR policy is utterly beyond me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Otherwise we risk venturing into WP:OR violation territory. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so for some facts, but really, the operation of a camera? Are you serious? Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. Relying so heavily on primary sources instead of secondary sources opens the article up to risk that whichever Wikipedia editor used those primary sources made personal inferences into those sources. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still agree with King of Hearts (talk · contribs), but striking my Remove per comment above by Morven (talk · contribs) that work is pending and progress will be made on improving the referencing to 2008 standard. Cirt (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For factual information on operation, any secondary source is going to be itself sourced from those primary sources and will therefore gain nothing except distance from the facts. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding until Morven is ready. Marskell (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pressure at work is now down and I'm pulling together my references again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove until issues with referencing are taken care of. Wizardman 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave this one plenty of extra time as well as a user talk notice. With FAR backlogged, it's time to remove. Marskell (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.