This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
Pass, this is very detailed and encyclopedic. For improving this to FA level I would consider adding the graphs covering its use and perhaps going into a little more technical on the details, but nothing is lacking and all the important pieces are covered already.
The websites linked were very interesting, showing a great deal of differences between the lenses. And I know this isn't a copy vio, but the wording of, "This is the first ultra wide zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors." versus "It is the first ultra wide rectilinear (non-fisheye lens) zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors." Seems a tad close, but technically there is little rearranging you can do without garbling the meaning. Good job. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Hope that's being sarcastic. According to the WP:GACR it seemed fine to me. I'm not a literary major and I did note it needed polishing for FA level. If my contributions are unwanted, I won't do GA's any more since rather then providing constructive commentary, the nominee now you have commented poorly about it. I'd have preferred both comments about it on my talk page first, if anyone disagrees, but whatever. No one is an expert in everything, and few people are experts at anything which comes to GAN, I felt comfortable enough with the subject and tried to review it fairly and accurately.
I think WP:GACN is applicable here. GACN says external link guidelines are not a requirement for GA, just because way way down in the article says that references used in the article should not be linked without a good reason doesn't mean that the article as a whole can't be passed. So I forgot to capitalize the 'v' in vignetting, that's the only thing which was wrong with it. Everything else is completely optional to someone interpretation of prose. Though you didn't catch 'everything'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Altered my style comment. I'll just fix the error before I go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say. The "v" was the least of my concerns. I don't see the need to ask someone on their talk page whether I should remove duplicate External links that are already cited in the references, GA or not. No, my comment was not sarcastic: I've reviewed GAs, and I've had GAs reviewed, and proper writing is a given: it's the first item in the list. If I understand you correctly, the nominator criticized your review? I have no knowledge of that, and little interest in it. The GAN history tells me it's TonyTheTiger (it's not listed in the review), but I can't find where you were criticized. But that's beside the point anyway. I made copyedits to the article which needed to be done even if this never goes up for FA, and literary major or not (also beside the point), you made only a few minor edits--a typo and an automated run-through. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean to--but I don't see how my edits were beyond what GA calls for, and I am disappointed with the attitude (which TTT has as well, I think) that if something isn't explicitly called for in the GA criteria it's not relevant. None of this is to say that I don't appreciate your work because I do: GA reviews aren't always fun. But it's kind of like being an admin--the only time you get feedback is when someone wants to bitch at you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want it to be read like that. I don't want to come across as having an attitude, but its rough when you get mixed messages. I'll message your talk about it. Sorry if it came across wrong. I get told not to do X but to do Y and people get mad at me for doing Y and say do X. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
