Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autostereogram/archive2

Autostereogram[edit]

This is a self-nomination. This article was first nominated by User:Skittle two months ago and it went through a month-long enhancement, mainly in inline citation. It has been a month since the nomination was retired. And I believe all previous problems are now addressed. The article was given Wikipedia:Good articles status on June 29th. Fred Hsu 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like it deserves to be featured. 11kowrom 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apprecate that the images are necessary to explain the subject, but the current layout is pretty messy, and I'm sure must look worse at some resolutions.--Peta 05:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative objection. Agree with Peta and also find the style unencyclopaedic in places:
- "converging the two eyes at a point behind the pattern" - how about "focus"?
- "One needs to fight this urge"

Looks like a great article otherwise.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first quote doesn't refer to focus. Both eyes are focused on the image (they have to be or else it would be blurry, 3D or not), they are just focused on different parts of it, so the lines of sight intersect at a point behind the image. I'm not sure how the wording could be improved... —Keenan Pepper 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The layout seems to work at 800 width with Monobook. Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the layout: I've tried very hard to make these images fit better, but it was almost impossible to make it better (see formatting issues during peer review and layout discusion. I know this article is not a typical wikipedia article. The ratio of images to text is way higher than the norm. Fred Hsu 01:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the 'urge' sentence: You have a good point. I rephrased that sentence :) Fred Hsu 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—2a. It was looking well-written until I hit "such as in a repeating pattern like you might see on wallpaper", which crashes on several counts. Further scrutiny revealed problems such as:
- "Julesz used a computer to create a stereo pair of random-dot images which when viewed under a stereoscope, caused the brain to see 3D shapes. This proved that depth perception was a neurological process."—Tense: shouldn't it be "cause" and "is", for permanent facts? More commas please, such as after "which". Please go through and audit the text with respect to both of these issues.
  - Keenan already fixed these and a few dozen other bad sentences. Fred Hsu 03:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Around 1849-1850, David Brewster, a Scottish scientist, improved the Wheatstone stereoscope by using lenses instead of mirrors, thus reducing the size of the contraption. Brewster also noticed that staring at repeated patterns in wallpapers could trick the brain"—Can't you make it "In 1849 and 1850"? (Maybe not; it just looks awkward as is.) Get rid of "also" to strengthen the flow of the text. The word reduces the impact of your main point (what he noticed).
  - It is not clear in which year this incident took place. I changed it to "Between 1849 and 1850". What do you think? I also removed "also" as you suggested. Fred Hsu 03:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you'd tell us how to look at the first image, on the spot. Perhaps in the image info page, since you invite us to click on the thumbnail image?
  - I made the words "viewing technique" a link to the "Viewing Techniques" section. I wish I could explain the technique in a few words. But it is impossible. Fred Hsu 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article, but please get a colleague, whether a WPian or external person, to sift through the whole article; the prose is not yet "compelling, even brilliant". Tony 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else gets to it by this evening, I'll go over it with a fine-toothed comb. —Keenan Pepper 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Keenan, for going over the entire article again! I'll address the rest of issues our dreaded Tony brought up tomorrow, if you don't get to them. Thanks again. Fred Hsu 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't gotten to the last section Autostereogram#Viewing techniques yet, and that may be the one with the most problems. I'll look at it right now. —Keenan Pepper 04:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how nice to be famous.

You do want to be proud of the article, don't you? Tony 09:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he didn't mean it personally. Anyway, the article could still use a little work. Specifically, it's 33 kB long, slightly over the suggested limit of 32 kB, and it could use some omitting of needless words, as Strunk and White say. I'll try to do some pruning. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I meant it personally, as a compliment :) I read Tony's comment on other candidates and his Guide on 2a with admiration. But I simply don't have the skills to perfect English writing :( I knew he would strike sooner or later, and hoped that someone like Keenan would step in to help ;) Fred Hsu 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one takes the 33 kB limit as a strict boundary, and much larger FACs are regularly promoted. But prune for readability and concision. Tony 02:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... what's the verdict? I believe all known problems are addressed during this latest round of copyediting. I hate to see this second nomination 'expire' like the first one. Will some kind soul put a stamp of approval or disapproval on this article? Fred Hsu 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very interesting, and, in my opinion, sufficiently well-written. It even talks about the type of people (like me!) who can't see the things. A few minor points: please remove all bold from the article except that which appears in the first sentence. If possible, make images that are next to each other have the same frame size (will be based on the length of the captions and the width vs. height of the images). Consider reducing the size of the largest images (perhaps a max of 300-350px would be more approriate for people with 800x600 screens). Also, using a gallery may be a good idea for the first three images in the 3D perception section. Finally, I'd suggest renaming the section currently called "How they work", though I'm not sure what a good alternative would be. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I will work on your suggestions later today. Fred Hsu 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All bold words have been turned into either plain words or italic. Fred Hsu 03:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just adjusted size of some images. And yes, I know the article is now promoted to FA. But I will continue to make small improvements. Thanks!!! Fred Hsu 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]