Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canon T90/archive1

Canon T90[edit]

Self-nomination. A one-man effort, I'm afraid. Images right now are fair use but fully sourced; I have had no luck getting any free images despite numerous requests. —Morven 15:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For free images: have you tried asking someone who's auctioning one of these cameras off on ebay? --Carnildo 03:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I'll give it a try. —Morven 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed - article now uses CC-BY-SA images. —Morven 19:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment those singe line paragraphs should be merged with larger paragraphs. Small sections should be expanded or combined with other small sections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've merged the single line paragraphs that I easily can with other paragraphs. The ones remaining would require more extensive restructuring to get rid of. Some, perhaps, are an indicator that more should be said about a topic, at least enough to fill out a paragraph. The one that doesn't seem to meet that requirement is the single-line paragraph ending the 'Design' section, about Colani receiving the first production camera. Not much else can really be said about that; it doesn't merge into the previous paragraph; and placing it in a different paragraph wouldn't flow all that well, I think ... —Morven 22:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have expanded on a few sections I considered too short. Would any sections now be too short? —Morven 00:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It could do with a light copyedit. There's to much text in brackets and certain terms in the lead could be expanded. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you help me with the latter? I'm not sure which terms you mean, but of course it wouldn't be obvious to me since I wrote it. I've removed some of the parenthesised asides, many of which on reflection don't add useful info. —Morven 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I've copyedited a bit of the article. Some points: 1. Please remove those inline instances of bold text. 2) Who is Stephen Gandy? Please add his designation/occupation before his name. 3) The inline references in parenthesis is not formatted correctly. You should either use footnotes or {{inote}}. For this article, inotes should be ideal. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        References in parenthesis is completely acceptable; see WP:CITE and Harvard referencing, the guidelines in which I believe I have followed accurately. I dislike inotes because they are not visible to the reader, only to those familiar with Wikipedia editing who know of inotes and think to look. I am open to using footnotes, however. As to bold text: I will leave in bold texts when they refer to products not otherwise defined in Wikipedia, e.g the Command Back 90 (I believe there is a redirect pointing to Canon T90 from that name). Otherwise you have a point. An earlier draft of this article had more about who Stephen Gandy is, but I was of the opinion that explaining that inline ruined the flow of the text; one can go to the reference (which is online). Perhaps that information should be in a footnote? —Morven 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Footnotes should be fine for the inline references. As for Stephen Gandy, I'm assuming he's a photographer, so the text should be modified to something like "...renowned photograher Stephen Gandy..." =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. How does it look now? —Morven 17:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – no further objections. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. Fieari 02:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I liked. Well-referenced article. Carioca 01:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well written and well-referenced. good job. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]