Lead could be a little longer per length of article
Please change "techniques/equipment" to 'techniques and/or equipment'
Wikilink circle of confusion - the first time it's used. A brief explanation may also help.
Some random capitalized words?
Is there a need to italicize "circle of confusion" in exactly one instance that it's mentioned?
In the Factors section, the first line is just repeating the lead (and copyvio)
Should have wikilinks and brief explanation of other technical terms (assume the reader knows nothing of camera tech)
Inconsistency with how depth of field is capitalized
Factors affecting... does not seem well structured, with some perhaps irrelevant content that would belong in a different section. In fact, the other sections have the same problem.
Article doesn't seem to have a good sense of direction.
Later sections especially seem to be a quick collection of information from personal knowledge tacked on the end without consideration
Fail - re-write may be necessary, with a good structure
Coverage
Lead does not cover main points, only outlines what dof is. (Also, it's copyvio.)
Top section of Factors affecting depth of field seems to cover more what dof is and how to calculate it and functions of it more than factors affecting it.
Scheimpflug principle illustrated but not otherwise mentioned
There is no need to mention the "
Scheimpflug principle" in every article that discusses swing or tilt. It seems to be promoting the annoying misunderstanding of the principle that, swivel of lens or sensor causes swivel of POF. Although it is true that one causes the other, that is not the principle. And, one doesn't need to know the geometric relationship of POF, lens plane, and film plane to understand DOF (or even how to use swing or tilt). -
NewageEd (
talk)
09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Fail areas covered in appropriate sections, clear examples of info missing
Illustration
Good choice of top image
The scientific diagram at factors is good and clear, but relies on the description. Not sure there would other wise be a way to show this, though.
Nice illustrative use of resultant image with building blocks
The building blocks illustration could be improved if the plane of focus was on the middle stack of blocks. Then it would show that depth of field works in both directions; maybe add a couple stacks of blocks. -
NewageEd (
talk)
09:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Seems like the 4 dial images are all for the DOF scales section, and overflow severely - should put a gallery at the bottom of the section
Needs attention
Neutrality
Yes, good
Pass
At this stage it is written from the narrow point of view of cameras with no swing or tilt of lens or image plane. Maybe when it is rewritten to include camera movements it will become neutral. I'll start by rewriting the "Camera movements" section. -
NewageEd (
talk)
09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Verifiability
Has a citation needed tag, that seems to have been added today
Good range of RS
However, large parts of article unreferenced
Likely some OR in 'most cinematographers, though' kind of writing
Fail - a cn tag is a cn tag
Stability
Had some edits today for general improvement. Nothing major, though.
I did check the context; the lead is random snippets of the source text, which is a really long paragraph in answer to a question on a forum about depth of field. It would be unusual to have a lot of someone's own writing with whole sentences of only the WP lead incorporated so naturally at random points... Not saying it has been taken, but it would be odd for the text to have been copied to that source, given its presentation.
Kingsif (
talk)
14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This is not a copyright violation or plagiarism. The journal page referenced above,
here, are personal notes under the title of "Monster Hunter World white sharpness". The snippet was obviously taken from Wikipedia after 8 June 2019, not the other way around. However, reliable sources are clear in describing depth of field in relation to the POF. The current wording misses this clarity in comparison with the previous wording of 10 Feb 2019; which, appears to accurately represent illustrations and descriptions contained in reliable sources. -
NewageEd (
talk)
08:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Images seem correctly licensed
Fail - please rewrite lead
Overall
Needs a significant restructure and more citations throughout. Also copyvio and obviously missing info. It looks like the main editor has a lot of knowledge, has worked hard creating it. Main reason for immediate fail is the poor structure.
Kingsif (
talk)
21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Lead could be a little longer per length of article
Please change "techniques/equipment" to 'techniques and/or equipment'
Wikilink circle of confusion - the first time it's used. A brief explanation may also help.
Some random capitalized words?
Is there a need to italicize "circle of confusion" in exactly one instance that it's mentioned?
In the Factors section, the first line is just repeating the lead (and copyvio)
Should have wikilinks and brief explanation of other technical terms (assume the reader knows nothing of camera tech)
Inconsistency with how depth of field is capitalized
Factors affecting... does not seem well structured, with some perhaps irrelevant content that would belong in a different section. In fact, the other sections have the same problem.
Article doesn't seem to have a good sense of direction.
Later sections especially seem to be a quick collection of information from personal knowledge tacked on the end without consideration
Fail - re-write may be necessary, with a good structure
Coverage
Lead does not cover main points, only outlines what dof is. (Also, it's copyvio.)
Top section of Factors affecting depth of field seems to cover more what dof is and how to calculate it and functions of it more than factors affecting it.
Scheimpflug principle illustrated but not otherwise mentioned
There is no need to mention the "
Scheimpflug principle" in every article that discusses swing or tilt. It seems to be promoting the annoying misunderstanding of the principle that, swivel of lens or sensor causes swivel of POF. Although it is true that one causes the other, that is not the principle. And, one doesn't need to know the geometric relationship of POF, lens plane, and film plane to understand DOF (or even how to use swing or tilt). -
NewageEd (
talk)
09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Fail areas covered in appropriate sections, clear examples of info missing
Illustration
Good choice of top image
The scientific diagram at factors is good and clear, but relies on the description. Not sure there would other wise be a way to show this, though.
Nice illustrative use of resultant image with building blocks
The building blocks illustration could be improved if the plane of focus was on the middle stack of blocks. Then it would show that depth of field works in both directions; maybe add a couple stacks of blocks. -
NewageEd (
talk)
09:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Seems like the 4 dial images are all for the DOF scales section, and overflow severely - should put a gallery at the bottom of the section
Needs attention
Neutrality
Yes, good
Pass
At this stage it is written from the narrow point of view of cameras with no swing or tilt of lens or image plane. Maybe when it is rewritten to include camera movements it will become neutral. I'll start by rewriting the "Camera movements" section. -
NewageEd (
talk)
09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Verifiability
Has a citation needed tag, that seems to have been added today
Good range of RS
However, large parts of article unreferenced
Likely some OR in 'most cinematographers, though' kind of writing
Fail - a cn tag is a cn tag
Stability
Had some edits today for general improvement. Nothing major, though.
I did check the context; the lead is random snippets of the source text, which is a really long paragraph in answer to a question on a forum about depth of field. It would be unusual to have a lot of someone's own writing with whole sentences of only the WP lead incorporated so naturally at random points... Not saying it has been taken, but it would be odd for the text to have been copied to that source, given its presentation.
Kingsif (
talk)
14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This is not a copyright violation or plagiarism. The journal page referenced above,
here, are personal notes under the title of "Monster Hunter World white sharpness". The snippet was obviously taken from Wikipedia after 8 June 2019, not the other way around. However, reliable sources are clear in describing depth of field in relation to the POF. The current wording misses this clarity in comparison with the previous wording of 10 Feb 2019; which, appears to accurately represent illustrations and descriptions contained in reliable sources. -
NewageEd (
talk)
08:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Images seem correctly licensed
Fail - please rewrite lead
Overall
Needs a significant restructure and more citations throughout. Also copyvio and obviously missing info. It looks like the main editor has a lot of knowledge, has worked hard creating it. Main reason for immediate fail is the poor structure.
Kingsif (
talk)
21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)reply