Talk:Depth of field/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this with comments posted soon (if just to learn more about f-stops myself) Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.
• Pass

Copyright

• Nearly the entire lead is copied here
  • Copied to there you mean; that's obviously not a place anyone would copy from, just an assemblage of snips from WP. Dicklyon (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • 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)
      
      • 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)
• 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)