Camera-wiki.org:Votes/Featured articles

From Camera-wiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search

September, 2006

In Main Page/Draft2, I nominated the following articles:

However I'm not fully satisfied with that choice and with the corresponding categories. Please make suggestions. --Rebollo fr 07:20, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

I made the Template: Articles of the month/September, 2006. --Rebollo fr 07:47, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Now I'm wondering:

  1. Must we keep the "category names" (Usable medium format, etc.) visible in the main page?
  2. There are too many Japanese cameras.
  3. Maybe we should get rid of the camera company: as Hoary said on the draft2 talk page, we have not enough good company articles, and the good ones concern little-known and small companies. (An article about a company is much more difficult to write correctly).
  4. For the collecting theme, a link to a template is a bit rough. There should be thematic pages first, then we could use this category.
  5. I think the pretty article category is useful to give examples of an intelligent use of illustrations. There are probably some pages that are better than Werra, for example Flexaret automat VII.

--Rebollo fr 08:07, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

Sorry to have been so silent and unhelpful recently. (And I'm afraid that this posture will continue, as I attempt to get a computer to work the way I want it to, and go on vacation, and catch up on work after that, etc.) In short, I agree with all of your points. How about replacing the article on the big Fujicas (which is a bit long) with Flexaret automat VII (perhaps recapitalized)? It's not Japanese, and Flexarets are affordable. -- Hoary 10:20, 31 August 2006 (EDT)

October 2006

We need to decide for the four next articles. We can keep the same tone:

  • Usable big gun
  • Usable regular camera
  • Not too obscure collector
  • Good layout

Yet better if we have a rangefinder, an SLR, a folder and a TLR as we did this month. --Rebollo fr 09:44, 26 September 2006 (EDT)

How about:

However, I haven't looked through any of them carefully, and of course there's no rangefinder among them. -- Hoary 05:17, 29 September 2006 (EDT) ¶ PS: Nikon FM3A is enthusiastically written but has some oddities. And as Rebello fr points out, Camerapedia should make up it's mind whether to call it the FM3a or FM3A. -- 10:47, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

The Makina and Contaflex articles look similar, their style is a bit too close. Both lack sources and have very few links. We can keep one but I would not keep both. The Nikon FM3A article badly needs pictures, I find that the articles like this that go in deep details about the camera's use are tougher to read without pictures (as opposed to articles presenting the historic evolution of a camera line). The Yashica-D page is straightforward and nice. --Rebollo fr 11:43, 29 September 2006 (EDT)
Meanwhile I'm less happy about the Nikon FM3A/a article. I've tried to translate out of (I presume unintentional) ad-copy-ese into regular English (thus from "utilize" to "use", from "high-strength" to "strong", etc.), but no matter how a lot of the claims are expressed, I suspect that they come indirectly but uncritically from Nikon's press releases. We don't need sources for the positioning of buttons and the visibility of this or that in the finder, but I'd like an attribution for the claim that, say, "The modern vertical metal shutter uses precision-tapered strong aluminum alloy blades and oilless self-lubricating bearings" and also if possible a description of how, if true, the shutter differs significantly from, say, the Copal shutter in a cheapo Bessa R. So let's pull the Nikon article for now, and also pull whichever of the "German" articles you're less happy with. ¶ User:Hoary wrote above and of course there's no rangefinder among them. I think someone should page User:Hoary: "Hello, did you perhaps recently lose your brain somewhere across Eurasia? Got any idea how the Makina is focused? Did you even read that article while you were 'correcting' it?" -- Hoary 22:05, 29 September 2006 (EDT)
I can add links and sources to the Makina and Contaflex articles in the next few days. Other articles in the same style, maybe even a little better, are Leicaflex and Contax S. For a rigid rangefinder, there is Leica CL that was recently overhauled by User:Shadesofgrey. And the Pearl (4.5×6) would be an option too. --Rebollo fr 08:23, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
Perhaps we should go easy on the Japanese folders. The article on the Leica CL looks pretty good, but it has some oddities: notably the worries about use with 135mm. (How many people have wanted to stick a 135mm lens on any [like-a-]Leica since 1960 or so? How many with even half a brain would even think of putting one on a CL?) I've gone through it, smoothing it here and there and adding questions in SGML comments. -- Hoary 10:00, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
I reworked a bit the Leica CL page to address some of the comments. I understand that not everybody shares an interest in Japanese folders. However these articles are Camerapedia's latest and best, with scrupulous source citing and analysis of (reproductions of) original documents. I think we should keep at least one such article as an example. The other articles discussing about German cameras are not bad, but they are not as thoroughly checked, and probably contain some mistakes from a less careful use of the sources. --Rebollo fr 11:33, 30 September 2006 (EDT)

I made a proposal in the template's page. Some of the articles need proof-reading and source citing:

--Rebollo fr 18:43, 30 September 2006 (EDT)

Contax S seems a bit rough at this point (although very promising). Still ... OK! -- Hoary 09:30, 1 October 2006 (EDT)

As an afterthought, Minolta CLE is currently poorer than Leica CL. Should we get rid of it, or do you think that we can put a small amount of work and retain it? --Rebollo fr 15:12, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

I've put in a small amount of work but am entirely neutral about its retention: I won't mind at all if it either goes or stays. -- Hoary 04:04, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

November 2006

October was a mad rush. Can we decide November's stars some time in advance? Then we'll have time to polish them into presentable form.

Not that it would need much polishing, but I warmly recommend Zenobia. -- Hoary 04:09, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

Here are other candidates:

--Rebollo fr 18:20, 9 October 2006 (EDT)

Yes, Fujica GW690 should definitely be avoided for half a year or more. Leicaflex looks good; because it looks good I didn't even glance at the others on 35mm SLR. But come to think of it, if three of the six other contenders are Rolleiflexes, it would be better to have one Rolleiflex first, in order to spread out the Rolleiflexes. So I suggest a 35mm Rolleiflex (I don't know which) for November and the Leicaflex for December. Moskva-5 is good, but perhaps not a good combination with (because too close to) Zenobia. -- Hoary 05:23, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

Well, now we are in November. Currently we have the Zenobia and one SLR among the Rolleiflex, Voigtländer VSL or Leicaflex. The illustrated article could be Moskva-5, or another like Tenax I or Pocket Kodak No. 1 series II (that could maybe have a shorter title). As for the fourth one, I'm a bit stuck. --Rebollo fr 11:37, 1 November 2006 (EST)

How about just three? Incidentally, I've just looked at Tenax I and have various worries about it: see the SGML comments I've added. -- Hoary 18:58, 1 November 2006 (EST)
I have tried the Template:Articles of the month/November, 2006 with three articles only (Voigtländer VSL, Zenobia and Moskva-5), but it doesn't look very good. --Rebollo fr 19:59, 1 November 2006 (EST)
What about adding Pentacon Six as a fourth one? It needs some proofreading but it seems pretty good. --Rebollo fr 06:05, 2 November 2006 (EST)
Yes, probably. The oddest thing about it was the writer's surprise and delight by the way the negatives could be viewed from left to right; I thought that this said at least as much about his/her previous camera use as it said about the Pentacon Six, and therefore commented it out. But perhaps I misread something. (I'm sleepy, as usual.) The article looks good and what it says seems plausible. I know little about these cameras and lack the time and energy to find out more, so I can't vouch for the truth of anything written in the article; all I've done is change the expression here and there. -- Hoary 21:26, 2 November 2006 (EST)
I'm adding it then. What bothers me most about this article is the quality of the linked pages (except Pentacon Six mount, for example Kiev 6 and Kiev 60 is a messy duplicate and Exakta 66 is a stub.) I think that the remark about the negatives is understandable in the particular context of a square format (where all negatives are in the same direction) in darkroom practice: under the enlarger all the pictures are seen "straight", whereas Rolleiflex or Hasselblad negatives will all "lay on the side". At least this is the case on the Meopta enlargers, typically owned by the Pentacon Six user and the only I really approached. Maybe there are fancier enlargers with rotating negative holder for the wealthier Hasselblad owners? --Rebollo fr 04:08, 3 November 2006 (EST)
Correct. The negative orientation may not be surprising to a 35mm SLR user, but for a 6×6 camera it is. When all the negatives of of one roll are put in one acetate negative sheet, this "left-to-right" orientation really makes selecting the right negative easier. I've used a Meopta III enlarger and currently use a Durst M601. In the enlarging process, the orientation doesn't bother me, but when selecting negatives for enlarging, it does. However, if this paragraph strikes both of you as being silly, let's leave it out. If not, I'd rather keep it. --driesvandenelzen 05:47, 3 November 2006 (EST)
I don't mind it, and yes I understand the reaction if you come from a boxy sort of 6x6 SLR (Hasselblad, Bronica, Kowa, etc.) or TLR (well, aside from the amazing Superb). And I suppose that this is where a lot of people come from. As for me, the only 6x6 that I've used in the last month is a Mine Six, and the only 120 camera I've used this week is a G690BL, so for me this isn't at all surprising -- but perhaps I'm unusual. -- Hoary 09:23, 3 November 2006 (EST)

February 2007

It looks like three months passed. Maybe it's time to change the featured articles. --Rebollo fr 18:46, 6 January 2007 (EST), U. kulick 1st Feb 2007

Minolta Vest!!! (Uwe Kulick, Jan. 2007) and and idea to encourage our new writers: Konica_Autoreflex (1. Feb 2007)

Minolta Six, Nikon F3, Canon Canonet QL 17 GIII, Olympus Pen --driesvandenelzen 06:58, 7 January 2007 (EST)

It seems obvious that we don't have enough time and enough articles to renew the featured articles every month. This is why I changed the header of the main page from "Articles of the month" to "Featured articles". Anyway it would be good to change them by now. We can choose to put only three featured articles to make the choice easier.

I propose:

Big minus point: all are Japanese except the Leicaflex. --Rebollo fr 17:42, 1 February 2007 (EST)

June 2007

Ideas for the next batch:

--Rebollo fr 19:05, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

good ideas U. Kulick 19:25, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Is This Page Still Being Used Or Updated?

Because if so, I've found a camera (make that "cameras") that are fascinating and others might agree. I've been researching into the Minolta X-300 and have found that in it's last year of production, 1980, Minolta moved production to the Chinese Seagull Camera factory and also licensed it to Seagull to make copies of it. I've already found an even dozen differently-named copies and there may be more. Some of the copies are still being made brand new! The copies are practically identical to the look and electronical way these cameras work. This just blows me away that, what is essentially a Minolta camera from 1984, is still being produced, bought and used. Kenny HaarFager (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2016 (CDT)

Retrieved from "http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=Camera-wiki.org:Votes/Featured_articles&oldid=176430"