Review
(criteria) |
 Comment I'm a bit ill-at-ease with these four optics nominations. I think that there shouldn't be a VI scope for every single model of every single kind of object (camera optics are quite present on Commons because the project is full of photographers, but it is a bias). I know we already have two camera-based scopes (Chinon CP 9 AF and Agfa click) but reviewers then asked for a reason. This is why I'm asking: is there something that makes this particular model notable? There's nothing in COM:VISC that would help us decide whether these scopes are ok or not, so it is a matter of personal (subjective) evaluation. For me, notability for a scope is roughly equivalent to notability for a WP article, and I don't think we would accept an article for every single model. Additionally, we currently don't have a guideline for linking scopes to categories, so for the moment, please don't (I'll remove the links). --Eusebius (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Support These are notable lenses, in my judgement. The other three images illustrate articles on several sister projects. I'm not sure why this one is not; it is of similar importance and has been reviewed by several independent reviewers. (Disclosure: I own this lens, but not the others.) Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Opposeso I think I should oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose seem a bit ad libitum 2 me. Guideline says: "Does the image/set have to be in use? No. It is not required that a VI candidate is in current use in any Wikimedia project." --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not exactly my point. No, it does not have to be in use, you're right about that. What is interesting is to know whether there is an encyclopedia article about the subject. My opposition is made according to the second criterion, because I'm afraid the scope is too narrow in this case. As I said, it is a subjective/personal evaluation, as it often occurs. After a search that I should have made beforehand (my bad), I realize that there is an article about a scope a little broader at en:Canon EF 70-300mm lens. According to my own little personal guidelines, I would be ok with such a scope (should this picture be the best candidate for it). The scope would then be about a class of optics and not only a single model. I'm still ill-at-ease with that (because of this photography-related bias), but I wouldn't oppose. I know, I'm a pain in the neck. I only try to be consistent with both myself and the under-specified guidelines. --Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My inclination is to accommodate relatively narrow scopes. At its worst, an article writer will have to select from among a few VI illustrations and that isn't much of a disadvantage. For example, if I were writing an article on DSLR zoom lenses, I would want to illustrate it with photos of notable lenses. This is a lens that I would discuss in such an article, but whether I'd use this picture would depend on layout and space. If the scope of this nomination were changed to DSLR zoom lenses, I'd only have one VI. Even if the scope were 70-300mm DSLR zoom lens, both of the lenses in the article you found as well as a couple of others are notable lenses and it would be helpful to have VIs of each from which to choose. About this lens, in support of its notability, the source cited by the article says, "the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range." Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess our POV differences come from the idea we have of a VI. I see a VI (in the context of an encyclopedia) more like a good candidate for being the header image of an article, not just a good illustration of a part of it. I respect your POV though, of course. --Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how in your opinion a Canon EF 70-300mm header picture should look like ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the tricky part, it looks like either this one or the DO. Maybe this one is more representative of the "standard" look of a 70-300-or-so, and the DO is more representative of what Canon specifically does... But you know I'm not a specialist, and that's why you asked. --Eusebius (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DO is a different species :-) --19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, from what I read it is an EF 70-300 as well, one of the two listed in the article. --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway I'am not really be in the know regarding the oppose, so think what you like. For my part I took the trouble and created a very valuable package for this lense, including Anaglyphs and still think it's the most valuable picture showing a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lense --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Removing my opposition (redrawing my own personal line between "not enough reasons for a support" and "enough reason for an oppose", I guess it doesn't hurt my so-called consistency). I still think what I've said, I just consider it as a justification for my not supporting. --Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
