From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee CIECAM02 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 25, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Color (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:CIECAM02/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria. For starters, it is far too technical and not easy to understand (heck! I have a Ph.D. and I'm having trouble understanding all this!). Article sections are not organized very well, and most of the latter half of the article is just a collection of equations and graphs with a very poor description of how these equations connect together into the overall system. The article's text also doesn't really seem to point out much of the model's use, other than that it's used by Windows Vista's color system.

I also raise questions that the article meets the verifiability criterion (#2), as there are only six inline citations used by the article. Also, please move the non-inline-citations to a 'further reading' section, or convert them to inline citations. The only thing present in the reference section should be inline citations.

Sorry folks, but I'm afraid this article is quite a long way from being a good article. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

L, M, S vs R, G, B[edit]

I wonder whether it’s a good idea to use the symbols L, M, S in describing colors in CAT02 and Hunt-Pointer-Estévez space, instead of R, G, and B. The latter seem to be pretty entrenched in the literature I see, including the draft of the CIECAM02 spec, the 6th edition of Hunt’s The Reproduction of Colour, and the second edition of Fairchilds Color Appearance Models. Additionally, using L for the long-wavelength cone response makes for easy confusion between Lw and LW, which would be seemingly much reduced if the former was called Rw instead. Cheers, jacobolus (t) 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More sources[edit]

These slides provide a fairly good overview of CIECAM02:

And the equations are also listed in this paper: (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely add good sources that aren’t already mentioned! A agree that Mark Fairchild’s lecture slides are great. Notice they’re linked at the bottom of the “references” section. I’ve also found that other paper useful in the past. Go ahead and put it into the article. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

spelling (American vs. British English)[edit]

I'm surprised that the spelling has been edited on this article from the British/Commonwealth predominant "colour" to the American predominant "color". The page has certainly started out using the "ou" form.

It's not a biggie, but I thought that Wikipedia etiquette discourages altering a page that way once it's started out with one flavour of spelling: --XEmacs (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'color' spelling was used since January 2008, by User:Adoniscik who wrote most of the page. I don’t think he was a seasoned Wikipedia author at the time, so he probably just didn’t know that convention. –jacobolus (t) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)