Talk:Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, I'll review this.

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Technical yet accessible. I fixed one typo.	Y
(b) (MoS)	No concerns, hit it with General fixes to correct the interwiki links with underscores instead of spacing. Again, no concerns.	Y

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All good.	Y
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Seems fine; the reviews are not authoritative, but substantial in their detail. Enough to warrant their use.	Y
(c) (original research)	Backed up well, so no OR	Y

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Covers the material well	Y
(b) (focused)	Detailed, but if we are going to be technical graphs showing the aberrations, etc. should be included for FA level.	Y

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Hard not to be neutral on this, right? Zomg, best lens ever. /sarcasm	Y

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Y

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Nice pics.	Y
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Appropriate, check.	Y

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
Y	Pass, this is very detailed and encyclopedic. For improving this to FA level I would consider adding the graphs covering its use and perhaps going into a little more technical on the details, but nothing is lacking and all the important pieces are covered already.

Discussion[edit]

The websites linked were very interesting, showing a great deal of differences between the lenses. And I know this isn't a copy vio, but the wording of, "This is the first ultra wide zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors." versus "It is the first ultra wide rectilinear (non-fisheye lens) zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors." Seems a tad close, but technically there is little rearranging you can do without garbling the meaning. Good job. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]