Wikipedia:Peer review/Canon T90/archive1
I've done a fair amount of work on this article lately, but I believe it needs some more eyes. Especially those who don't know a great deal about the subject, to let me know whether the wording needs improvement, or additional explanations need to be added.
I know the fair use pictures are a problem, and I am working on replacing them.
I've tried to show the camera's historical importance without going over the line into POV, and would appreciate any suggestions as to how best to achieve that. —Morven 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not bad, good work. All I can think of is a separate external links and see also section. Photos might be OK because they have tags and a source, and a good reason as to why they are fair use. — Wackymacs 14:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'd still rather have wholly free images, though. Of course, the true solution to that problem is for me to buy a T90, which I plan to, but even at nineteen years old they ain't cheap. In the interim, maybe someone on the Canon FD mailing list will be able to help out.
- See alsos: probably would be a good idea to link to the contemporary competition at that point. Need to research what other makers were producing at the time. External links: There are a couple of things in the references that I haven't (yet) actually used for the article, such as the online repair manual. Would it be better to have them seperately listed? —Morven 14:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I would put the links you're not using as references into an External links section. Keep it up, you could try putting it up as a FAC after this peer review. — Wackymacs 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Moved those links to a "External links" section. I've also put an invite on the Canon FD mailing list to see if any experts can spot anything amiss with it. —Morven 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I would put the links you're not using as references into an External links section. Keep it up, you could try putting it up as a FAC after this peer review. — Wackymacs 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- See alsos: probably would be a good idea to link to the contemporary competition at that point. Need to research what other makers were producing at the time. External links: There are a couple of things in the references that I haven't (yet) actually used for the article, such as the online repair manual. Would it be better to have them seperately listed? —Morven 14:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Going to try it on FAC. —Morven 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)