Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Photography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 91 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Photography: History This page is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles This page is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

The Canon EOS R page was previously rated as "Low importance" under the "Photography" project.

Since the article has been granted "Good Article" status, the importance level has vanished. Should I just edit the page and change importance= back to importance=Low or does the "Good Article" status affect the importance in some way? Bob (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on advice from @Viriditas, I have restored the importance level to "low" (though it sounds as though project importance levels are possibly going to become deprecated in the future). Bob (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject Photography members,

I recently created a draft article about Michelle Valberg, a renowned Canadian nature and wildlife photographer known for her extensive work, especially in the Arctic regions. This article aims to highlight her career, contributions to photography, and her efforts in environmental and philanthropic activities.

As I prepare to move this draft towards a formal review, I am seeking your expertise to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and neutrality and that it adequately covers her significant contributions to the field of photography.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or edits you could provide to help enhance this article. Here is the link to the draft: Draft:Michelle Valberg

Thank you for your time and assistance. Bojamon (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bojamon: I will have a look. Describing her here as "renowned" (WP:PUFFERY) does not look like a good start. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a puff piece written to promote the subject. I have removed the obvious WP:PROMO language but it will need significant attention to make it compatible with Wikipedia. I have not yet looked at the sources to see if they indicate notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your edits and comments! I'm still finding my footing with Wikipedia's guidelines, and your feedback is super helpful. I see your point about the promotional tone and I'm keen to learn how to keep things neutral and factual.

If you have any tips on areas that need more work or how I can better establish notability with solid sources, I would really appreciate it. I want to make sure the article is up to par and valuable to readers.

Thanks again for taking a look and helping me out. Looking forward to any more insights you might have!

Cheers Bojamon (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allan Chappelow#Requested move 7 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to revise these articles so that they remain well-sourced and flow according to the style guide, along with revisions to attempt to remove editorial puffery. I think these articles are notable enough to keep, but could use more work from those in this wikiproject that are current on the topics if anyone is interested. They have history of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NOTESSAY tags, and those issues appear to somewhat linger. Shotgunheist ^💬 17:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trump raised-fist photographs#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visible presentation of misleading content

Canon EOS 7D Mark II (right) has a 3.0" LCD screen and the Canon EOS R5 Mark II (left) is currently described as also having a 3.0" screen.

Canon EOS R6 (right) has a 3.2" LCD screen and the Canon EOS R5 Mark II (left) is currently described as also having a 3.0" screen.

My Canon EOS R5 Mark II has a visibly larger LCD screen than my Canon EOS R6, but the infobox says otherwise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D-Kuru and Kicar2:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could find a reliable source for the screen size, and alter it yourself. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling in the experts. I see 3.2" and 2.95" as the first two results. I think it has to be 3.3 if the R6 is 3.2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the information I added was taken from the manufacturer's website. Under "specs" it says here: "LCD Screen [...] Monitor Size: 3.0-inch (screen aspect ratio of 3:2), 2.95 in./7.5cm diagonal (2.44 in./6.2cm width, 1.65 in./4.2cm height)". As I don't have this cutie right now, I can't even compare it to my R5. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]