Talk:Aerial photograph interpretation (geology)

Feedback for the page

 * 1) For Figure 13, what is those numbers represent for example "R11/1989", "6.4/1989", can you add some text to explain about that?
 * 2) For Figure 14, I think it is better to add a legend inside the diagram as well. Just like Figure 15
 * 3) I think Figure 8 can be deleted.

I think the flow and contact of the page is really good. It is easy to understand. Gabriel HY Lam (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme
For the language, please avoid first and second person, so don't use "us", "our" or "you". Stick to third person. eg "our planet" → "the Earth". Hong Kong gets a lot of mention. But is the article only about Hong Kong or more general? I am assuming it is on the general topic. So start general in each section, and finish up with your example from Hong Kong after the introduction. Does this kind of photography use film nowadays? I would have though digital cameras with CCD or CMOS, even for the IR photography. For your images with writing in them, some of the text should be larger, so that it is legible in the thumbnail in the article. Is the sun always in the south because photos are taken at midday or could photography have sun from east or west? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having lots of footnotes. Though intro for "Displacement and Distortion" has none. Is the Crisco reference suitable for that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments
1. I suggest increasing the size of some figures that you think is important.

2. Some scientific explanations on stereoscopy might be useful since the 3D effect affects how observations are made.

3. A photo of infrared film would be nice. I understand it might be diffcult to find one with free copyright though. Also, there is a typo, i.e., 'false colour', in that section.

I think your page is quite comprehensive and well written :). Matt.chw (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Recommendations from Timothy
1. I've noticed a lot of "adopted in Hong Kong" popping up, is this article geared towards Hong Kong readers, or is the Hong Kong's format universally adopted? If not then I would suggest you to add "Hong Kong" in your title.

2. I like that you have a lot of diagrams, but some of the arrows and lines seem poorly drawn (see Fig. 6, 11 etc.) and most of them are too small for a comfortable read. Minor grammar issues eg. Elements of aerial photograph (Size) - "It is an useful tool when estimating an unidentified feature in an image."

3. Very comprehensive article, though I do find the words can be a bit too dense at certain sections (It feels like your article is dominated by words), maybe consider zipping topics into charts and tables.Timothy D. Chow (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Recommendations from Gabriel

 * 1) In the section "Low oblique", I think the sentence "It is unobservable in a low oblique aerial photograph." is a bit confusing. I am not sure about the meaning of unobservable.
 * 2) In the secion "High oblique", I think the last sentence "However the landscapes,...." can be deleted.
 * 3) The section "Black and white", it is only include "topographic map"?
 * 4) I think the section "Altitudes of aerial photographs" can be relocated to after the section "Types of aerial photographs"
 * 5) The section "Elements of aerial photographs". "Aerial photograph interpretation is controlled by six elements: pattern, size..."

I think the page is completed. There is only few minor mistake. Overall is good. Photographs and examples are clean and big. Nice page! Gabriel HY Lam (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Miko (15 Nov)
Hi! This is Miko here!

I would like to suggest some ideas see if they can helps you a bit!


 * 1) It would be great if you can add some more other countries photos in the very beginning to make your title and your content to feel like this interpretation is worldwide rather than just Hong Kong.
 * 2) Would be great if some comparison photos are provided. For example, applying the techniques of mapping to the debris fan in Italy instead of just a photograph. It would be much more clear for readers to understand if there is a ‘before and after’ diagram.
 * 3) I would like to suggest to put in some scientific explanations on stereoscopy. It will be very useful since the the audience will know what is happening and what the observations was.
 * 4) Specifically, I feel using blue colour is quite similar dark colours as the Grey background in Figure 15, do you mind changing that into some other colours which make it much clear. Also, the arrow, do you mind making the arrow thicker, again is quite small compared to others digital figures.

I hope these comments can help you! Mikocheung (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mohammad
1 - The legend in figure 19 is small and unclear, It would be great if you could enlarge it.

2 - I do not see a reference for some figures, such as 12, 18, 20, and 21; it would be great if you added a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhmnia11 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Timothy

 * 1) Maybe use real aerial photos to compare and contrast vertical vs oblique aerial photographs.
 * 2) Would be nice to add real aerial photos with annotation in conjunction with the drawings in "Interpretating an aerial photograph", also "interpreting" is misspelt.
 * 3) Overall a very pleasant read, not too complicated with just enough information for the general public, you improved a lot of the drawings and added color which look much better now.

Timothy D. Chow (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
I fussed with the images, just for fun. There's still a wonky PNG in there but they're mostly no longer center-aligned and odd sizes. jengod (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There appears to be consensus against the move, as well as for the move. There also appears to be consensus for the destination page to redirect back to the original page. With the RM already relisted once, I see no point of relisting it again. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Aerial photograph interpretation (geology) → Aerial photograph interpretation – unnecessary disambiguation Joeykai (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  03:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The proposed target name could refer to the interpretation of photographs. That topic is more likely to be familiar to readers (e.g. due to the Cuban missile crisis). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BarrelProof, but the title could maybe use some work. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:OVERPRECISION. The proposed title is currently a redlink not being used for anything. If it could possibly be confused with something else, the usual solution is to put a hatnote at the top. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  03:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per BarrelProof. Aerial photograph interpretation should obviously be a redirect to Aerial photographic and satellite image interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Consolitate to other pages?
There's a lot of good information here, but most of it is more about orthorectifying photos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthophoto and photogrammetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry. These catagories would both fall under remote sensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing of which there's also a geology specific page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing_(geology)

I would like to delete this page entirely, and move all sections related to creating an orthorectified photo to the orthophoto page (which is currently pretty sparse on information). And then move the 'applications for aerial photographs' section to the 'Remote sensing (geology)' page. Then I would make sure all of the topics are linked together in the heirarchy I described above. This will be a lot of work, but geology is my education and mapping is my profession, so I'd enjoy doing it.

I am new to wikipedia editting. I'm going to 'just do it' for expanding the orthophoto article and working on linking all of these articles together appropriately, because it needs it. But I don't feel like I should be deleting out entire pages (even if it will be redundant). Is there a process for that? Mulehoss (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)