Wikipedia:Featured article review/Panavision/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:33, 9 February 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Girolamo Savonarola, California, Filmmaking, Southern California, and Media. Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A well written article, but has no inline citations and very few references (failing WP:WIAFA criteria 1c), images lack fair use rationales and detailed source info (failing 3), and there is no section dealing with criticism (I know that Panavision is not criticized very frequently, but I'm sure there's something or other that some people don't like about the company), failing 1d. Finally, the article is somewhat short compared to other recent FA's (which would fail 4). The image sources and fair use rationales can be fixed fairly quick, but the references and related items could take a while to fix. Green451 05:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the references and images, both of which I am sure someone else will comment upon or deal with, if the subject of an article is not criticised frequently, wouldn't adding a whole criticism section be undue weight? And "4" requires articles to be concise ("appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") - making the article longer to fit some arbitrary length requirement would be counterproductive.  Do you think something is missing, so it is not comprehensive, failing 1(b)?  If so, what?  -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've got a point. This is the first time I've put something up for review, so I'm just feeling my way around. A google search for Panavision Criticism doesn't yield much except for a court case involving cybersquatting (which should possibly be mentioned in the article), but I agree that there is no point in giving undue weight. And yes, now that you mention it, there are other FA's that are actually shorter than this one, and the article seems fairly well detailed, so there goes my issue with the length. I have striked those out. Thank you for your comments. Green451 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I ask for a clarification on the problem with the images? To my knowledge, all of them have fair use justifications on the image space - two are promotional images created by Panavision, one is their logo, and one is an excerpt from the credits of one of the Matrix films. Is there something else required? Reference-wise, it's an issue I've been well aware of for some time and just kept putting off doing, so I guess this'll force me to get it in gear! :) Now as far as criticism goes, I do hear various criticisms of the camera systems from time to time from people in the camera department. The thing is that everyone does grumble about one thing or another, and there are pro- and anti- opinions about virtually all camera equipment from someone or another. Unfortunately, most of this remains oral criticism, so it is tough to properly reference. How should/could this be handled? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Help:Image_page. I hope that helps. Jay32183 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments See also looks like it could use some pruning, or for some of those links to be incorporated into the article. References has a lot of blue links that need to be expanded.  The article is completely uncited, and images should be examined per above.  The lead needs attention - for example, it mentions spherical lenses without linking or defining those, and needs to summarize the article.  Sandy (Talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments: apart from the inline citations that is the most fatal failure of this article per WP:WIAFA,
 * Image:PanavisionCredit.jpg fails to satisfy WP:FAIR criterion #8 that the image is significant to the article. The image only serves for decorative purpose, because by writing "Filmed with PANAVISION(c) Camera and Lenses", as in the lead, is enough. Furthermore, the image is actually cropped version from a screenshot. I am not sure if it is allowed to make a derivation of a copyrighted screenshot.
 * External links section: link to the official site is used for reference, one link to a rental website, one link is broken currently (the master thesis), two links to the same site.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently working on providing in-line citations. Fixed the broken link and eliminating some of the reference links. LACameraman 10:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c) and images (3). Marskell 19:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In progress I am currently working to address the citations deficit, and I expect that it should hopefully be complete by the end of the year at the latest. At the moment there are only a limited number of written sources on most of the company history, so I'm trying to obtain as wide a variety as possible in order to show some research diversity. I will also look into brushing up the lead a bit more.


 * Done I've removed the screenshot image as per request, even though I disagree, because I don't feel it's worth the effort of a contentious fair use debate. That being said, it would be nice to be able to include something similar, IMHO. I trust that the other images are fine, unless someone comments otherwise. (They do have documentation on their respective pages.) I've also moved the official page to the external links section, and am working on folding the references into the notes section (or vice versa).


 * Disagreement The two links from the same site which are mentioned above are links to separate topics within that same site. Unfortunately they don't have a common upper-level link which is specific enough, so I've left them as such for the moment.

Any further comments are welcomed. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Insufficient inline citations. LuciferMorgan 00:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please expand on this entry. Is this a vote for removal of the article due to insufficient inline citations or is this a comment to remove the complaint of insufficient inline citations as it as been fixed? Please elaborate on your comment. LACameraman 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a vote for remove on the grounds that there are not enough inline citations. Jay32183 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove - List: Hold, pending copyedit
 * There's a website in References: if it's used as a reference, it needs a last access date and full bibliographic information about the entry.  Otherwise, move it to External links.
 * nothing in internet archive. I put retrieval date in. It is only an external ref now, anyway, since it is not used as an inline ref.Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Master's thesis also needs a last access date - if there is an internet archive link, that would be even better, since such links tend to go missing.
 * ditto. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The thesis is listed as a reference *and* as an External link - which is it?
 * since it is not cited in the text, I pulled it from refs and left it as an external link. To be totally clear, I deleted the refs section, and moved everything there to external links. Everything cited in the article itself is under footnotes. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the footnotes are just blue links that need to be expanded to include full biblio info and last access date. If the editors don't know how to do that manually, they can use the cite templates, or at least include manually the info specified in the cite templates.  For example, a cite to everything2 article" is insufficient - we need to know the name of the article, pub date if available, etc.  And, by the way, what is everything2?  It loos suspiciously like a Wiki mirror, and doesn't seem to be a reliable source, which is another reason we need more information.
 * Done. Jeffpw 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Footnotes cleaned. LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See also needs pruning: work them into the text if possible, delete any already present in the text.
 * Done. Jeffpw 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still wondering why common terms are listed in See also? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up See Also section considerably LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:FN - footnotes are not properly placed. I'll fix those, but please learn to do them correctly.
 * Headings don't conform to WP:MSH
 * Article is seriously undercited - one random example - of which there are gazillions:
 * Following a number of attempts to marry up standard and high definition TV cameras with film-type lenses in the 1980s, Panavision entered into a joint partnership with Sony which produced the "Panavized" HD-900F "CineAlta" High Definition Camera System in 1999, first used by George Lucas for the second Star Wars installment, Attack of the Clones (2002). This is generally regarded the first commercial HD 24p camera system.
 * I'll let someone else examine the prose: given the high number of problems in the article, I suggest it will need examination. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Back for another look.
 * Can someone run through See also and determine why some of those very common terms are listed as See also, rather than linked into the article text?
 * References have very inconsistent formatting and punctuation - can we get Author last name comma author first name period, for example, rather than various versions thereof? Some have author buried in the reference rather than listed first - the reference formatting is all over the map.
 * Full biblio info is not given on many references - example: Panavision history; Retrieved on 2007-01-19 Who published this website?  Who is the WideScreenMuseum?  Does it have an author?  Give us enough info to know it meets WP:RS.  Blue links on websources need to be expanded enough for us to know who the publisher of the website is.  There are no publishers listed on almost any website, so we can't determine the reliability without clicking on each one.
 * Everything2.com is still cited - it still looks like a Wiki mirror. Who is the publisher, is it a reliable source?
 * Removed LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still quite strongly in Remove territory - the references need work, and the prose needs even more work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note - I'm currently out of town on business for the next two weeks, so I may not be able to do too much at present, unfortunately. I'm going to try to get some more work done as time (and access) allows. I'd appreciate having some more review time for that, but if that can't be accommodated, I understand. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Hold - I am fairly new to FAR, so didn't know this was about to be delisted. I have done some work on it yesterday, and plan on working on the refs tomorrow (I am beginning tonight, but it's almost bedtime). With luck, all actionable objections will be addressed by Sunday evening. Jeffpw 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Time granted. Please update status Sunday. Joelito (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Status Update - I have referenced everything essential. I added about 50 references. I also changed a few sentences for style, removed all redlinks, changed the headers to what I think is conforming to WP:MSH, clarified the "spherical lens" term in the lead, and added a couple images. I realize one image was requested to be deleted, and the image I inserted is similar, but the caption gives the reason that I think the image needs to be there (as an example of the aspect ratio that cinema goers experienced). I also removed most of the external links, since they were used as references. I took some info from the links for some of my references, but not from the sections that are linked in the article. The referencing went easier than I had thought it would. I had a running start with what was already provided in the footnotes and external links. Here is a diff to show the work completed. If somebody could check the article out, I still have time to make more changes tomorrow. As a quick aside, I was surprised at how little editing was done on the article since it was listed at FAR. Is that typical of most nominations? Jeffpw 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove unless fresh eyes can be found to tighten up the prose. It's not bad, but not yet of the required "professional" standard—wouldn't take the LoC long. I shouldn't be able to find little problems, for example, in the lead:
 * "Unlike most of its competition, including rival Arri, Panavision operates"—"competitors".
 * Redundant "also"; redundant "currently" (what is the present tense for, otherwise?).
 * "Any major production that uses Panavision's services is contractually obliged to provide a credit that says"—Do we need to grammatically mark the first point? Why not "Major productions that use ..."? "Display", not "provide". Tony 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony1. I only referenced and fixed the most glaring errors. (Full sentences inside of brackets with a period are an error. Yes?) I left a message at LoC this evening, and will also try to copy edit myself, tomorrow. Jeffpw 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both Girolamo Savonarola and I have been working and unable to attend this issue. I have, however, taken a considerable stab at copy editing through the first two sections of the article. I will continue late tomorrow and into the week. One major problem with this kind of article is that the expert Wiki editors are often working and unable to attend the needs on such tight time constraints. Please continue to be patient with this process - I was not fully aware of the editorial requests until today. All the best, LACameraman 10:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To add to LACamerman's comment, the article was not submitted to FAR for prose issues, but rather citation problems. That has been dealt with. The prose was not suggested as a possible issue until January 5, when it went to FARC. I went back and checked the version that was made FA, and see that the prose issues Tony1 cited were in the article at that point, so I am not sure it is appropriate to demote the article on those grounds. It's not as if the prose degraded in the time between being made FA and now. I see that LACameraman has done a lot of work on the copy yesterday. I suggest letting him do more before making a decision about removing this from Features. Jeffpw 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when the issues came to light or on what basis the article was nominated; if 1a (or any other criteria) is not met, it's an issue. Many articles get by FAC with FA deficiencies.  Time is always allowed when ongoing progress is evident.  (I haven't yet had time to go back and check the concerns I had.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been back through my list now (see above) - the references still need a lot of work, in addition to the ce needs raised by Tony. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Prose concerns are appropiate for a review regardless of when they were raised and an article will be demoted if they are not met. Prose is one of the FA criteria and all criteria are judged equally. FA criteria are not ranked by importance, i.e. all are equal. Joelito (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * References have now been cleaned up and See also is pruned: I'm still strongly in the Remove category.  The lead is inadequate, and the sourcing is not up to the standard required for a featured article.  Everything2.com is a wiki - it is not a reliable source.  I've been raising the issue for quite a while, but it's still there.  There is nothing on http://www.widescreenmuseum.com to indicate it's a reliable source, and plenty that argues against it, including the disclaimer.  Too much of the article relies on the widescreenmuseum website.  The article has been dramatically improved during review, but in my opinion does not fulfill 1c.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Update MUCH work has been done. The prose has had several copy-editing passes, and I'll make one or two more. The footnotes have been revised and reformatted. Any controversial footnotes (such as Everything2.com) have been eliminated. There are now considerable references cited. I'm not really sure how the FARC should go from this point, but I would like to request a re-evaluation and, I suppose, a re-vote to return this article back to FA status. All the best, LACameraman 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only concerns registered so far are mine, Lucifer's, and Tony's - I'll have a second look soon. Tony is quite busy - you might leave a note on his talk page asking him to re-evaluate the prose, and a note to Lucifer asking if there is any specific text he'd like to see cited.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My remaining concerns are that the WP:LEAD doesn't summarize the article, and the reliability of http://www.widescreenmuseum.com hasn't been established - it is used extensively and, as far as I can tell, is one man's personal website. I'm still a remove based on 1c and 2. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must wholeheartedly disagree. Widescreenmuseum.com is a highly respected and oft-cited source. In my 10 years of professional technical writing, I have NEVER found a single inaccuracy in Martin Hart's work. He is a recoginized expert in the field. His work has been recognized by many reliable sources including American Cinematographer, Entertainment Weekly and Reel.com among many others. To discredit his work is to discredit the entire concept of the Internet as a resource. There is more accuracy in Martin's work than 20% of the published magazine articles I read. This is not some Blogger who spouts out random information, but a film historian and scholar who provides considerable information that cannot be easily found elsewhere. This article covers highly specialized information that is not compiled in too many published texts. In addition, there are only 8 references to Martin Heart's writings out of 61 total cited references. That is only 13% of the citations. If it is determined by consensus that his work is not acceptable, I can work to replace Martin's references - but that research could take weeks, if not months, to track down - even with my extraordinary resources and expertise in the field. I'll also point out that Martin's work does not violate reliability, in that he IS a peer-reviewed site who will amend his text, if found to be in err. In addition, reliability is a guideline, not a policy. As far as the lead is concerned, I will certainly take a look at that and revise, and invite anyone (yourself included, SandyGeorgia) to BE BOLD, as is the Wikipedia policy, and make the editorial change yourself if you see a minor inadequacy. LACameraman 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I've been asking for about ten days for some indication of reliability - glad to have some.  No one is discrediting his work:  I'm asking the editors who added that as a source to establish its reliability, since his website doesn't seem to do that.  Please give us some means of verifying who exactly he is and what makes him an expert.  Do you have links or info about others who cite him or defer to him as an expert?  Is any of this available on his site (I couldn't find it) or elsewhere on the web?  If it's not on the web, can you quote something from any source in hardprint?  What do you mean his site is peer reviewed - by whom?  His website doesn't establish who vets his work, what is his expertise, whether he has any affiliations that could contribute to bias, etc. - please give us something to go on.  And, no, I won't write someone else's lead - to me, the lead is much too "personal" to have an outside reviewer writing it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - Fair enough. I think I'm getting a little too emotional as I feel some kind of personal responsibility as a founding member of Project Filmmaking to defend this article. But, contrary to that, I do have to disagree with you on the "personal" note with reference to editing the lead. Wikipedia is for everyone. The very spirit of the entire Wikipedia is that no one owns any article, you - as an editor - are invited and welcome to make any and all edits to any page. With my busy schedule, the amount of time I can dedicate to a project like this is incredibly limited, so it is frustrating to me to recieve criticism that threatens the FA status of this article - without any assistance; especially with something like the article lead which does not require technical expertise to edit. In any case, as far as Martin's references - here is a quick list I found with sites referencing Martin's work (ignoring Wikipedia, within which he is one of the most cited authors I've seen):
 * http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential&pageid=16647
 * http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/portraitjennie.php
 * http://www.dvdscan.com/aspectratio.htm
 * http://widescreenmovies.org/WSM02/index.html - this is also an actual publication - Wide Screen Movies Magazine, Issue 2 March 2003
 * From Martin's own page: "This website is so thorough that it's exhausting..." Noah Robishon, Entertainment Weekly

Also - please note the supporters/contributors of/to Hart's work on his "Benefactors" page:
 * Jack Cardiff, Academy Award winning cinematographer of Black Narcissus and three-time Oscar nominated for War and Peace, Sons and Lovers and Fanny. Jack was also given an Honorary Lifetime Achievement Oscar in 2001. Note that many of Jack's early films were CinemaScope, VistaVision, etc. the very subject of Martin's Website.
 * Greg Kimball a visual effects artist with work on Independence Day, Star Trek: First Contact, Bravehard, Seven, The Right Stuff, Clockwork Orange Greg was also a key researcher for the Cinerama Adventure project.
 * M. David Mullen, ASC - one of the chief technology experts for the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). David will also be the editor of the 10th edition of the ASC Manual.
 * Academy Award Winning John Pytlak - Senior Technical Specialist EI Worldwide Technical Services Eastman Kodak Company
 * Roy H. Wagner, ASC, Emmy and ASC award winning cinematographer.
 * The Smithsonian - U.S.A.
 * International Film Archive - U.S.A
 * He's also received the endorsement from Brittannica Online.
 * Please note Martin's involvement with Cinerama Adventure

As a technical editor for American Cinematographer Magazine, I have utilized Martin's site many times - unfortunately for the magazine we don't cite references in our articles, so I have nothing in "hard print" to show you.

Martin is very much like Leonard Maltin, a film buff turned historian/schollar. Martin is only missing the published work as he's concentrated on the Internet for his work. As far as peer review, Martin's site has been scrutinized and reviewed by all of the above. As I said before, if a consensus decides that Martin's work does not qualify for reliability, I can find othe sources to support the 8 citations to Martin's work - but it will take time. I humbly request that this not be a factor that puts this article's status in jeopardy. All the best, Jay Holben LACameraman 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * allrighty, sources above look good, thank you for establishing reliability of the widescreenmuseum. As soon as you expand the lead (per WP:LEAD to be a complete, stand-along summary of the article) and copyedit concerns are addressed, I'll be a Keep - I'm now satisfied with the referencing.  If I tried to edit every article I review, I'd have no life :-)  Reviewers can help you retain your star, but we can't do all the work.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I understand the limitation of time quite intimately. I appreciate your support and will get to work on that lead. All the best LACameraman 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hi there.  Sorry I sort of abandonded this after nominating it, but I've been on wikibreak for a while.  One comment about the lead; the information about "Filmed in Panavision" demoting the use of anamorphic lenses is not true anymore (see the discussion on the Panavision talk page). Green451 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. I didn't really feel it belonged in the lead anyway. It will be removed. LACameraman 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not surprised - that's why I questioned a fact sourced to everything2.com - which is a wiki - a good example of the need for highest quality, independent, reliable sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of passes on the lead - but I'm not very happy with it. I'll return to it and try to refine, but I'd love some help with this. LACameraman 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've made a pass at refining the lead. Jay's prose was quite good to start out with, so I mostly tried to tone down what seemed to me as a "Panavision is great!" undertone.  As well, I would say that Super 35 is now the most commonly used widescreen format, and anamorphic (as much as I love it) is falling in popularity.  I also split the sentence into two paragraphs, as it was difficult to read the huge block of text.  Comments, anyone? Green451 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the lead, is anyone else having a problem with this prose?
 * This allows Panavision to invest the most research and development funding and integrate the highest quality manufacturing into every product without worrying about the end retail value. Maintaining their entire inventory also allows Panavision to constantly update their existing equipment and apply those updates to every model in the inventory, as opposed to just the newest models getting the upgrades.
 * "Most"? "Without worrying"?  Maintaining their own inventory?  As opposed to clause is strange.


 * What is the meaning of "common" here? Frequent?  Commoners?
 * At the time of Panavision's formation, Gottschalk owned a camera shop in Westwood Village, California, where some of his most common customers were cinematographers.


 * What is this sentence saying?
 * The technology was originally designed during World War I to increase the field of view on tank periscopes by horizontally "squeezing" thus allowing a wider field of view once unsqueezed by complementary anamorphic optical element.


 * Why say "to utilize" when you can say "to use" or "for use"? Can't it just say "for use in underwater photography"?
 * Gottschalk and Moore bought some of these lenses from C.P. Goerz, a New York optics company, to utilize in their underwater photography.

I'm not finding this prose at all accessible; maybe it's just me and perhaps this is just stylistic, but I'd feel much better if Tony had a look - I know he's quite busy, but there's something about this prose that isn't working for me. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gawd, this review... Two months and so much done, but just a little more needed for 1a. Anyone still watching? I took care of the clunker in the lead. Marskell 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed WP:MOS issues: wikilinking on full dates,   non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement,  and m-dashes. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. That was a lot of tedious work, thank you Sandy for taking the time to fix the non-breaking spaces, dashes, etc. I don't see any full dates except in the citations - do those need to be Wikified? If so - that was totally my mistake, I removed all the Wikilinks on dates when I reformatted the citations - I wasn't clear on the MOS for full dates. If that work needs to be done, I'll re-do that as I'm the one who mucked it up to begin with! Have you contacted Tony to take a pass at the prose? All the best, LACameraman 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dates with a month and a day should always be wikilinked to allow date preferences to kick in. Trebor 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony's talkpage indicates he's real-life busy - the last person who requested he have a look resulted in Tony placing a larger "I'm busy" message at the top of his talk page :-) Deckiller is having a look now, I think - he does good ce work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bottom-up ce underway.—DCGeist 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DC is an expert on the subject, so he'll improve the meaning more accurately than the rest of us; I'll give it a followup afterward. &mdash; Deckiller 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a pass after DC's excellent rewording, and I believe the prose is close to meeting the 1a standard. &mdash; Deckiller 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better; but. Wikilinking. Needs a serious review. I hit a number of technical terms that weren't linked or defined, as well as a number of terms that are wikilinked repeatedly, rather than only on first occurrence. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dashes are usually the same as commas; it's mostly a stylistic difference. &mdash; Deckiller 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know - aiming for consistency (which I may not have achieved, because I lost interest). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the issues with the prose, consistency, and wikilinks are done, although I'm going to give the wikilinks another pass. &mdash; Deckiller 05:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm almost a Keep at this point. I'm just waiting on the answer to a technical query I put to LACameraman regarding the latter-day exhibition of old Ultra Panavision movies. He was able to make a small edit suggestion, but has passed the heart of the query on to his projection expert. That's my last significant (and hardly crucial) concern. General query: are there any still-obscure technical terms in the article that it would be particularly helpful to explicate in a sentence or so?—DCGeist 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on my end, although I'd like to see DCGeist's concerns addressed if possible. &mdash; Deckiller 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultra Panavision query resolved. A few additional brief explanations provided. Keep.—DCGeist 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've had a bash at the prose, the lead should read a lot better now. I also rooted out a few typos (integratated? Bauch and Lomb?) it seemed everyone missed.  A few techy terms could do with being better defined (or at least appropriately linked).  There's one claim that really could do with a cite in the introduction ('groundbreaking') that I commented out for now. Keep, though, it's just about there.  Proto ::  ►  22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "nonanamorphic" is not a word. It's "non-anamorphic" - "unsqueezed", "nonwidescreen", and "takeup" also got a damned good hyphenating.  Proto ::  ►  22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they got a "damned" improper hyphenating (except for the debatable "take-up"). Non- and un- compounds were consistently closed per Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, as they are again. Consistent and proper styling of em-dashes has also been restored. Taking the effort to become familiar with the range of acceptable, proper, and preferred styles of English orthography and punctuation is a good idea for any Wikipedia editor. Within the bounds of acceptable styles, you can apply your personal preferences to articles you are the primary writer on or that reflect a jumble of styles when you encounter them; in other cases, recognize when a consistent style is already in place and leave it be. Thanks for catching the typos and for many of the substantive edits.
 * Good (partial) catch on the lead: it's the Millennium XL, rather than the first-generation Millennium, that was truly "groundbreaking." No cite necessary in intro. The article text details precisely how each of the two cameras in question was groundbreaking.—DCGeist 23:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of the edits were mostly stylisic, but many thanks for catching the lingering redundancies and typos that we missed. &mdash; Deckiller 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.