Wikipedia:Peer review/Pentax LX/archive1

Pentax LX


I greatly expanded this article from a referenceless stub, adding many sources with inline citations, adding photos (including some that I took of my own LX), adding missing information, and creating an entire section on accessories for the camera, but I'm unsure about some of it, which is why I'm listing this for peer review. General suggestions for minor improvements would also be appreciated.
 * First with the sources, are they sufficiently high-quality? Because of the subject matter, a lot of the available information is compiled by groups of enthusiasts (and even more so with this camera as Pentax went defunct in 2007), but is that enough? Most of what I found on search engines like Google Scholar (aside from the material that I used) was research papers that happened to detail how the researchers used a Pentax LX camera to record observations, etc.
 * Second, does the article (particularly the 'Viewfinders' and 'Focusing screens' subsections) ever seem to be giving "too much" information?
 * Third, and this is something I'm much less worried about, is whether the article flows well, i.e. the exposition and explanation of information is well-paced and easy follow.

Thanks, bella (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

UC

 * Sources: I agree that there's some question-marks here. The part reads, to me, very sales-pitch-y in tone, and indeed seems to be cited to a company who are or were involved in selling the cameras. Sometimes, really good sources aren't an option, but we need to make a particular effort to present the facts as neutrally as possible when we're forced to rely on substandard ones. A few other phrases that stick out in this regard for slightly WP:PUFFERY language:
 * (perhaps "were considered sophisticated...", "represented an advance on those available at the time", or similar?)
 * : simply, or even : we take it as read that different tools do different jobs.
 * (perhaps "were considered sophisticated...", "represented an advance on those available at the time", or similar?)
 * : simply, or even : we take it as read that different tools do different jobs.
 * : simply, or even : we take it as read that different tools do different jobs.
 * : simply, or even : we take it as read that different tools do different jobs.
 * : simply, or even : we take it as read that different tools do different jobs.


 * TMI: There's a lot here in the "Shutter and metering" section. It's difficult to know how far this is excessive without a sense of how usual or unusual all of these features were. Could we perhaps have some context as to how other cameras did things: for instance, was the shutter speed of other cameras in automatic mode fixed, rather than variable?
 * A couple of sentences here, like, could be cut or shortened: it's fairly standard (and perhaps a tautology) that you can only adjust the shutter speed to the options given for shutter speed adjustment. Could cut to "the shutter speed could be set between 1/2000 second and 4 seconds".
 * Similarly, I wonder whether is notable or even particularly interesting to most readers (not a perfect analogy, but WP:FANCRUFT might be helpful here).


 * Readability: There's quite a lot of technical terminology in the article, but it mostly flows well. The grammar and MoS isn't perfect, but it's pretty good and there are certainly no glaring or serious errors.


 * Articles about inherently technical subjects are always a tricky balance (I sympathise, having recently taken a very technical architecture article through GA and FAC). When deciding whether and how to explain something, think about how important it is: we have a whole section on the shutter and metering, for example, so it would be worth devoting a few sentences at the beginning to what those things are. Elsewhere, my general view is that if you can explain a concept in a few words, you should do so (for example, what does the film speed dial do?); if you can't, and it's important, you can use a footnote which might bundle together a few technical terms (something like "most cameras allow the photographer to adjust the exposure, aperture size and shutter speed of the shot. Reducing the aperture size [explain what it does], while increasing the shutter speed [explain what that does]. The exposure of the image is [explain what it is and how it comes about]."). If it's not critically important and can't be explained quickly, a wikilink may have to do, but try not to have too many of those together: a cluster of unfamiliar terms very quickly hits the readability of the prose.

Hope this helps. Nice work expanding the article, and it sounds like you've rescued a piece of camera history from the dustbin of forgetfulness. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for responding! These are some pretty good suggestions (the lack of context in the metering paragraphs is a good catch). I'll try to incorporate everything as soon as possible. bella (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:


 * There are some citation needed tags that need to be resolved.
 * The first paragraph in "Interchangeable accessories" needs a citation.
 * All notes should have a citation at the end of it.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)