Talk:Nikon F100

Article Expansion

Hello everyone. I'm interested in extending this stub. I'd like to add some information on the design and development of the camera and its features and capabilities. I'd also like to add some information on its reputation, availability, and use today. This will, of course, be dependent on my ability to find solid sources for this information, but I'm confident that there is enough information out there to allow me to make a valuable contribution. If anyone has comments, critiques, or suggestions, I would be eager to hear them. Thanks. Warped4498 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You asked for some comments specifically about your edits. This is a good place to answer, because on review, the article itself might benefit from some work.

1) I like your ideas to add material on "features, capability reputation, availability, and use today", but those are the sorts of statements that should come from published sources, and perhaps have citations, not come from your personal experience.

2) An example of a well-formatted Nikon page is: [1] This F100 page could benefit from such a format. Even working toward that format, and the information it contains would be useful. One advantage of that layout is the table at the bottom, showing Nikon camera timeline. That's useful, because, although I own three Nikons, none are mentioned in this article, so the many comparisons in the F100 article don't help me much.

3) You've integrated your material well into the existing article, which is always helpful for readers. However, that article content itself has issues. As an example, this phrase (which was there before you edited):

The F100 was an outstanding and highly ergonomic camera

This phrase has potential problems: It's subjective and debatable: For example, people who don't generally don't like Nikons might disagree. The debatable statements are not backed by citations. It is also "peacock language". "Ergonomic" is a rather loose term, so writing that something is "highly ergonomic" may not have much meaning. Peacock language is discouraged by the Wiki style guide, those guidelines are described in WP:PEACOCK.

4) Someone, one might assume a CSI: Miami fan, added a section called "In popular culture" which might be seen as trivia. Trivia sections will get tagged that Wikipedia "discourages" trivia. But an important thing also for an editor to consider is whether what's added really helps the article, is of interest to the general reader.

Hope some of this is helpful.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)