The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011 [1].

---

Pigeon photography[edit]

Pigeon photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Pigeon photography/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator: Hans Adler 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because so far we are rather short on featured articles in the wider area of animal-based photography. The Czech translation became FA a while ago, and the German translation was featured on the German main page last year. Time for us to catch up! The article passed GA and peer review without any major hoaxing being detected, so I guess FAC is just a formality. Hans Adler 07:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to check the sources that are not available online, I can provide many of them by email. Of course the most important sources are in German. Hans Adler 10:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The pigeon photographer was a technique for aerial photography" -> In'st a "pigeon photographer" an animal (a pigeon), and hence not a "technique". Isn't "pigeon photography" more appropriate here (and as title)?

  Neubronner called it Brieftaubenfotografie (pigeon photography), and that's still the standard term in German. I believe in English and French the topic was first popularised by the technical journalist Alfred Gradenwitz, who seems to have coined the terms pigeon photographer and pigeon photographe. I have not found any recent high quality reliable sources in English on the topic (only blog posts and dubious stuff from aerial surveillance teachers), so I decided to stick with the original term. I wouldn't mind renaming the article to "pigeon photography" but don't want to rush this. I see how the first sentence is confusing, so for the moment I have changed it to "Use of pigeon photographers [...]". Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "As photographic techniques made further progress, at the end of the 19th century some pioneers began to employ them in unmanned aircraft." -> Clunky sentence. Unclear what "them" is at first read.

  I changed it to "[...] some pioneers placed cameras in unmanned flying objects." (Maybe change it back to "aircraft", but I got some doubts about the precise connotations of that word.) Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1903 Julius Neubronner (1852–1932)" -> Lots of dates in little space, difficult to read. Are the birth and death dates necessary?

  Removed. This was left from before Neubronner had his own article. Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "A pneumatic system in the camera controlled the time delay before a photograph was taken." -> What is a "pneumatic system"? Could you expand? Put a diagram?

  The details are described in the patent and in some of the sources: There was a little rubber bag that was inflated before the camera was attached to the pigeon. The air was slowly released, and at some point the photo was taken. The more you inflated the rubber bag, the longer the delay. I will check the sources to see if I can find a diagram anywhere. There is none in the patent. Hans Adler 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not add this information in the article? 206.225.134.57 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now switched from the somewhat confusing patent drawing to a simpler drawing from an article by Neubronner. It shows the pneumatic mechanism and I have added an explanation in the caption. While the drawing seems much better, I am not very happy with the preview. Not sure how to fix this. Hans Adler 07:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Is note 4 meant to be citing Mattison? If not, needs page number

  Yes, fixed. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Page numbers for note 12?

  Everything is on pages 23–24, 27–28 and 31. I have added "pp. 23–31" to the footnote, is that enough? The source is very hard to get and everything is in chronological order, so I think the best compromise between precision and space-saving is on the space-saving side. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Formatting for note 30

  This is a problem with ((WebCite)), but I can't see what is wrong. Will fix this later, if necessary by hand-coding. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Web sources need retrieval dates
• Can we separate the sources that are being cited from those that aren't?

  Probably not without giving up the separation between contemporary and later sources. I can do this, but will wait a bit for further comments to make it less likely that I will have to undo everything. Hans Adler 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Use a consistent date format
• In general, reference formatting needs to be cleaned up
• Make sure all foreign-language sources are noted as such (for example, presumably "Les pigeons photographes" is in French?)

  Ooops. I found three that were missing. I hope that's it now. Hans Adler 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Fribourg have a first name?

  Presumably, but I don't know it. In the previous (and first) part of this paper, it is explained that these are the notes of a talk given by "M. le commandant Fribourg". More precisely, this is an extract of the notes that appeared in "Génie civil". Either the original or the extract was made by "G.M.". I will see if I can substitute this source by a more modern one to get around the problem. Hans Adler 22:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "63–71, 1910" - is 1910 another page or a date? If the latter, compare formatting to "Les colombiers militaires"

  I am using the same template ((Citation)) for everything. It is formatting the date in completely different ways depending on whether the document has an identifiable author or not. I hate such inconsistencies, but they seem to be a feature of many major citations styles. I don't know how to fix this other than by writing out the references by hand or abusing the templates (putting something else in as author). How is this normally handled for FAs? Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the significance of the indentation of certain patents?

  The indented patents are the secondary ones giving additional protection in other countries. I have included them because they were relatively hard to find and provide translations that may be useful to some readers. They are probably taking up too much space. If nobody has a better idea I wouldn't mind removing them altogether. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether names are given first or last name first

  Done, I think. (I only found this problem in the case of Michel's patents.) Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher for Berger?

  This is a report about the restoration which Berger carried out for a Swiss Photography Museum. It's self-published on his company web site ("Olivier Berger – AMC Art Metal Conservation S.A.R.L."). I guess this makes Berger the publisher, but it seems a bit silly to repeat his name in this way. I could make it "Art Metal Conservation, Basel", but I am not sure that's appropriate. It would make the reference look like a formally published book. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "CIA website" is not an author; "CIA" may be a publisher

  It appears I guessed incorrectly what to do in Harvard citation style when the author is unknown. Apparently the title is used where the author would normally be. I will need some time to fix this everywhere. Hans Adler 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is Goldener Spatz?

  A children's media award founded by several important German broadcasters and some minor government entities. In the spirit of the previous point I have changed it to the official "publisher" name "Deutsche Kindermedienstiftung Goldener Spatz", although that's a bit clumsy. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing, I guess. The sentence supported by this source really follows from the next one anyway, so I have simply removed it. Hans Adler 16:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources issues:

• Hannavy 2008 cited, not in bibliography

  Done. (This was Nikkimaria's first point.)

• Ref 31 needs to be properly formatted. See WP:CITET for ideas as to how patents should be cited (you don't have to use the template, just include the information).
• Ref 42: The cited statement is "In the 2004 BBC program Animal Camera, Steve Leonard presented spectacular films taken by miniature television cameras attached to falcons and hawks, and transmitted to a nearby receiver by microwaves. The cameras have a weight of 28 grams (1 oz)". I can't find all this information in the source. In any event, the source should be the BBC programme, not the YouTube clip. The programme should be dated, and an access date should be given

  "Falcons and hawks" wasn't quite correct. I changed this to "eagles, falcons and goshawks".

  Title and presenter: See meta-information of YouTube clip (from official BBC channel). — (Peregrine) Falcon: 0:16. — Goshawk: 0:20. — Golden Eagle: 1:08. — Microwaves: 0:48. — 28 grammes: 0:54.

  I found the BBC's description of the episode and will cite that. But the link to YouTube should remain since the clip at the BBC site can only be watched in the UK. Hans Adler 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In bibliography but no citations: Oelze, Revue Photographique de l'Ouest, Äschlimann, Mattison, Schobert, Thürlemann. These need to be separated from cited sources - suggest list as "Further reading".
• Patents: Why is this information given in the middle of the bibliography? How is this information used in the article?

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My sources concerns have been generally addressed in your reorganisation, which you were kind enough to explain on my talkpage. The purpose of the subdivision in "Further readings" would be clearer if you made the headings, respectively: "Related to Neubronner" and "Related to Michel". Otherwise I think everything is acceptable now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have renamed the sections as you suggested. Hans Adler 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• "Pigeon with German miniature camera, approximately World War I era" - this seems a bit awkwardly phrased
• "The patented camera with cuirass, suspended from harness" - not clear from phrasing whether it's the cuirass or the camera or both that is suspended
• Be consistent between captions and text whether you're using First/Second World War or World War I/II
• "Patent drawing from Swiss patent" seems redundant
• Source link for File:Pigeon_camera.jpg appears to be broken
• File:Michel,_appareil_photographique_pour_pigeon-voyageur,_mode_d'emploi.jpg - who has copyright on this image?
• File:CH192864,_page_6.png uses an obsolete tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues after reorganisation of sources

Based on the input above I have reorganised the sources in a more standard way (no more use of Harvard references, inline references and further reading are now clearly separated). In several cases (e.g. patents) I have fundamentally changed the style in which they are cited. The following issues remain:

• Possibly rename article to "pigeon photography". – Works for me, but I will only do it after more input. (See comment above for rationale for current title.) – Now done 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Web sources need retrieval dates." I think all web sources have retrieval dates or have been archived with WebCite and have an archiving date (in which case an additional retrieval date would be silly).
• Berger (2008) still has no publisher because it's just a report, found on the conservator's website. I hope that's OK.
• "Be consistent between captions and text whether you're using First/Second World War or World War I/II" – I don't understand this. To me these are just synonyms, and it would appear normal to alternate between them in the main text as a matter of good style. In all exposed positions (section titles, image captions) I already used the same style (World War I/II) consistently. – Now done 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Source link for File:Pigeon_camera.jpg appears to be broken" – Yes, it is broken. (A stupid law obliges the German public broadcasters to regularly purge all interesting content from their websites.) But it's where I got the file from before it was broken, so I am not sure what I am supposed to do. I have already researched the book where the photo was originally published. It's clearly free, and the file is free as a 2D representation.
• "File:Michel,_appareil_photographique_pour_pigeon-voyageur,_mode_d'emploi.jpg - who has copyright on this image?" – I don't know. Unlike Neubronner, Adrian Michel had a company and wasn't just an enthusiast, so it's not clear who created the manual cover. If it's really relevant to this fair use image, I can try to solve the issue, most likely by not using the image in the first place.

Everything else should be fixed by now. Thanks for everybody's help so far. Hans Adler 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(First/Second) World War (I/II) - while these are synonymous, we generally treat them like WP:ENGVAR and prefer that you use one or the other consistently (IIRC First/Second is preferred for European topics). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As a non-native speaker I missed the UK/US dimension. I have now changed it to First/Second World War everywhere. However, the article uses American English orthography as it started that way and there seem to be more connections to the US than to the UK. If that's an issue I am happy to use British English (which I prefer anyway, and I believe I have the right to make such a change) or to switch to World War I/II. Hans Adler 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS review (not a prose review) per standard MOS disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. Comments. I'll be happy to tackle some copyediting if this has passed a source review ... I can't tell. I agree with those above who say the article probably has the wrong title, and I probably can't support before the page is moved to Pigeon photography. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't tell either. I have done everything I could and have highlighted all points where it's conceivable to me (an FAC newbie) that the reviewers might not be fully satisfied. I think everything should be resolved, but I am waiting for feedback whether that's true. Hans Adler 08:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, sourcing issues have been addressed. Since Brian also commented on this area, you may wish to ping him to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my final comment above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I'm getting started now. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be plenty of support for translating the Dresden Internationale Photographische Ausstellung as the "International Photographic Exhibition". I made the edit; feel free to revert. There's a good case to be made, though, that the German name should appear somewhere in the footnotes or notes, to help anyone searching for more information. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent, but I think once you get to the Julius Neubronner section you will see what led me astray: Maybe Internationale Luft- und Raumfahrtausstellung has the wrong title? I think the most common translation of Internationale Luftfahrtausstellung is International Aviation Exhibition. Hans Adler 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see your citation style (adding page numbers to superscripts) often. I don't see it listed at WP:CITE or WP:CIT. Does anyone know if it's been discussed before?
• "orthogonal directions (forward/backward)": forward and backward aren't at right angles to each other, so I don't know what this means.
• I don't follow what "awareness" means in "the awareness that an ancillary technology ...".
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to two of your questions before I go to bed. Yes, ((rp)) is not well known, and I only discovered it by accident. For me it's the perfect solution for an obvious problem, and I am surprised that some don't like it. I searched the FAC archives and found two FACs where this has come up before: White dwarf (September 2007) and Joseph Barbera (September 2008).

In principle I would be open to putting all the page numbers into the footnote texts, but that would inflate the number of footnotes by about a dozen.

Thanks for your work so far. The right angle is between 45° forward and 45° backward. I see it's a poor formulation. Will look at it again tomorrow unless it's magically fixed by then. Hans Adler 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your solution to the angle problem is fine. "Awareness" was too close to Neubronner's own words; what he meant is he felt satisfaction (fixed). I have fixed the year (1909, not 1910) and name (aviation, not aerospace) of the Frankfurt exhibition. Maybe you were misled by the book about it, which appeared in 1910. Again, thanks! Hans Adler 09:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, MOS review only. No opinion on the citation style; I haven't seen it enough to gauge reactions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• It says "30mm × 60mm". There should be a space before the unit name i.e. '30 mm × 60 mm'
• It has two links to 'First World War'. World wars are amongst the most linked terms on Wikipedia, perhaps one is enough.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed. The second was a clear case of overlinking. Regarding the first, I have also done this for the shutter speeds (in seconds, with unit symbol s). Since there was a range involved, I have now also introduced spaces in the range, and as there was another range in the vicinity (with ° as unit, which I believe does not require a space), I have added spaces there for consistency as well. Maybe you want to look over this again to see if you agree. Hans Adler 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to contradiction but I think you've done the right thing. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• "This may have been one of the first cameras with a clockwork." With a clockwork what? Timer? Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  With a clockwork "mechanism that controlled the delay before the first exposure and transported the film between exposures", because that's what the cameras have. The claims in the source are actually stronger (my translation from German): "By including a clockwork mechanism, Adrian Christian Michel managed to automate film transport and shutter control, making it possible for the first time to do serial shootings from the air. In my opinion the camera from Walde may have been one of the first photo cameras ever with a built-in clockwork motor. The initial drafts from 1933 certainly indicated this." Maybe I was thinking too much in German here; the German word Federmotor is more explicit about the feather and motor aspect than its English translation clockwork. Hans Adler 08:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Then could we say something like "with a timer operated by clockwork"? Now you explain it I see what you mean, but when I see "with a clockwork" I'm seeing "clockwork" as an adjective rather than a noun, as in "clockwork timer", particularly when by prefixed with that "a". I suppose that "This may have been one of the first cameras with clockwork" could work equally well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Very good, that makes sense, and I think I see precisely what you mean now. The indefinite article was a Germanism so I have simply removed it. If you change your mind and feel this wasn't quite enough, just do whatever you feel is necessary. I see that you are doing a lot of excellent work improving my style. Thanks! Hans Adler 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me butting in here but I'm sorry "This may have been one of the first cameras with clockwork" still sound clumsy to me. I am sure readers will wonder what was clockwork. Federmotor is clearly a noun while clockwork appears to be an adjective though clockwork can be a noun, but I really think you need to add a noun for clarity, such as motor, mechanism, assembly, workings, components, or similar. ww2censor (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought a clockwork was a motor operated by a spring, but maybe the word has too many other connotations. How about "one of the first clockwork cameras"? Hans Adler 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I just clarify something with you Hans. Are we saying that this was the first camera to contain a clockwork mechanism for any reason, the first to contain a clockwork timer, or all of the above? What's the important point to be made here? Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The important point is that at the time, clockworks were not a normal feature of cameras at all. I am not sure what a clockwork might be useful for in a camera other than for the timer and maybe the release. We don't know that it was the first camera with a clockwork. With all this long discussion I am beginning to think that maybe it shouldn't be mentioned at all. The author of the article speculated that this was one of the first cameras with a clockwork, presumably based on his (possibly limited) knowledge of historical cameras and the fact that he didn't know any earlier camera with a clockwork. I would feel more comfortable just saying that cameras with a clockwork [timer] were unusual for the time. We can't say that other cameras with a clockwork were rare (=> existed) or didn't exist at all, because the source tells us neither. Hans Adler 07:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I've been bold and changed the text to "... and may have been one of the first to have a timer operated by clockwork". Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, this sounds good and I think it's not bold at all. I don't own this wiki... Hans Adler 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I initially thought the same as you Ww2censor, but then I looked up "clockwork" in the Collins dictionary that's lying conveniently on my desk, which clearly says that clockwork is a noun. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed it is a noun but other readers may not have a Collins or dictionary.com, that I just checked with while on the bus, available to look up and may assume the use is odd. Oh maybe they will look it up and educate themselves! It is correct but I still suggest for clarity to use something additional. Either way is really fine. ww2censor (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  See my question to Hans above; I'm sure we can come up with a form of words that will satisfy all of us. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy to be the first to support this article's promotion. I've followed it since it was a little acorn at DYK and I've frankly been amazed at what Hans has developed it into; I doubt that any other editor could have done the same. If this isn't an FA then I don't know what is. The quality of the research on display here is quite simply outstanding. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support No issues with jargon or prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I love quirky articles like this, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. As Malleus says above, the quality of research is impressive; the images alone are fantastic. I also found the technical aspects easy to follow. One quick suggestion: that there is a "tiny room" in the International Spy Museum dedicated to pigeon photography caught my eye, because "tiny" seems oddly suggestive as opposed to other adjectives. In my mind I pictured a pigeon-sized room, but surely that can't be right. "small" may be a better choice, unless the room is of course intended for little birds. ;) Also, I feel I must state for the record that I honestly can't stand ((rp)) as a citation style, and find its usage (especially in FAs) unfortunate. However, that's obviously my personal view, and certainly not anything to oppose over. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course I was very lucky with the topic. The room is now small. While I personally still like rp and might insist on it in another article, it's not absolutely necessary for this one. Getting rid of it will add about a dozen footnotes, though with some care it may be possible to reduce that number. I don't have the time to do it now, but I plan to do it in the near future. If anyone feels strongly enough about the matter to do it right now (and preferably without introducing new problems), then that's also fine. Hans Adler 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue I have with rp (and others might agree) is that it potentially requires more scrolling back and forth within the text. You click on the citation, and you're brought down to Footnotes/Notes/References, but then you have to go back up to find the relevant page number. I would much rather click the citation, be brought down to Footnotes/Notes/References to read the shorthand citation, and then have to scroll down a tiny bit to consult the Bibliography. However, this article isn't very long, and doesn't contain too many sources, so I don't personally find it as annoying as other articles that may use rp. Like I said, it's nothing to oppose over, and I would never suggest that someone overhaul their preferred -- and although rare, perfectly acceptable by Wiki standards -- citation style. If you want to hold onto it, that's fine with me. I just wanted to agree with whomever mentioned it above, for the record and everything. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.