# Talk:Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting, I'll review this.


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
The websites linked were very interesting, showing a great deal of differences between the lenses. And I know this isn't a copy vio, but the wording of,  "This is the first ultra wide zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors." versus "It is the first ultra wide rectilinear (non-fisheye lens) zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors." Seems a tad close, but technically there is little rearranging you can do without garbling the meaning. Good job. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


### Additional Notes
Hmm. It's sad to see that a DYK/GA needs all this work. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hope that's being sarcastic. According to the WP:GACR it seemed fine to me. I'm not a literary major and I did note it needed polishing for FA level. If my contributions are unwanted, I won't do GA's any more since rather then providing constructive commentary, the nominee now you have commented poorly about it. I'd have preferred both comments about it on my talk page first, if anyone disagrees, but whatever. No one is an expert in everything, and few people are experts at anything which comes to GAN, I felt comfortable enough with the subject and tried to review it fairly and accurately.
I think WP:GACN is applicable here. GACN says external link guidelines are not a requirement for GA, just because way way down in the article says that references used in the article should not be linked without a good reason doesn't mean that the article as a whole can't be passed. So I forgot to capitalize the 'v' in vignetting, that's the only thing which was wrong with it. Everything else is completely optional to someone interpretation of prose. Though you didn't catch 'everything'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Altered my style comment. I'll just fix the error before I go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, what can I say. The "v" was the least of my concerns. I don't see the need to ask someone on their talk page whether I should remove duplicate External links that are already cited in the references, GA or not. No, my comment was not sarcastic: I've reviewed GAs, and I've had GAs reviewed, and proper writing is a given: it's the first item in the list. If I understand you correctly, the nominator criticized your review? I have no knowledge of that, and little interest in it. The GAN history tells me it's TonyTheTiger (it's not listed in the review), but I can't find where you were criticized. But that's beside the point anyway. I made copyedits to the article which needed to be done even if this never goes up for FA, and literary major or not (also beside the point), you made only a few minor edits--a typo and an automated run-through. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean to--but I don't see how my edits were beyond what GA calls for, and I am disappointed with the attitude (which TTT has as well, I think) that if something isn't explicitly called for in the GA criteria it's not relevant. None of this is to say that I don't appreciate your work because I do: GA reviews aren't always fun. But it's kind of like being an admin--the only time you get feedback is when someone wants to bitch at you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want it to be read like that. I don't want to come across as having an attitude, but its rough when you get mixed messages. I'll message your talk about it. Sorry if it came across wrong. I get told not to do X but to do Y and people get mad at me for doing Y and say do X. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been 14 years since GA and the article appears to be, well, a bit less good than the GA version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_8-16mm_f/4.5-5.6_DC_HSM_lens&oldid=512273110, including a banner of concern.  Any comments? Joe (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)