Talk:Digital photograph restoration

message: I have an addition to this post I need reviewed. Arwilliams12 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

message: Tormey, M. (2013, May 1). The Debate Over the Ethics of Photo Restoration. Retrieved from https://legacy-blog.com/2013/05/01/the-debate-over-the-ethics-of-photo-restoration/--Gleasona (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I was thinking that the article needs to have the following six sections: 
1.  definition of digital photograph restoration (expand upon the existing definition), 
2. overview of restoration process, 
3. agents of deterioration, 
4. preventative conservation, 
5. ethical considerations, and 
6. digital image restoration applications for other museum objects.  
Breaking this into six sections would mean each one of us does two sections.  I don't mind the photo examples listed in the article.  It is true they may need additional explanation but we would need to be careful not to get to into the minutia about listing every specific kind of treatment for every kind of situation.--Gleasona (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some good ideas, but reliable sources are needed as the basis of any content—which takes research and work! And, in this encyclopedia, we must guard against violating WP:NOTHOWTO. P.S. Lauren, you should sign your comments with ~~~~ so that the date of your posts are automatically generated beside your name. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

text: To new editors: Encyclopedias should present facts and information objectively. Generally, they don't have the word "should" in the articles themselves. Example: rather than say what standards and policies "should" be, present the specifics of particular standards or policies. Avoid vagueness and wordiness. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: In general, we should not list specific programs or tools, since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog. The sections also used unreliable sources such as blogs, the vendor's own websites, and press releases. Please stick to only high quality sources, especially when dealing with content that may tend to promote one vendor over another. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on tools 

message: Especially for the raft of new editors: Various recent additions to this article aren't specifically relevant to digital photograph restoration and should be deleted. It's like you're using this article as a notepad rather than considering what an encyclopedia reader would be looking for: specifically relevant, useful facts. Rather than summarily deleting them myself, I'm bringing some of the problems up here first, as a courtesy, to help you avoid wasting more of your time. Examples:
* "Copyright law controls five distinct uses...". This list is already in the Copyright article and shouldn't be duplicated here. (now replaced with internal link)
* "Factors for determining fair use". This list is already in the Fair use article and shouldn't be duplicated here. (now replaced with internal link)
* "Access". This entire section has nothing to do with restoration and should be removed.
* "Metadata Standards, Management, and Sustainability". This entire section, including subsections, does not present information specifically to do with restoration and, if it remains vague, should be removed.
* Any language such as "... are advised to obtain advice from councilit's spelled COUNSEL ..." and "museums must rise above the bar..." and "it is recommended..." are not objective and should not be in an encyclopedia.
* Generally, much of the material that has been added recently is long-winded, vague, rambling, and at best marginally relevant to digital photograph restoration.
If you can find reliable sources that specifically apply these vague topics (ethics, copyright, management)  to digital photograph restoration, it's fine to add it. I'm leaving non-compliant material in the article for now, as it seems to be part of a school project, but improper material will not remain for long. When is your assignment over? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your proposed content may possibly be relevant in other articles, such as Digital asset management, Collections management system, Digital rights management, etc., but not here in Digital photograph restoration. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Recent massive, unsourced additions re the causes of photographic deterioration are barely relevant to digital photograph restoration that is the subject of this article. At most, the causes of deterioration might rate a brief mention as mere background information, and in any event should be credited to reliable sources—which almost all personal blogs are not. See WP:RS. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The comments applied to 'deterioration' also apply to the sections on handling, enclosures, and environment, etc. I can't see why you're using this article on restoration to "explore" these topics. You should not use Wikipedia as your notepad. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope and content 

message: To new editors: You should learn the basics of sourcing if you want to continue on Wikipedia. At the very least, understand:
* Use reliable sources. Personal blogs are almost always not considered reliable. If it's not properly sourced, it shouldn't be included in the first place.
* Learn citation formatting. See Help:Footnotes, at the very least Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once
* Don't just plop the URL between  symbols.  
:: Do a proper citation: after clicking "Edit", look just above the edit box, click on "Cite", choose from the "Templates" drop-down list one of (web, news, book, journal). Fill in the the boxes before clicking Insert.
—RCraig09 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and footnotes