User talk:BMaujean

Welcome!

Hi BMaujean! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AliceVision Meshroom (June 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

GitHub is not a reliable source, can you use one of the papers instead to support the same thing. Do the papers support anything other than the subject area? Perhaps an interesting use, for example the fact that it works underwater?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:AliceVision Meshroom and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:AliceVision Meshroom, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gusfriend: I don't understand your comment on "non-reliable GitHub source".

Our article contains many references from renowned Academic publications with specific Digital Object Identifiers, like proceedings from the ACM Multimedia Systems, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, etc.

Could you explain me why these papers are not reliable sources?

Thanks for your help. BMaujean (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The papers are fine (in fact very good) but the GitHub link is a primary source. Think of it this way, all that it technically shows is that the people who wrote this software claim that they have written software that does X. What you are wanting to show is that there are people who are not associated with the project who have used a particular functionality which is why I was wondering if any of the papers include the fact that there is a blender plugin. There is a Wikipedia policy about it but that is what it boils down to.

My other comment relates to the fact that you mention "forensic science" and support it with 2 references which made me wonder if you could instead say something like "merging crime scene photographs to a single view to..." Gusfriend (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gusfriend,

Sorry again to ask naïve questions, but I don't understand why the Github references are "primary sources". Among the 3 Github references, 2 are not associated with the project:

- https://github.com/SBCV/Blender-Addon-Photogrammetry-Importer

- https://github.com/tibicen/meshroom2blender BMaujean (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_368#Github_as_reliable_source_for_software_topics and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352#Github as it goes into the issue there. Gusfriend (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gusfriend

Well, I guess it's not surprising to make factual reference to the existence of open-source software through their Github repositories, in our case the fact that 3rd party developers are providing plugins for Meshroom, which basically proves the interest of the community - in our case the open-source Blender community, to Meshroom.

Now there are only 3 Github references in our article, whereas there are **24 academic official references** with direct references and specific Digital Object Identifiers, that can be considered as reliable, independent, original, published sources about AliceVision and Meshroom. Do you agree with that statement? BMaujean (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at and reading the paper, the fact that It relies on open standard and file formats (OBJ, glTF, OpenEXR, Alembic) to facilitate interoperability with other software. is what is important and is supported by https://doi.org/10.1145/3458305.3478443 so I have moved the plugins to a separate section later on (which could equally have been called interoperability which would allow you to expand that) and used that as a source. The GitHub links are now ok as primary sources as they are just supporting the existence of the plugins. Feel free to revert what I did but I think that that is a better way of doing things. Of course you should feel free to submit it at any time. Gusfriend (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you @Gusfriend!

I've just done minor changes and ReSubmit. BMaujean (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is looking good. I will be leaving it to someone else to approve it as I have been involved in editing it but it should be looked at shortly. Gusfriend (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BMaujean! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gusfriend (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: AliceVision (August 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Peer review articles by the creators of the software and software repositories are not secondary sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:AliceVision and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:AliceVision has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:AliceVision. Thanks! Stuartyeates (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Hi, I've made some updates and comments Pluke (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]