Talk:Red-eye effect/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a short article with solid sources and clear explanation of a technical phenomenon.

• 'Prevention' describes both means of preventing red-eye, and 'Cure' by correcting red-eye that has occurred (where prevention has failed or not been attempted) using image processing. I suggest we separate these two approaches. That will be less of a contortion and will match the existing material better.
  •  Done
• Evans 2025 mentions several additional methods of prevention, including photography in sunlight or by a window or bright light source. These are neither physical or digital manipulation of the effect, so an additional paragraph (basically, on avoidance) seems to be needed here before you go into manipulation.
  • The "Causes" section already says that the effect occurs at low light or at night. I do not think that this is needed then.
    • I hear that, but it still isn't the same as saying up front that the photographer can avoid the effect by doing such-and-such.
      •  Done
• flash lighting that bursts quickly isn't quite what Evans 2025 says. It isn't that the flash bursts/explodes/is very bright: it is that it is fired "several times quickly", 'burst' in quite another sense. We might phrase this "the flash fires rapidly and repeatedly just before...", or words to that effect.
  •  Done
• Until May 2024, the list of references was named 'References'. It has since been changed to 'Footnotes'. This seems quite wrong for several reasons, not least that policy says the style should not be changed. Another is that science articles nearly always call the contents of the reflist references, and (if used) those of the notelist notes: and this is certainly a science/tech article. It's not clear, either, why we'd use the term 'Bibliography' for scientific articles (not books), or even why we'd want to separate those from news. I suggest we have one heading for the References, and one for 'Sources'.
  •  Done
• The implication of subdividing the Sources into 'Science' and 'News' is that we somewhat deprecate news sources as less good, maybe less trustworthy than primary science sources, but want to use them anyway: a bit of an odd outcome, but not really supported by policy. In any case, the NHS and Webster's are certainly not 'News'. All in all, we'd do better without these two subheadings.
  •  Done I agree.

Images

• The lead image is licensed by the nominator. The diagram is useful but the base graphics are less so. Firstly, most of the anatomical detail is irrelevant for this purpose; secondly, the choroid is not labelled; thirdly, the orangey colour of the inside of the eye gives the false impression that the vitreous is the source of the red reflections. Further, the labels "(in)" and "(out)" are redundant.
  • I've removed the graph, for now. I'll make corrections to it and re-added when I finish. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• The lead image caption is not helpful. Readers can see it's a graphic, and they know it must be about the red-eye effect as they're reading the article. Better would be to describe the effect briefly, e.g. "Light from the flash is reflected from blood in the choroid, making the pupil appear red." (or words to that effect).

The second image is based on two PD images on Commons.

• Per the Principle of Some Surprise, the second image caption does not need the words "on a human": readers can see that.
  •  Done
• By the way, I note that the technical means of avoiding red-eye using lighting, looking away, etc would be well explained in a diagram. This could certainly improve the article's clarity but isn't vital for GAN.

Sources

• All the sources are clearly relevant.

• Spot-checks: [1], [10], [13] ok.

• [3][4][5] all discuss the topic but none of them mention red reflex, a term which is used in many medical sources, such as [1]: some rearrangement or additional source is needed here.
  • Ref 9 does mention red reflex. I'll add it.

Summary

• There are a few things that need a little attention here before the article is promoted.
  • Almost there.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.