Talk:Computer vision/Archives/2017
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Very Poorly Written Article
Again, we have a bunch of techie jargon that essentially just amounts to ... jargon. And again, this is why computer engineers in general should not even attempt to write, except via a translator who understands the English language and knows how to communicate. This article rambles on and on about research and hypotheticals, and fails to mention even the most basic current methods re: how computer vision is being used and developed. LiDAR, for example. Not a word about it. Why not? Ugh.
Someone who reads this article might be interested in knowing what type of hardware is used to accomplish machine / computer vision. Cameras, LiDAR, radar, etc. Doesn't that seem reasonable? Maybe a few more words on applications and a few less words on theory would be in order.
98.194.39.86 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the negative generalization. Also an article on a very technical topic is going to be technical. But there are some good points and thoughts in this comment. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is very confusing to read due to lack of clear summary type statements, a somewhat rambling style, and massive duplication / repetition between sections. For various reasons it needs a definition section which I started. One of these reasons is that the lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. This was not the case with definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto for the "tasks material". This will enable more summarization in the lead without losing content.North8000 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is very confusing to read due to lack of clear summary type statements, a somewhat rambling style, and massive duplication / repetition between sections. For various reasons it needs a definition section which I started. One of these reasons is that the lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. This was not the case with definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to).
I added a single word on "lidar", as requested. Please go ahead and make further improvements. --DavidCary (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Some proposed changes
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Please see the comment below by User:North8000. |
Kindly add the below as a reference* here "Applications-->Modeling objects or environments, e.g., medical image analysis [*]" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20172792 Hidasri (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are several problems with this request. There's not even proposed text which this reference would support. Second, it looks hyper-specialized and not likely to be useful/informative here. Third, static, off line analysis of images is not within the common meaning of computer vision. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)