Talk:Holographic weapon sight

Pros

Could we have a paragraph explaining in which ways the holographic sight is better than other types of sights? Thanks. Abjad (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article already lists some pros and cons of the sight, could be reworked into section.

Pros listed in the article:

• Window not blocked by a semi-silvered or dielectric dichroic coating.
• reticle can be infinitely small.

Pros not listed:

• Optical system does not use a spherical mirror so does not suffer from spherical aberration - a parallax error that can cause the reticle position to diverge off the sight's optical axis with change in eye position.
• Optical system does not use a spherical mirror so reticle can be any shape and not suffer distortion.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The pro's not listed should be inserted in the page, a section would be a good addition though.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense

"Since the hologram is illuminated by a laser there is no need for the sight "window" to be partially blocked by a semi-silvered or dielectric dichroic coating found in standard reflex sights"

Illumination by a laser does not explain why you don't need a half-mirror et al. This description is incomplete and/or very confusing.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Could be expanded in some way. The gist is the sight does not work by reflection at all (does not use any type of mirror beam splitter). The reticle is a hologram, so so maybe some base description should be brought over from that article? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Did a rewrite. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Source quality

I'm having a hard time deciding whether some of the sources for this article are reliable, based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources, specifically "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

It seems to me that The Firearm Blog and PewPewTactical are promotional websites. Wikipedia does not disallow blogs as sources outright, but my understanding is that they are also considered less reliable. I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, so I thought I would go looking for a consensus before removing these sources. Onionize-the-workers (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)