This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Graphic designWikipedia:WikiProject Graphic designTemplate:WikiProject Graphic designGraphic design articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@Primefac: I've added additional references (four in total) discussing Pix4D; if you want to check, please click on the external links for the books under Further reading, especially the first two. Also, I've moved the focus of this article away from the company and into the homonym software, so I think it should be judged by Wikipedia:Notability (software). Lastly, if you check the article about a competing software (e.g., PhotoScan), you'll see it's not better referenced than the present article. Thanks for any feedback that you might have. fgnievinski (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Fgnievinski, it looks a lot cleaner now. I'll accept it shortly. As for PhotoScan - that was a terrible article. I gutted about 3/4 of it for blatant promotion. As a general note, while it's often good to compare existing articles with drafts for formatting, reference types, etc, the fact that an article exists does not mean it should justify creating a similar article; every page must be judged on its own merits. You'll probably find that now PhotoScan is pretty similar to this one! Primefac (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
