 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
An objective is an objective- astrophotography is optically no different from a safari, or a lab setup. However, telephoto is telephoto... but photo-oriented refractors may feature reducers, not extenders. The rest of your objections are valid but correctable- thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoodleWhacks (talk • contribs)
- I removed your section on telescopes again (the first time it was someone else who removed it). It was a rambling essay, unsourced, badly written and badly punctuated, sort of a how-to based on your experience. If you have some sources that we can base it on, I can help you make something more encyclopedic about telescopes being long-focus lenses. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- System cameras can use both telescopes and microscopes readily via T- and C-mount, for any purpose- the system does not know or care what you're pointing at. Ask a hardcore birder. If that sounds like howto, then the issue is my style and diction, not the subject at hand.
- NoodleWhacks 18:04, July 3 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 22:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
- If you cite those sources for statements in your section, then other editors will be able to see the sources and help write to agree with them while having WP style. If you don't know how to cite sources, ask here for help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- ...and I have been a professional writer and semi-pro copy editor, so it's not apparent to me what the issue is with punctuation. Nevertheless, I have chosen to streamlined the text. NoodleWhacks 18:04, July 3 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC).
- See WP:REFPUNCT and WP:DASH for starters. Also, we use sentence case for WP:headings. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)