Talk:Thermal imaging camera

scope

Surely thermal imaging cameras are used FAR beyond firefighting? What about the various uses in surveillance, natural science, astronomy, or indeed the entire field of thermal imaging, on which we already have an article? Right now this article should be at thermal imaging in firefighting. Modest Genius ^talk 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The other uses of such cameras are listed at thermographic camera. The reason I selected "Thermal imaging camera" is that is what the devices are called by the firefighters who use them. If it's to be renamed, "Thermal imaging camera (firefighting)" would be a more appropriate than "Thermal imaging in firefighting". I don't have any objection to a cohesive renaming of the various IR devices, but this is the best place I saw to put it. Would a disambiguation link help out? Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a hatnote along the lines of 'this articles deals with thermal imaging cameras in firefighting, for useage in other fields see thermographic camera'? Plus a section summary there or something? Modest Genius ^talk 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Running to class now, will add it in ~5 hours if no one else has first. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be entitled thermal imaging cameras in firefighting applications. It doesn't even touch on the thousands of other applications these cameras are used for everyday - like disease monitoring (H1N1), breast cancer, oncology, veterinarian, industrial, process control, bridge delaminiation, energy audits,etc. 97.77.42.214 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there some reason those couldn't be in Thermographic camera? I'm open to retitling if there's a good case for it. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Thermographic camera" and "thermal imaging camera" are often used interchangeably. I see no reason to not use "thermal imaging in firefighting" (or something similar) for the firefighting variants. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Photograph of Operation

I am all for the image there now of the firetruck's wheel, but wouldn't it be a good idea to show a picture of something like . . . say . . . what a fire would look like through this thing? Or a door with a fire behind it? I dunno. Something with some areas that are "dangerously hot" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.175.99 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully admit it's a pretty lame photo. I'll see if I can get a better one next time during a training burn. I took a whole bunch of photos of stuff around my station one slow Saturday... which means there were no real usages of a TIC. There are some cool pictures out there, but most of them do not appear to be free use. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thermal imaging camera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • It is recommended that you avoid words that can date quickly, such as the use of "recent" in the last sentence of the lead. Could you reword this sentence?

   • Done. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • There are quite a few short paragraphs in the article. Paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded if possible, or combined with other paragraphs.

   • Done. Added some more research while I was at it. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • You shouldn't mix the citation templates with the cite xyz templates. They should all be either one or the other. At the moment, your access date formats are showing up two different ways, which I think may be a symptom of using the two different families of reference template.

   • Done. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref #12 (eMediaMillWorks) goes to the log-in page for the EBSCO database. So do all of the other articles you have linked to the EBSCO database, as well as the articles from the ProQuest database. My suggestion would be to link to another version of the article if it's available outside of a database, and if not, just cite the article as if you found it in a print magazine.

   • Tagged as subscription required. I'll go through later and see if I can find free equivalents to this access, but I suspect most of it will not be available. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref 15 (Kemah Tx Fire Dept) needs an access date

   • Fixed. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   • Current ref 16 (Michael book) needs a publisher, and should have the author listed last name first as the other references do.

   • Fixed. Note that the author's name is J. Michael Lloyd, so it was listed properly. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

There are just a few issues, mainly with references, so I am placing the article on hold to allow you time to address my concerns. Overall, this is a very nice article, and it shouldn't take much work to tweak it up to GA status. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question on my talk page...yes, I guess it would be fine to include a "(subscription needed)" or something next to the EBSCO and ProQuest articles, rather than removing the urls. However, if there is any way to link to a version that is not in a database, it would be preferable. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me know if this is enough, and, if not, which areas you'd like me to revisit for additional attention. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My final comment would be that for additional article improvement, you should probably cite the last couple of sentences in the second paragraph of the Construction section, as well as the last couple of sentences at the end of the Usage section. Nice work, and thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

For uses

It's also used to detect hardware temperatures, what spots on a board are more heated. It starts being used for graphics cards reviews lately, and I suspect hardware manufacturers test their boards with it. --89.210.3.234 (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)