Talk:Microsoft Office Picture Manager

Microsoft Office Picture Manager has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 6, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows 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.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Differences between Mircosoft Paint and Office Picture Manager

Microsoft Paint can resize (Image/Stretch/Skew...), crop (using the handles to the side of the image) and convert pictures into different formats (Save As supports jpg, gif, png and tif). Are there any other differences between the two? --Kel-nage 15:21, 29 May 2005.>3rd july 2010>>> paint is a basic bitmap graphics painting software and comes free with windows.it allows you to use many tools such as colour fill,pencil,paintbrush,shapes,magnifier and also allows you to add text.

office picture manager is allows you to edit,share and view your image.picture manager will correct your image to the way you want them such as making the tone of the picture brighter or make it dim.it comes with microsoft starting version 2003. you can copy and paste images from picture manager and use them on any other document.(iram birmingham)

Image Editor or Image Viewer?

While it has a cumbersome and somewhat strange interface, Picture Manager is an Image Viewer before a Bitmap Editor. Maybe a category change would be aplicable? Memo 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to paint

I feel this is unfair - it's closer to Picasa in it's capabilities.

If you try to resize something in paint it comes out all pixelly and mushed up, in OPM it's much cleaner.

Stub notice removal?

I've expanded the article somewhat, but I don't know yet if the stub message should be removed or not. -Mardus 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MS Again go the wrong way (Office 2003 to Office 2007)

I modified my XP so when I right click on a pic and click on Edit it will open Picture Manger. The Office 2003 works great. It open the picture and ready to edit no matter where the picture is located. But with Picture Manager 2007, it default to open in "My Pictures" folder. No more "File>Open" or "Ctrl + O". I could add the "Shortcut picture" folder but I never know where the pic I'll be opening next time. And when I right click and edit the picture like I did in 2003, it just open the "My Picture" folder and does nothing. This is so annoying. What a big step backward.

Archive for "List of Photo Editor features that are not available in Picture Manager"

It is not necessarily related to the article per se, but I have tried—unsuccessfully—several times to archive a URL referenced in this article in case it is pulled by Microsoft in the future (it needs to be archived so that it can be cited in case it is removed). The URL is: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/827740/list-of-photo-editor-features-that-are-not-available-in-picture-manage and the title is: List of Photo Editor features that are not available in Picture Manager. Neither the Internet Archive or archive.is successfully capture the web page, and versions archived by the former state that no page by that name exists (as if the live version were already removed). Any assistance with this would be greatly appreciated. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Quality scale reassessment

Would it be possible for this article to be reassessed based on the criteria of the quality scale? (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file AJW.png on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft Office Picture Manager/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CelestialWeevil (talk · contribs) 18:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

whaddup, my name's Ian too! I'll do this review for ya. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 18:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

The wikilinking on SharePoint Library seems off. The second link, the library link, no longer directs to the proper subsection. (It's missing the comma between 'lists' and 'libraries'.)

Should not all items in the 'Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, and Word' list be wikilinked? Word is wikilinked in the third and final paragraph of the lead, but not in the second paragraph, where it is first mentioned.

The website link on the infobox is dead.

Why is there a 'last release' entry but no 'initial release' entry on the infobox? I don't edit in this wikispace, so I'm genuinely asking.

History

Picture Manager (then Picture Library) was... – This is a little ambiguous. I know you mean it used to be titled Picture Library, but 'then' could also imply future tense, like it was 'later known as Picture Library'. I would replace the parenthetical information with "(known at the time as Picture Library)".

...it is no longer included... – it >was< no longer included

The article would look a little better if the third paragraph was made bigger or merged into the second paragraph.

Features

Users can manually add shortcuts of folders with images to the shortcut pane or automatically populate it with folders that include images through a Locate Pictures command, which eliminates the need for users to create new categories for images or to import them from another location. – This sentence is kind of a doozy. It's tough to read without being very slow and deliberate. Is the 'it' in 'populate it' referring to the shortcut pane? 'shortcuts of folders' sounds strange; why not 'folder shortcuts'? And is 'with images' necessary?

All editing capabilities are exposed via an... – 'exposed' is a weird word. Maybe 'listed on' or something like that.

Again, I would merge the third paragraph with the second.

The image on this section is just about impossible to read. You might want to crop some of the negative space on the bottom or on the right so the low-res upload still has readable text. Or not, if you just want to show the shape of the pane; your choice.

Comparison with Photo Editor

These paragraphs are reaaaaal short. I think this whole section would be better as one or two larger paragraphs smoothed with some prose.

See also

As per MOS:SEEALSO, this section seems good.

References

Like I said above, I'm no expert in these types of Wikipedia articles, but I'm a little caught up with the abundance of primary sources. If I'm counting it right, there are 15 primary sources and 3 secondary sources. As per WP:GNG and WP:PSTS, secondary sources are desired in establishing notability. What do you think about this?
On reference 5, 'is' in the title should be capitalized as per MOS:TITLECAPS
Reference 6 is in sentence case, where the first 5 references are in title case. As per Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters, please use either title or sentence case consistently.
On reference 8, 'photos' should be capitalized in the title
As per MOS:ALLCAPS, please turn 'FREE' into 'Free' on reference 10
On reference 11, please capitalize 'shortcuts'
References 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are also in sentence case

Overall

This is a neat article. I like the topic. There are a couple of important concerns above (including at least one point that needs discussion); please let me know when you've addressed everything! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 19:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your comments

I apologize to you for being so late to respond. I had not thought that a reviewer would arrive so quickly. I am fortunate to be working with you—one who shares my name! I really liked your unique response. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

No problem! I'm sick right now, so my responses may be a little delayed as well. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you recover soon. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Infobox and lead

I repaired the second link so that it includes the comma between the two items.
I have wikilinked the items that you mentioned. That they were not wikilinked is an oversight and I apologize.
It is not my intention for there to even be a link in that infobox, with the possible exception of an archived website (which, if memory serves, is not allowable). I do not know how to remove it.
This is an excellent question, though one for which I am afraid I do not have an answer. I am not seeing any parameters for release version in the template, but based on your question the initial year of release was added to this article.

History

All of the issues were addressed.

Features

It did refer to the shortcut pane, but I made this explicit in the recent edit. I changed to folder shortcuts and removed the detail about images.
The wording for the features on the task pane was changed.
I merged the third paragraph with the second one as per your suggestion.
I am not sure how I would resize the image (I could crop the negative space as per your suggestion). What do you think would be ideal for an article of this type?
- Completely up to you. You have more experience, so I leave it in your hands. I just thought I'd point it out. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just took another screenshot without resizing it. It shows the entire task pane and it seems sufficiently small while maintaining readability. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Comparison with Photo Editor

Would you—I understand this is not your place—have any suggestions for prose? I am not sure what to add to this section other than the absence of support for the PCX format ("Like Photo Editor, Picture manager also does not...").
- No problem! I think the second paragraph could easily just be added to the end of the first paragraph; they flow pretty well together, since the second is another feature not included. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I joined the paragraphs as per your suggestion and I also added the detail regarding images in the PCX format. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

References

The reliance on primary sources is not ideal, but there are seemingly few secondary sources. There is a book by Ed Bott that discusses the ability to share with other Office applications, but it does not mention the applications (specifically Outlook) by name. The previously mentioned PCX detail is from a secondary source. I could add this if you desire.
- Any secondary sources you can find, I think it would be a good idea to add. Since I'm not an editor in the software wikipspace, I'm not familiar with what sources are acceptable or not, but I found several that could be dumped in one small section on reinstallation. What do you think about these?: 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, and 6. I know they aren't great or groundbreaking, but they at least prove notability. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for searching for these. I might be able to use a few of them. When you wrote about "one small section on reinstallation" are you proposing that I should add an additional section about this subject or? (Ian Wolfman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Nah, a whole new section isn't necessary. I leave it up to your discretion, but it could work just as a single sentence with 3 or 4 references on it. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 20:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is now capitalized.
I have made no edits for title case or sentence case; I am leaning toward sentence case.
- Sentence case is just fine! Either's good, as long as it's consistent. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am embarrassed to admit that I have no idea what I am doing in this regard. I think I will work with title case. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
It has been capitalized.
It has been changed.
It has been capitalized.

End notes: @Ian Wolfman: Thanks for all the corrections! I added a few responses scattered throughout above, but they're mostly minor. As soon as we come to a decision on the secondary sources thing, this will pass. Good job! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Wolfman: You've done a great job on this article and turned what could be boring and mundane into something interesting. It's a pass! I'll go ahead and put in a little title case refinements myself. Happy editing! CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 20:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]