User talk:Acetate K3

Hello, Acetate K3, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Mathglot and I've volunteered to be your Wikipedia mentor. I'm here for you whenever you need help with Wikipedia. It's great to have you on board to help create this online encyclopedia.

See your homepage for a brief tutorial. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or the Task Center.

Help is available: as your Mentor, you can always find me listed in the "Get editing help" module bottom right on your homepage; there are also additional help links there. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or try the Wikipedia:Teahouse to get help designed especially for new users from a team of experienced volunteers. So go ahead and ask questions — we're here to help!

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

While you try to figure out where you want to concentrate your efforts, you might want to have a look at WP:WikiProject Film, which lists open tasks and has plenty of ideas of things to do curated by volunteers just like you who have an interest in film. Drop by the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and just say, 'Hi!' and add a couple of words about yourself if you wish, to get started. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I've poked around there but not been too social yet. I did go through and gather citations for the Krasnogorsk-3 article and generally expand its content from available resources. Thanks again! Acetate K3 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you assessed the page Buckler as B class in the Wikipedia Article Assessment Requests. This was not correct. The article does not reach passed Stub class in it's current state. Please refrain from assessing articles before gaining more experience on Wikipedia. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I was probably over generous with the B-class, looking at it again. But looking at the content assessment guidelines, I still believe it's beyond stub. (It's certainly not the A-class the poster thought it would be). That said, I'll gladly defer to your more experienced guidance and return to my corner and editing film technology articles. All in all, I'll take it as a learning experience and move on. Didn't mean to cause issues. Acetate K3 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. No trouble at all. Keep working hard. I looked through your other assessments and this was the only one that was way off. No worries though. It's a learning experience, as you said. The biggest issue is the bare link and needs sources throughout. Then it is easily Start or possibly C. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. This turned out to be a more pleasant encounter than I had anticipated. I was admittedly nervous of when I would run afoul of something.

My only goal in doing the assessments was to reciprocate since I was myself requesting some assessments. Felt fair. But I completely understand.

Thank you for reaching out. I only want to be a good neighbor. Acetate K3 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Understandable! On the assessment request page, we don't have a limit to how many articles you can request assessment of. We do it for the joy of it, at least I do. I love getting to learn from all the different articles that are requested. I also have some major experience in the writing department, as I'm a newspaper publisher. Reading and writing content is what I do daily, so it only makes sense to do it in my free time too.

I'd suggest you click the random article button a good bit and see a lot of different articles and see if there are ways you can improve it. Then go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and see if there is something you could do research on to attempt creating an article. This will help you learn more and by then you'll be well on your way. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Acetate K3! its SquawkGuard from the film assessment page to give some more feedback on the Krasnogorsk (camera) page.

A lot of these sources would be considered unreliable for any other information, but because technical information is so sparse this falls into an acceptable category in this case. However, this is a more subjective judgement and other editors may have different tastes, but I have been here before with this type of tech spec researching and often the best info is from a odd website or forum (but forums of course are a no go for Wikipedia).

However on the Space fact (the Zond/Salut missions), while super cool(!), that can not be backed by that source. For that bold of a claim it is definitely unreliable. If you could verify that fact (maybe a book on the soviet missions would have that info?) that would be AWESOME! I tied to look briefly and ran into the verification problem myself. So cool if this camera has a space history (which I think is very possible), but you would need a much stronger source.

The other element is that while I enjoy the extremely detailed technical info this may be the max amount with these types of sources for Wikipedia. It's not supposed to be the camera's manual. I don't think you are there, but with more info it could become a close case. If I revisit the page and have more thoughts I'll let you know. Additionally, if you want me to look at it again drop into my talk page and I'll happily take another look!

I also want to say how awesome it is that you did this work the grow of the page. One of the joys of Wikipedia to get to be able to learn about things, like neat little cameras!

Good job and Congrats on the page! – SquawkGuard (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious what about the space program you're referring to, just for my clarity, because the page I use as a source (http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/space/k.html) specifically links the original K1 (with the twin-lens turret) to the space missions. So I'm just a bit confused on that. Just some more clarity would help me in sorting out the issue is all! =)

But yes, I definitely think you're on the money regarding a few things. 1) there's basically nothing else to do here, outside of strengthening the sourcing of information, and that 2) the article is at risk of becoming too technical. My goal was to show the development of the camera, which required discussing the technical information. Secondly, when I first became interested in this line of cameras, Wikipedia was the first place I looked, so I felt compiling everything together here (as much as appropriate) would be good.

Unfortunately, as you've mentioned, there's simply not much information out there about these cameras. The technical breakdown videos I've supplied (as well as rental listings and the sort) are some of the best sources of information available (particularly on the K1 and K2). No one is really publishing new materials (at least in English) on them either. My guess is, if anything new were to be published in English about this line of cameras in the near future, I or someone I know would be the one writing it, which (I feel) would limit my ability to update the article.

This is all a long-winded way to say that I think other than trying to clean things up (there are currently some redundancies in the text), the article has gone as far as it can. The biggest improvement I made, I think, was combining the Krasnogorsk-2, Krasnogorsk-3, and Krasnogorsk (camera) articles into a single article. Nevertheless, it's a tricky thing.

I appreciate you looking at it and reassessing it. It's something I will continue trying to document, as much as possible. Hopefully new material comes to light.

All that being said, I'm very happy with the rating of C-class, given the quality for some of the sources! =) Acetate K3 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)