Talk:Microwave imaging
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microwave imaging article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
This draft is a subset of the topic area covered by this article. I have suggested that the draft material be used to improve this article. Please let us know if anyone has a better idea. ~Kvng (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
As the author of the draft I understand the comments of Kvng. I can try to improve Microwave imaging by using the draft material. I suggest, however, to use the title Microwave testing because this is the standard term as used in the non-destructive testing community. See e.g. Ultrasonic testing or Eddy-current testing in Wikipedia. Can the title Microwave testing be kept somehow?OMHH (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- We can do a WP:REDIRECT from Microwave testing to this article or to a specific section in this article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That is good. Then I will offer changes to Microwave imaging in the next two weeks or so.OMHH (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have created the redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The article and the draft have different focusings: The article is science directed, the draft is engineering directed. Kvng is correct that the article is more general regarding mentioned applications, e.g. aside of nondestructive testing (NDT) also covers medical, concealed weapons, through-wall imaging applications while the draft is focusses on NDT applications. The article is restricted to 2D or 3D presentation of findings, while the draft aside of these top views also includes cross sectional views and inspections at selective point, e.g. for wall thickness measurements. – Considering the mentioned differences I see the only way to add the contents of the draft to the article is the following: The first part of the article is basically left as it is. Then a section of microwave testing is added. The hints of the article regarding NDT are transferred into this new section. With slight changes in the overall text it can be tried to make the new article internally consistent. However, this will remain patchwork. – Alternatively, for the case when the draft is accepted as a separate article, I will make clearer the relations to the article microwave imaging. – I ask Kvng for a decision which of the two ways is to be realized.OMHH (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I beleive it is easier to organize a patchwork of material if it is all in one place so I still don't support creating a new Microwave testing article. If you can agree with this, we have WP:CONSENSUS. If you do not, we do not have consensus and should seek to involve other editors through WP:RFC or other mechanisms. ~Kvng (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)