This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
The current article is promotional and poorly sourced. It has content like "one of the industry's largest-capacity Carrier Ethernet platform"[citation needed] and "is a family of high-performance". Most of the content is unsourced original research on technical information and the sourced content is almost exclusively from press releases.
Done I read the draft and found it to be vastly improved over the current article. I did not copy the draft lead as I found the one already in the article gave me a better overview of what the product actually is. I think there still needs to be some work done, like perhaps explaining what some of the things mean for a layperson like me to understand, but this version is much less promotional and utilizes sources appropriately. Wugapodes (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look @Wugapodes:!!! I made some quick minor copyedits and misc tweaks in the Lead, but I also think we should delete this sentence: "The MX960 is one of the industry's largest-capacity Carrier Ethernet platform, with up to 2.6 terabits per second (Tbit/s) of switching and routing capacity.[1][2][3]" This is a fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim supported only by press releases. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just went ahead and rewrote the lead as I feel it didn't adequately cover the article either. I did remove the sentence you took issue with (along with pretty much every other sentence). A note on the article: there are a number of places where you use "late (year)" or "early (year)" which should probably use the specific period if known, like "in (month) (year)" or "on (date)" as "early" and "late" are really relative and can easily be misinterpreted. Anyway, let me know what you think of the new lead Wugapodes (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good @Wugapodes:! I made some very minor tweaks to avoid using the word "series" twice in the same sentence, etc. One other thing I forgot to mention is that (as the article itself states) "3D" is now part of the name of the product family. It also doesn't normally have a hyphen. (see here). I suggest renaming the article to "Juniper MX Series 3D". David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the topic to really make an informed call on titling. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME which says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. And I don't know enough about the sourcing on this to be able to say what the common name is. I'd recommend a requested move, let it run for at least 7 days, and go off that consensus, and probably notify the talk page of Juniper Networks as they might have good insight. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
The article looks to be well-created and it appears to deserve the title as a good article. A big thanks to CorporateM for nominating it; it was an interesting read!
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Done I read the draft and found it to be vastly improved over the current article. I did not copy the draft lead as I found the one already in the article gave me a better overview of what the product actually is. I think there still needs to be some work done, like perhaps explaining what some of the things mean for a layperson like me to understand, but this version is much less promotional and utilizes sources appropriately. Wugapodes (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)