Wikipedia:Peer review/High-Definition Multimedia Interface/archive2

High-Definition Multimedia Interface

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually get it to FA status. I have been working on it for the last few months and would appreciate any comments on how to improve it further.

Thanks, GrandDrake (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.about.com/
    • Replaced: Have replaced with press release, product page, and a review of product --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.hdvinfo.net/
    • Replaced: Have replaced with press release and a review of product --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://firingsquad.com/
    • Kept: No other articles I know of listed HDMI computer monitors like that back in 2006 and it is a well known PC gaming website --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.audioholics.com/
    • Kept: AV enthusiast website that is reliable --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.hdmi.org/pdf/whitepaper/SilicaonImageHDMIWhitePaperv73(2).pdf (current refs 15 and 28) Also, I think you've got this link mixed up, since the link seems to match with the information given for current ref 17 the O'Donnell paper.
    • Replaced: Copy and paste mistake and have replaced with the correct link --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://gizmodo.com/
    • Kept: A electronics news website that did one of the few web accesible real world HDMI cable tests I can find and I would consider that article reliable. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.gizmorepublic.com/
    • Removed: It is a blog that I don't know much about and I find it unfortunate that I can't find a more reliable source for this information since the comparison scam it refers to is well known on internet forums. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.twice.com/
    • Kept: A consumer electronics website that is reliable --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.hometoys.com/index.htm
    • Kept: The website is technology oriented and the interview was done with Steve Venuti who is the Vice President of Marketing at HDMI Licensing, LLC --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20070108022516/http://www.allion.com/news.html
    • Removed: I have removed it since I couldn't confirm who runs it --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.epanorama.net/index.php
    • Kept: A website for electronics documents and has the best SPDIF article I can currently find --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.highdefdigest.com/
    • Kept: A consumer electronics website that is reliable --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.soundadviceblog.com/?p=273 looks like a blog
    • Replaced: Author of blog was a newspaper technology columnist and have replaced with his online newspaper article --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.displayport.org/
    • Kept: Official VESA website for the DisplayPort interface --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Per the MOS, titles in all capitals are frowned on. (current ref 8 and 58)
  • Fixed: Have retyped article titles to fix that --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If web sites are just reprints of articles that appeared in a print magazine, you can format them with {{cite journal}} and include the url. That'll make the title of the magazine format in italics.
  • Current ref 73 is lacking a publisher (Don Lindich HDMI Pass-through, selling old audio gear)
  • Fixed: Have added publisher to that reference --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: I have replaced/removed several of those references and fixed several of them as well. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. I am not sure if any of these would help, but there are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Engineering_and_technology that may be useful models
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - it is currently much too technical and jargony. Please see WP:LEAD
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• The article may need fewer sections / header too - many of the sections are very short, only a few sentences. Could they be combined or possibly expanded? Could the current sections on HDMI 1.3, HDMI 1.3a, HDMI 1.3b, and HDMI 1.3b1 all be in one section for example?
• My main concern with this article is that it is nearly incomprehensible. I tried to read it, but to be honest after a while it just becomes gibberish. There are some possible ways to address this, as follows:
• Provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. The Lead and General Notes (perhaps this could be "Overview" instead?) should be especially accessible. Why is this important? Who developed and makes it? What came before it that made it necessary and what is in the pipeline to replace it? How does it work? etc.
• I would probably start with the overview, then the history (why was it needed, how was it developed, etc.), then perhaps specifics on how it works, etc.
• I think it is also very important to avoid or explain jargon. Most of the abbreviations seem to be alphabet soup and need to be spelled out and explained. See WP:JARGON
• Much of the article is bullet point lists - this needs to be converted to prose.
• FAC looks closely at the writing - it must be at a professional level - as long as it is alphabet soup and lists, it will not pass FAC.
• It looks like most of the non-problem refs (see above for those) are from HDMI Licensing, LLC. Try to get as many independent, third party sources as possible.
• What kind of reviews / critical reception has this had? Is is a popular device or are there alternatives that are more used? Is anything in the works to replace it?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Response: I have merged some of the sections and have converted most of the bullet point lists into prose. Will try to add more explanation to the technical information as well. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

• For me, the "Versions" section with all its tiny sub-sections ruins this article. Please replace them with a wikitable.
• The History section is short - anything which can be added?
• The two tables under "HDMI and Blu-ray Disc players" are not of equal width.
• Can the "Relationship with DisplayPort" section go elsewhere? It looks like an after-thought.
• Needs a copyedit to polish the prose, take a look at WP:PRV and contact some editors.
• Otherwise looks good, well on its way to FAC!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)