Talk:OPC Unified Architecture: Difference between revisions
←Created page with 'Where does this article contain too much jargon? I cannot see this so I cannot improve it. ~~~~' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Where does this article contain too much jargon? I cannot see this so I cannot improve it. [[Special:Contributions/88.66.89.229|88.66.89.229]] ([[User talk:88.66.89.229|talk]]) 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
Where does this article contain too much jargon? I cannot see this so I cannot improve it. [[Special:Contributions/88.66.89.229|88.66.89.229]] ([[User talk:88.66.89.229|talk]]) 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
This is just an educated guess, but everywhere there's an undefined abbreviation (or acronym), this is a good start. Much more importantly, and I'm suffering the same problem as you, these are supposed to be publicly accessible encyclopedic articles. By this, I mean that a senior in high-school with a general education should be able to read this article. |
|||
I know that when I discuss highly technical issues, I'm sometimes forced to simplify the discussion to a point that leaves important facts out, or to compare and contrast subjects to more familiar, common items and behaviors that may not accurate or reasonable in an extended context. That type of simplification would also not be permitted in an encyclopedic article such as this. |
|||
[[User:KnockNrod|KnockNrod]] ([[User talk:KnockNrod|talk]]) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:43, 12 July 2010
Where does this article contain too much jargon? I cannot see this so I cannot improve it. 88.66.89.229 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This is just an educated guess, but everywhere there's an undefined abbreviation (or acronym), this is a good start. Much more importantly, and I'm suffering the same problem as you, these are supposed to be publicly accessible encyclopedic articles. By this, I mean that a senior in high-school with a general education should be able to read this article.
I know that when I discuss highly technical issues, I'm sometimes forced to simplify the discussion to a point that leaves important facts out, or to compare and contrast subjects to more familiar, common items and behaviors that may not accurate or reasonable in an extended context. That type of simplification would also not be permitted in an encyclopedic article such as this.