Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous peer review

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)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]