Talk:Ethernet/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Puffin (talk · contribs) 18:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Collisions reduce throughput by their very nature."I don't understand, what does this mean? Please clarify. Clarified. Collisions require retransmission. --Kvng (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC) "had only 2 ports" Why "only" two ports? Why is this to small? Please clarify. "cabling in a star network were recognized." Recognized by who? Please clarify. Clarified. Larger number of ports produces star network. Paragraph following discusses star vs. bus. --Kvng (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Words to watch: In note 1, you say "rather than the packet type in the current Ethernet standard, which specifies the protocol being used." Avoid using the word current, it becomes outdated, even in notes. You use the word "Significant" twice in the article, avoid this word, it is a peacock term. Removed during previous edit pass. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "packets of various sizes" Avoid the word various, it's too vague. Removed some unverified detail including this statement. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "several magnitudes of speed" Avoid the word several, it's too vague. Added specifics to this summary. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "lots of hosts with long cables " How long are the cables, how many is lots? Please, clarify and be less vague. Added specifics. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "became very important with the introduction of Fast Ethernet." How important is "very important?" This is too vague, please clarify. Clarified. Fast Ethernet would not have gotten far without these capabilities. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "an be very slow when many stations are simultaneously active." How slow is "very slow?" Please clarify. Reworked with concrete example. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "are lots of hosts with long cables" How many hosts is "lots?" Please clarify. Duplicate of above. --Kvng (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Layout Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out. For example you say: "Early repeaters had only 2 ports, but they gave way to 4, 6, 8, and more ports as the advantages of cabling in" Fixed this example. Looked for but didn't find any other occurrences of this issue. --Kvng (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	FN2: Needs publishing date. Dated. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN4: Needs publishing date, "retrieved" needs a capital letter. Changed {{Cite}} to {{Cite web}} and that seems to have fixed it. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN5: Is a journal and should be cited as such. FN5 is a patent and is cited with {{US patent}}. Seems good to me. FN6 is a journal and is cited as such. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN8: Needs publishing date and page number. Citation shows document was published. Page number unnecessary. Added date and URL. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN9: Needs publishing date. Now FN10. Date added. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN10: Needs publishing date. Now FN11. Date added. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN12: "Retrieved" needs a capital letter. Changed {{Cite}} to {{Cite news}} and that seems to have fixed it. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 15 and FN9: Same reference with different pages. You can use this template to help you format it correctly. Done. Nice trick. Thanks. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 20: Needs publisher and publishing date. Removed reference. Was just referencing previous reference. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 21: You don't need a colon after the ISSN, this is to make sure it has a link. Now FN20. Change id to issn. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 25: Needs page number. Now FN24. Page added. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) FN 26: Needs the publishing date. Now FN25. Publication date not available for this web resource. --Kvng (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
	2b. 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).	"Version 2 was published in November, 1982 and defines what has become known as Ethernet II. Formal standardization efforts proceeded at the same time." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Citation added December 2011. --Kvng (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "Notwithstanding its technical merits, timely standardization was instrumental to the success of Ethernet. It required well-coordinated and partly competitive activities in several standardization bodies such as the IEEE, ECMA, IEC, and finally ISO." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Not a critical statement. Removed. --Kvng (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC) "Since IEEE membership is open to all professionals, including students, the group received countless comments on this technology." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Resolved in history section rework March 2012. --Kvng (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC) "n addition to CSMA/CD, Token Ring (supported by IBM) and Token Bus (selected and henceforward supported by General Motors) were also considered as candidates for a LAN standard. Due to the goal of IEEE 802 to forward only one standard and due to the strong company support for all three designs, the necessary agreement on a LAN standard was significantly delayed." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Resolved in history section rework March 2012. --Kvng (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Approval of Ethernet on the international level was achieved by a similar, cross-partisan action with Fromm as liaison officer working to integrate International Electrotechnical Commission, TC83 and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) TC97SC6, and the ISO/IEEE 802/3 standard was approved in 1984." Unsourced, please provide some citations. Publication date corrected and cited ~Kvng (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC) "Ethernet evolved to include higher bandwidth, improved media access control methods, and different physical media. The coaxial cable was replaced with point-to-point links connected by Ethernet repeaters or switches to reduce installation costs, increase reliability, and improve management and troubleshooting. Many variants of Ethernet remain in common use." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Added citation and trimmed. ~Kvng (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "(and hence the same interface for higher layers), and can be readily interconnected through bridging." Please provide a citation. Added ref and recast sentence. ~Kvng (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "Through the first half of the 1980s, Ethernet's 10BASE5 implementation used a coaxial cable 0.375 inches (9.5 mm) in diameter, later called "thick Ethernet" or "thicknet". Its successor, 10BASE2, called "thin Ethernet" or "thinnet", used a cable similar to cable television cable of the era. The emphasis was on making installation of the cable easier and less costly." Unsourced, please provide some citations. Add new ref and link to RG-58. ~Kvng (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC) "Use of a single cable also means that the bandwidth is shared, so that network traffic can be very slow when many stations are simultaneously active." Unsourced, please provide a citation. Citation added. ~Kvng (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Almost all of the "Repeaters and hubs" section is unsourced, please provide some citations. Many refs at this point. Use existing Spurgeon ref for last paragraph. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Please provide some more citations for "Bridging and switching" section. Some statements in there are likely to be challenged and need a direct citation. Added ~Kvng (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC) "Advanced networking" section is completely unsourced, please provide citations. A couple refs had been added. Added another. Deleted an unreferenced statement. ~Kvng (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC) The whole section "Varieties of Ethernet" is unsourced, please provide citations. Same with Ethernet frames and Autonegotiation. These sections are now WP:SUMMARIES. I believe amble sourcing for the material here can be found in the linked main articles. ~Kvng (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC) "Ethernet frame format have influenced other networking protocols." In the lead, this is not mentioned in the rest of the article and if it is, it is unclear, and is unsourced. Statement no longer in lead. ~Kvng (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC) "a good degree of backward compatibility." In the lead, this is not mentioned in the rest of the article. What makes the compatibility so good? Please provide sources and inline citations. See first paragraph (cited) of Evolution section. ~Kvng (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Until citations are provided above, I can't assess this.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It may be confusing to people unfamilar to the subject, for example you say: "(ISO) TC97SC6, and the ISO/IEEE 802/3" What does this mean? Removed this jargon. ~Kvng (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Until citations are provided above, I can't assess this.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is not currently ready for good article status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to WP:Peer review again and then please renominate at WP:GAN. There are too many major problems in this article which much be resolved before the article can be promoted to GA. Puffin Let's talk! 19:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Followup

Over a period of 9 years I resolved the problems identified in this review. I recently requested another review and was advised by Chiswick Chap (see User_talk:Kvng#Ethernet) that GA status was still likely out of reach because of statements lacking citations. I withdrew the GA review request. Many of these statements have been subsequently been reviewed, tags found unnecessary, and removed by Gah4. ~Kvng (talk)

I think I believe that. If there are more questions that I can answer, just ask. Gah4 (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)