Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HDMI/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:57, 28 November 2009 [1].

HDMI

edit
Nominator(s): GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a notable subject in the consumer electronics world since there are over 600 million HDMI devices. The article covers the history, technical specifications, and revisions of HDMI along with the relationships that it has with other devices. The article was listed as a good article over a year ago. Any comments would be appreciated. GrandDrake (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide alt text to images per WP:ALT.
  • Several web-links are dead (click "external links" in the Toolbox on the right);
  • urls are missing in refs. 92, 100
  • "Overreferencing". A representative example is section "CEC" where 9 links are bundled only to support the brand names. Some of them are incomplete (see above); clicking some others leads to a page of questionable validity (promotional page).
  • I am not happy with the prose. Examples are excessive capitalization (I understand there are many proper names there, but not all are such) and use of slash and brackets. I believe abbreviation "CE" is unnecessary, especially given the large number of other abbreviations.
I have added alt text to all images, I believe that all of the reference links are now correct, have tried to cut down on the number of references in CEC trade name sentence, and have changed all CE abbreviations to consumer electronics. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have reduced the number of references in CEC trade name sentence to the minimum possible while still having all trade names referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment without judgment, about 60 out of 150 refs are from the HDMI website. Materialscientist (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No dab links or dead external links, and date formats appear consistent. Moved my comments and related replies to this nom's talk page to save space—all are resolved. --an odd name (help honey) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added information to those references that were missing information. For the following articles I will comment on whether I consider them to be reliable:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2254162,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
Reliable, ExtremeTech is done by the same people behind PCMag.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-connections-11-2004.html
Reliable, the home theater magazine launched in 1994.
Current ref 34 (Jeff Su) lacks a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
Removed, the author of the article works as a HDMI product development manager but it was hard to tell who was the website publisher.
http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/202803907
Reliable, website is owned by United Business Media who also owns the EETimes website.
http://www.elitelex.com/HDMIConnectors.html
Replaced, website sold HDMI products but had few articles on HDMI.
Current ref 55 (Ultra-smal...) lacks a publisher and last access date, and what makes this a reliable source?
Reliable, Nikkei is huge media company in Japan.
http://www.twice.com/article/238949-Retailer_Requires_Simplay_HDMI_Testing.php
Reliable, a business magazine.
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
Reliable, the information in that magazine interview came from the Vice President of Marketing for HDMI Licensing.
http://www.cepro.com/
Reliable, a trade magazine that was launched back in 1994.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
Reliable, a website that stores technical articles and has the best SPDIF article I could find.
http://www.phoronix.com/
Reliable, gaming website that covers issues related to Linux.
http://firingsquad.com/
Reliable, a gaming website that did the first article I know of on HDCP computer monitors. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some, but on the others, still need more information to show reliablity. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looked into the publisher information for those references:
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/dec07/interviews/hdmi/hdmi.htm
Reliable, the online magazine was established in 1996 and is an official Google news source.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/spdif.html
Removed, I couldn't find information on the publisher.
http://www.phoronix.com/
Reliable, the website is owned by Phoronix Media and was started in 2004.
http://firingsquad.com/
Reliable, the website is owned by FS Media and was started in 1998. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section in the article on HDCP and a link to the main HDCP article. --GrandDrake (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose largely on 1a (prose is not engaging) and 1b (doesn't comprehensively include 1.4 or a variety of devices beyond PC and Blue-ray). The main problem is that it is overfull of facts and doesn't explain (to the general reader) how and why. For example, the reviewer above asked about DRM (Digital Rights Management). Yes the article mentions HDCP but the reader would have a hard time guessing what it is, how it works, who wanted it in the spec and why, etc.

Take the second sentence. This gives me a list of seven analogue cable formats. Why do I need to know them at this point in the article? The statement "It represents a digital alternative to" is very weak (in what way does it "represent" rather than just "is"). Compare what the HDMI folk say: "HDMI is the global standard for connecting high-definition Consumer Electronics and PC products." Change the "the" to "a" to downgrade the advert-speak and you've got a sentence that explains in laymans terms what HDMI is about. Another example is the "(such as the PlayStation 3 and some models of Xbox 360)" comment. Way too much information; saying "video games consoles" was just fine for the lead.

"The HDMI Founders began development on HDMI 1.0 on April 16, 2002" Why is "Founders" capitalised"? That day was simply the date of some press announcement. The exact day that HDMI began development isn't really important and probably unknown.

"At the time, DVI-HDCP (DVI with HDCP) and DVI-HDTV (DVI-HDCP using the CEA-861-B video standard) were being used on HDTVs." You've lost most general readers by this stage. The reader probably doesn't even know what DVI is/was and almost certainly won't know what HDCP is. And I can guarantee they won't have heard of the "CEA-861-B video standard" much less care about it.

As mentioned in earlier comments, overciting is a problem. For example, "HDMI began to appear on consumer HDTV camcorders and digital still cameras in 2006." has five references. There are at most two facts in that sentence so I'd expect two sources at most. The first source contains all that is needed to prove the first digital still camera with HDMI was launched in 2006. The next two aren't needed. The last two fail to prove (as far as I can tell) that Canon's camcorder was the first with HDMI. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources (which would contain a statement similar to the one in our article) rather than editors researching the primary literature (product reviews, manufacturer spec sheets) to collate facts.

I think it would help to have a single bullet-point full citation for the HDMI spec. Then each fact that you are drawing from that source could have a shortened footnote "HDMI Specification 1.3a Section 5.2.3.2". For the cases where you need to draw from multiple sections or pages, don't include multiple citations in the body text. Rather, have a footnote that mentions the multiple sections or pages.

For "applications", the article only mentions Blu-ray disc players and personal computers. What about cameras, camcorders, games consoles, set-top-boxes, home-theatre PCs, smart phones. The PC section is far too long, detailed and contains material that isn't really about HDMI but about individual hardware components or software packages. Why do people want HDMI on their PC? Why do they need feature X of HDMI 1.3 on their PC? I don't care what the "ATI Radeon HD 5870" graphics card can do any more than I want to open up my camera to see what chipset was used to control its HDMI connecter. Is there a specifc game or type of game that needs these features? Is there a professional need for the extra colour capabilities for artists or designers? Is there a minimum that I need to play Blu-ray discs on my PC? The rise of the Home Theatre PC isn't mentioned and is surely important (connecting computer equipment to consumer televisions).

Lastly, this article seems to be mostly built around the 1.3 specification, which has now been superseded by 1.4. For example, there is a new Type E connector that is locking, making it suitable for internal automotive connections. The new Ethernet and audio-return channels and 3D support aren't covered in any depth. I appreciate that 1.4 is new and has little product-support yet.

I think the article needs a fairly radical overhaul to make it an engaging read and focus more on getting the point across rather than bare facts. Too much to achieve during FAC IMO. Previous peer reviews have made comments on the over technical nature of the prose. Perhaps you could establish a dialogue with a non-technical collaborator and use them to help revise the prose. Have a look at the aimed-at-consumer literature and see how manufacturers attempt to explain "Deep color" and other jargon to their customers. Be ruthless when trimming those highly technical facts. Perhaps try re-writing a section in completely non-technical language with no acronymns and then force yourself to justify adding in each technical bit. If you really love and don't want to lose the technical information you have collected, consider creating daughter articles on HDMI versions or PC support for HDMI, etc. Colin°Talk 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HDMI/archive1&oldid=1078800369"