Talk:Juniper MX Series

Latest comment: 8 years ago by CorporateM in topic GA Review

Draft

edit

The current article is promotional and poorly sourced. It has content like "one of the industry's largest-capacity Carrier Ethernet platform"[citation needed] and "is a family of high-performance". Most of the content is unsourced original research on technical information and the sourced content is almost exclusively from press releases.

I have put a draft together at Talk:Juniper MX-Series/Draft as a proposed replacement for the current article, that I believe would resolve the article's problems. As I have a COI, I was hoping a disinterested editor would review my work. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 20:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done I read the draft and found it to be vastly improved over the current article. I did not copy the draft lead as I found the one already in the article gave me a better overview of what the product actually is. I think there still needs to be some work done, like perhaps explaining what some of the things mean for a layperson like me to understand, but this version is much less promotional and utilizes sources appropriately. Wugapodes (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking a look @Wugapodes:!!! I made some quick minor copyedits and misc tweaks in the Lead, but I also think we should delete this sentence: "The MX960 is one of the industry's largest-capacity Carrier Ethernet platform, with up to 2.6 terabits per second (Tbit/s) of switching and routing capacity.[1][2][3]" This is a fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim supported only by press releases. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 23:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I actually just went ahead and rewrote the lead as I feel it didn't adequately cover the article either. I did remove the sentence you took issue with (along with pretty much every other sentence). A note on the article: there are a number of places where you use "late (year)" or "early (year)" which should probably use the specific period if known, like "in (month) (year)" or "on (date)" as "early" and "late" are really relative and can easily be misinterpreted. Anyway, let me know what you think of the new lead Wugapodes (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Looks good @Wugapodes:! I made some very minor tweaks to avoid using the word "series" twice in the same sentence, etc. One other thing I forgot to mention is that (as the article itself states) "3D" is now part of the name of the product family. It also doesn't normally have a hyphen. (see here). I suggest renaming the article to "Juniper MX Series 3D". David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't know enough about the topic to really make an informed call on titling. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME which says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. And I don't know enough about the sourcing on this to be able to say what the common name is. I'd recommend a requested move, let it run for at least 7 days, and go off that consensus, and probably notify the talk page of Juniper Networks as they might have good insight. Wugapodes (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juniper MX-Series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I am accepting this article as my second GA review :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Look forward to your review. CorporateM (Talk) 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is consistently correct throughout.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article looks to well-adhere to the manual of style.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) All of the references supplied appear to be secondary and reliable.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The sources listed are secondary and appear to be reliable and have no issues.   Pass
    (c) (original research) The major details, facts, content, and information are all referenced by sources and do not appear to be supported by original research.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The article does not violate WP:COPYVIO.   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article appears to cover all of the major areas that I would reasonably expect to see if I were looking up this series.   Pass
    (b) (focused) The article appears to be on-topic throughout.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The article adheres to a neutral point of view. It does not speak favorably or negatively about the series without references.   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The article has no issues in this aspect.   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The image is properly tagged and is not a policy or copyright violation.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The image appears to be appropriately used and captioned.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass The article looks to be well-created and it appears to deserve the title as a good article. A big thanks to CorporateM for nominating it; it was an interesting read!

Discussion

edit

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.