Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Uniform Resource Identifier/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Uniform Resource Identifier

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A GAR request was asked for by Sun8908. There have been two prominent tags at the top of the article since November 2020 that need resolving. Given past issues with technical articles I am not going to comment on that aspect apart from to say that I find it very hard to follow this article (although that is true for most articles of this type). There are some areas where the prose can be tightened up (the refinement section is mostly proseline) and sourcing seems inadequate in other areas and relies too much on Request for Comments when it is used. There are external links embedded in the body and outside the lead no description of what URI actually is. Going through the community process due to past experiences with these types of articles. Aircorn (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is also a Harv error in the references section that needs attention. Keith D (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think this one is a failure of WP:TECHNICAL personally, for a topic that should be more accessible to a general audience. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a long time since I have been with RDF and OWL, most of which is done automatically now. The Lead is confusing to the general reader. Linking to FOAF in the lead is irrelevant. The language used in Conception and Refinement are relevant to W3C, the web consortium. If you are not familiar with IETF and the like, there can be quite the obfuscation taking place. There is a correction here, referring to the Semantic web, which is that (body) (instrument/code) that gives you and me a Uniform Resource Identifier. What will become of this, is unfolding as we write. There have been developments leaving Dublin Core in the dustbin of history right through to post Google adsense identifiers.
  • This article is simple enough for those used to working with the W3C and its frameworks, validation, resolving URI references and the like. XML namespaces do deserve an inclusion here, and its a wonder Open Graph Tags haven't been included.
  • Delist, too technical for the average reader. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Uniform_Resource_Identifier/1&oldid=1049831106"