Talk:CobraNet/GA1

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.


 * "CobraNet was first demonstrated as a proprietary system for Disney ...". Should that not be to Disney? edited --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "For instance, audio routing changes can be made in seconds from software, and do not require any rewiring." From software? reworded --Kvng (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Using gigabit and/or fiber optic Ethernet variants, even greater economies can be achieved for large systems." Even greater economies than what? reworded --Kvng (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The name ... was approved by Peak Audio's president, a car racing enthusiast. This eventually led to a Shelby Cobra making an appearance at the Peak Audio booth at a Las Vegas trade show." Is this really notable? removed paragraph --Kvng (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Because private bundles are associated with the transmitters there is no hard liming on the number private bundles." What's "liming"? fixed typo --Kvng (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am most concerned about the Hardware and software section, which appears to be largely a product listing. Wikipedia is not a directory. This section needs to be dramatically cut back to make it encyclopedic. This section also begins with a deleted image. Deleted image removed, external links removed, NavFrames set to be collapsed by default.   talk 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Future plans is far too small for a stand-alone section, and the citation does not support the claim made about Gigabit Ethernet. This ought to be included in a revamped Hardware and software section. section removed --Kvng (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As these issues remain outstanding I am now delisting this article. Once they are addressed it may be remoninated atWP:GAN. If you disagre with my decision, then it can be challenged at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)