Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HDMI/1

HDMI

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/HDMI/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. More than a week, little movement towards addressing issues. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Per multiple maintenance tags and other issues. Use of lists and tables may be excessive in some areas. The versions section resembles a WP:CHANGELOG at certain points. The applications section needs to be reorganized or rewritten. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 07:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The Versions section is probably the best-written section on versions of a major technical spec I have ever seen. What is the particular criticism? -- 10:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Several of the paragraphs are just a literal changelog update, and there are excessive lists and excessive tables. If I were a GA reviewer for this, I would recommend a few paragraphs that briefly describe the main points rather than an extensive list of every version and feature, just like you'd write for any other subject. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand your point of view now, but I do not share it. What you may see as mere temporal snapshots of an alleged single spec, I see as a family of specifications, all under the HDMI umbrella, with a rich and occasionally checkered history. Along with the physical specs, the Versions section + tables represent the heart of the article, the answer to the question, what is HDMI? If I were a GA reviewer, I would be fairly happy with this part of the article.  20:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Recommendation: Major revisions needed to retain GA status. The topic HDMI is certainly an important one. However, it appears that the article has grown somewhat haphazardly since it first passed the Good Article criteria in 2008 without paying enough attention to being useful to the non-technical reader. There are also some issues that were identified when it failed a Feature Article nomination in 2009 which have not been addressed. Further It has a few issues that editors have identified in the current version which have not been addressed such as information about FRL, Personal computers and one citation needed. There are also many statements which are not sourced, or use low-reputation sources. A little history. The Good Article review was on 27 June 2008 here. At that time it was 51,666 bytes, ~3500 words, and 91 references The article was fairly tight and passed without any comments. It was nominated as a Feature Article which was declined 28 November 2009, | this version. At that time it was 76,238 bytes, ~4500 words and 141 references. A key comment at that time was “The main problem is that it is overfull of facts and doesn't explain (to the general reader) how and why…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.“ The current version as of October 2nd 2023 is 180,638 bytes, ~12,000 words with 225 references. It appears that nothing has been done to remedy the issue identified in 2009. There is a clear issue with too much detail WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTGUIDE could also be relevant, and too much detail about updates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. As noted in the earlier FA review, it fails the GA Well-written criteria as it is too technical and needs at least an introduction for a non-technical audience WP:TECHNICAL. There are many cases it seems to go into unnecessary detail WP:SS. What appears to have happened is that more sections have been added, with no significant rethinking of this as an encyclopedic article. Many sections read as a depository of technical information which should be elsewhere. Examples of this include HDMI. There are also many sections which have lengthy descriptions which are poorly sourced and whose utility is unclear. For instance in the Blue Ray section the paragraph that starts with “Blu-ray permits” makes many statements without citations whose relevance is unclear. When I do a quick Google Scholar search I find many refereed articles. However, I do not find many refereed high reputation sources in this article. For certain Press Releases and Blogs are not high reputation and should not be used. A non-exhaustive list of marginal sources is: A few specifics:
 * Press Releases: 6, 26, 82, 152, 196
 * Trade Magazines: 7, 14
 * Blogs or similar: 25, 26, 27
 * Manufacturers articles: 8
 * The paragraph in History that starts “According to In-Stat” reads like an advertisement, as does the next paragraph. The whole section needs to be edited so it is WP:NPOV
 * In Compatibility with DVI the paragraph “From a user’s perspective” appears to be a digression. Either condense or make the relevance clearer.
 * As mentioned above, it is unclear what the relevance of all the technical information in Cables is.
 * The Extenders section appears to be a digression. Either condense, remove or make the relevance clearer.
 * The Version section can be compressed, more neutral please. I suspect everything except the latest should only be 2-3 sentences. Details that are in the Main specifications tables should not be duplicated.
 * The Personal computers section has a lot of old (obsolete) information. I don’t expect that many 2005 vintage computers are still running, or even 2012.
 * The Relationship with DisplayPort seems to wander without a clear focus. Similarly the MHL section
 * The two Podcasts from 2009 in the External links are very old, I suggest replacing with something newer.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Recommendation (revised): Remove GA status. Editors are continuing to make minor changes, ignoring the comments here. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)