Wikipedia:Peer review/Ethernet/archive1

Ethernet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is frequently visited technology page and an important subject. Recent work on the article includes improving organization, adding citations and pushing highly detailed material to other articles. I'd like to know what needs to be done to get this article to a B rating.

Thanks, Kvng (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jebus989

~~Large parts of the article are completely unsourced, especially Evolution - a very long section with only a single source~~ There are now numerous sources in this section. The section also is written in WP:SUMMARY style so is supported by {{main}} articles and the citations therein. --Kvng (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~The two {{citation needed}} tags in the History should be fixed. Either remove the unverified claims or find sources~~ Citations added. Uncited and non-critical materiel removed --Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple networking diagrams could be useful
- I would like to include this diagram. I am trying to determining whether we can get permission. --Kvng (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No response on that request. I have selected some fresher pictures from commons. --Kvng (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ref 1 redirects to here, the URL should be fixed~~ Link no longer present --Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~The lead paragraph could do with some expansion, to adequately summarise the article and give more adequate context (see WP:LS)~~ Work has been done on the lead. --Kvng (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has seven notes, maybe some of these could be moved inline.
- Tangential but potentially interesting/useful material was moved to notes. If notes are a problem, it would be best to delete them. --Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a good amount of content but a lack of reliable sources is currently an issue. There are two additional references which do not have inline citations, if inline citations were added for these references they could be more useful Jebus989^✰ 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One ref was moved inline. Another was moved to a different article. The remaining two are general references which may be helpful to readers for alternative perspective and further investigation. --Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]