Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
A large portion of this article is a copyright violation of text from its two main sources, Peterson & Davie and Perkins. Text is copied verbatim. TwilligToves (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article is interspersed with refs from several sources, except the last section on "RTP-based systems"--"If the compressed frames are large, they may be fragmented into several RTP packets, and if small, several frames may be bundled into a single RTP packet.[22] The sender may make changes to the transmission, depending on the quality feedback received on RTCP.[22]" and of course the diagram, for which a ref has been provided. Apart from this, pls list down other sections that you see, so that they can be addressed. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the request for me is here. Could you be specific on what you mean by "list down other sections"? Much of the text is taken verbatim in violation of copyright. The best bet would probably be to start a draft of a new article from scratch in a temporary space (not edit the main article). Once an admin examines the article and deletes the copyright violations from history, the new article can be incorporated into the mainspace. Cheers, TwilligToves (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I dont think "list down other sections" is necessary, I did a manual check myself and clearly see your point now in at least 3 sections--Protocol components, Sessions, RTP-based systems and will start working on them. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to rewrite major parts of the article, but having done so, I am of the opinion that the article may not meet GA status. I would request the reviewers to give a thorough review and take appropriate action. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that the article meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

• Much in the lead is repeated in the Overview section
• Profiles and sessions are not well explained
• There's a disorienting alphabet soup of protocol names
• Some of the material is technical without sufficient introduction or context for the non-technical reader.
• I fixed some basic grammar and readability problems. There are probably others remaining.

It doesn't look like this reassesment was ever concluded. What needs to be done to get it restarted? --Kvng (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the above and I have my own concerns, like this article not explaining for the average reader who and when promoted this protocol and how it fits in the other Real* constellation. Quickfailing GAR per WP:IAR and broad consensus. We don't need a wikiform filled triplicate to enact the obvious conclusion here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)