- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
ODB++ edit
- ... that your electronic gadgets might have been built with ODB++?
Created/expanded by Woz2 (talk). Self nom at 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fair use images are not allowed on the main page. Removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Length is barely there. Hook fact isn't in the article explicitly, half the text here is uncited. References are quite bare. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed the length (which was temporarily made into a marginal pass by an unwarranted deletion) and made the connection between the article and the hook explicit. Not sure what to do about the uncited material that was added by another contributor. I've tagged it [citation needed] for now. Might delete them in a few days if the editor doesn't fulfill that need.Woz2 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Don't forget the references format. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- They are currently one step up from bare urls. Perhaps accessdates, dates published, authors, and publishers could be added? I'll do one for you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh! I understand now. I'll read the {{cite...}} template help page and fill in the blanks...Woz2 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted the uncited IP edits. They were probably correct, but I couldn't find any refs to support them. Fleshed out the citations. How does it look? Woz2 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hook fact is uncited, it seems. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- "ODB++ is a printed circuit board manufacturing database originally developed by Valor." http://www.artwork.com/odb++/odb++_overview.htm Is it controversial that electronic gadgets contain printed circuit boards? (BTW, I love the fact that wikipedia forces on one the discipline to push the envelope on one's assumptions.) Woz2 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that it manufactures the things is not cited. I'd rather have a bit more information about how commonly used they are too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- "ODB++ is a printed circuit board manufacturing database originally developed by Valor." It's the second most popular manufacturing format after Gerber but I don't know how to ref that. Woz2 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've referenced what it is... but I think citing it as being a commonly used format would make the original hook more acceptable. If no reference is forthcoming, another hook would probably be better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I added some refs that speak to its increasing adoption over the Gerber format.Woz2 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. I'll ask for a third opinion regarding the hook as written as I am not sure if it is acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a third opinion. I have multiple concerns about the article and hook. Where to begin?
- The article seems to be based almost entirely on company websites and press releases. That's OK for some kinds of factual information, but not for statements like "Manufacturers are adopting it to overcome the limitations of the older Gerber format." The main independent source cited seems to be Artwork's information page; Artwork does not appear to be owned by the same company as ODB++, but Artwork is a customer that may depend on "selling" this item, and the content still seems somewhat promotional. It's not a particularly reliable source. The article also cites an IPC document, which is a third-party source and reliable, but it's essentially a primary source and is not exactly easy to interpret. I'd like to see third-party secondary sources; the best I found in a quick online source is this EEtimes article about a recommendation in 2002 to adopt this as an industry standard.
- In looking at the sources, I identified some WP:Close paraphrasing in the article. One example is "It is the defacto standard for intelligent data exchange in EDA."
- I don't have any expertise in this topic. However, after reading the article, I still have little idea what ODB++ is. The EEtimes article I mention above calls it a "CAD-to-CAM data exchange format"; that noun cluster conveys more meaning to me than I was able to get from the article.
- I'm a bit uncomfortable with the second-person pronoun usage in the hook.
- The hook fact is very likely true (and would be difficult to disprove), but the only source for the widespread use of this data exchange format seems to be the companies that own it and promote it.
- Bottom line is that he article needs some more work. Also, use the DYK talk to consult others regarding the acceptability of the second-person pronoun. --Orlady (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I made the attribution of the indirect quote clear to avoid the paraphrase issue. Added and ref'd the EETimes CAD-to-CAM insight. Artwork isn't owned by Mentor but it is in the ODB++ ecosystem. Not sure when I can get to the other stuff... Is there a deadline?Woz2 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- ASAP. After a week, if the problems still remain then the nomination will fail. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- OK I think's good now. As for second person, the whole DYK feature is second person (Did you know...) so I don't see an issue there. If you splice the two bits together it reads "Did you know that your electronic gadgets might have been built with ODB++"
- ALT1: ... that some electronic gadgets are built with ODB++? - less fun and rather bland, but side steps any "your" concernsWoz2 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your new reference is rather bare. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure which one you mean. They all look decently dress to me.Woz2 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to have been fixed, but now there is a merge tag on the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The entire article currently is the center of an editing dispute, which makes it unsuitable for DYK.
NOTE: This template is transcluded to the article talk page; if the nomination discussion is closed, something needs to be done to allow the discussion to continue to be displayed on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The edit dispute is resolved (see the stuff after the 3rd opinion section) The move tag is a temporary thing that was a result of that compromise. Does a move tag disqualify the article from a DYK perspective? I think that ultimately, that bullet list will be moved to that other page, and the tag deleted.Woz2 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- As far as capturing this discussion if it is closed, what is the recommended procedure? Copy'n'paste a snap shot onto the article talk page?Woz2 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd copy and paste the discussion, yes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd better do that quick before the weight of the talk page rips the article out of wikipedia's binding :-) I'm starting to regret getting this one started. Woz2 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Last call: the move tag is now gone and the edit dispute resolved... Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd ask Orlady, as she noted several issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The article passes muster now. Congratulations on that!!! However, the article now has barely any mention on the use of ODB++ in making electronic devices, so the hook is a problem. The solution is either to add something to article to support the hook or come up with a different hook. Should be do-able... --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK ALT2 ... that ODB++ is the second most popular CAD-to-CAM data exchange format behind Gerber? Woz2 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- ...or if you're in the school that "writing with conflict" is good.. ALT3 ... that despite the risk of vendor lock-in, ODB++ is the second most popular CAD-to-CAM data exchange format behind Gerber? Woz2 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the article in its current form doesn't say "second most popular" or anything similar. I did some Googling to see if I could get information on market share, as this has been a theme in several hook ideas discussed here. I found several recent items that appear in some way potentially useful for the article (I've quoted a few snippets that appear to be related to my question about market share): http://pcdandf.com/cms/component/content/article/171-current-issue/8197-cover-story , http://pcdandf.com/cms/designnews/8107-a-short-history-of-electronic-data-formats (says ODB++ "Is used primarily by printed circuit board fabricators"), http://www.pcdandf.com/cms/designnews/8103-users-updating-adopting-ipc-data-transfer-spec- (also available in print layout here, says "Three standards are generally used for data transfer: OBD++, which is favored by fabricators; IPC-2581 (formerly GenCAM), which is more common at the assembly and test level; and Gerber, the age-old format that dominates the discussion and which most companies despise for its lack of intelligence, but no one seems able to kill"), http://pcdandf.com/cms/component/content/article/237-2011-issues/8111-mentors-coates-our-strategy-is-based-around-odb , and http://pcb007.com/pages/zone.cgi?a=78780 . That last source says (bottom of first page) "Intelligent imbedded data forms like ODB++ are gaining prominence, but the large majority of PCBs are still manufactured from simple Gerber data." --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK how about something based on the Sanmina quote ALT4 ... that ODB++ is the prevalent non-Gerber CAD-to-CAM data exchange format?
- ...or ALT5 ... that despite the risk of vendor lock-in, ODB++ is the prevalent non-Gerber CAD-to-CAM data exchange format? Woz2 (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The problem I continue to have with the various proposed hooks is that the article does not support a factual statement that ODB++ is the second most popular or the "prevalent non-Gerber" format. Additionally, the "prevalent" quotation dates from 2002, so even if it is presented as an attributed statement, it cannot be represented as current information. Apparently, no one really knows the market share for the different formats, since so much of the industry is proprietary. Here are some ideas for hooks that I believe are supported:
- ALT6... that the first letter in its name stands for "open," but the openness of the ODB++ CAD-to-CAM data exchange format is disputed?
- ALT7... that the ODB++ format has been called "the defacto standard for intelligent data exchange" in electronic design automation?
- ALT8... that although the first letter in its name stands for "open," ODB++ is considered proprietary and its users may face a risk of vendor lock-in?
- I think I like ALT6 and ALT7. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
