Wikipedia:Peer review/ODB++/archive1

ODB++

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it into shape for a Featured Article nomination. Thanks, Woz2 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I've never used CAM or CAD software, but I can read and comment on this article from the point-of-view of a general reader somewhat familiar with the article's terminology. Here are my thoughts:

• The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find no dabs, but they find two dead URLs in the citations and one suspicious URL. See here.

Lead

• "Its purpose is to exchange printed circuit board design information between design and manufacturing and between design tools from different EDA/ECAD vendors." - Should the word "software" be inserted after "manufacturing"?

• "It was originally developed by Valor Computerized Systems, Ltd. (acquired in 2010 by Mentor Graphics) as the job description format for their CAM system." - Two things. Generally active voice is more succinct and punchy than passive voice, and a company is an "it", not a "they". Suggestion: "Valor Computerized Systems, Ltd. developed ODB++ in the 1990s as the job description format for its CAM system. Mentor Graphic acquired Valor in 2010."

• Should "job description format" be linked to Job Definition Format (JDF)? I wasn't sure what "job description format" meant, and I'm not sure that it's the same as JDF.

• "ODB stands for open database,[4] but its openness is disputed,[5] as discussed below." - I would avoid using internal cross-references such as "as discussed below". Readers will have no trouble finding things without these asides.

• "an attempt to merge GenCAM (IPC-2511) and ODB++ into Offspring (IPC-2581).[7][8][1]" - Citations should be arranged in ascending order; i.e., 178 rather than 781.

Introduction

• "a photolithographic computer aided manufacturing (CAM) system" - For ease of reading, I'd consider hyphenating here; i.e., "a photolithographic computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) system".

• "Other formats are compared and contrasted below." - No need to say this. I'd just delete it.

File structure

• "For example, on Unix ​tar​ and ​gzip​ commands can be used." - Slightly more clear to outsiders like me might be "For example, ​tar​ and ​gzip​ commands can be used on Unix" I'd link Unix on grounds that general readers might not know what it is.

• "ODB++ covers the specification of not only conductor layer artwork and drill data, but also material stack up, netlist with test points, component bill of materials, component placement, fabrication data, and dimension data." - As an outsider, I have to guess at the meanings of some of the jargon in this sentence. Could "conductor layer artwork", "material stack up", and "netlist with test points" be linked to explanations or perhaps very briefly explained in the text?

History

• This section is awfully short and refers to details given in the lead but not here. This is backwards. The details belong in the main text, and the lead should summarize the main text sections. I would suggest expanding the "History" section to include more detail and modifying the lead to simply summarize. Nothing important should appear in the lead that does not appear in the main text.

• "Valor was acquired by Mentor in 2010." - This is another passive-voice sentence that would be easy to flip as follows: "Mentor acquired Valor in 2010."

Adoption

• The Manual of Style generally recommends using straight prose instead of lists when both are feasible. I'd recommend turning the two-item list in this section to straight prose.

• "But in fact adoption to date has been minimal." - Perhaps this would be more clear: "However, adoption of the compromise format has been minimal." If you really want to date this, "through 2012" would be more clear than "to date", but dating the claim may be unnecessary.

• "As a result and as detailed below, the industry is presently divided into two camps over a second-generation format in general and ODB++ in particular." - Delete "as detailed below".

• "As a result and as detailed below, the industry is presently divided into two camps over a second-generation format in general and ODB++ in particular." - Delete "presently", which is intended here to substitute for "now". Terms like "to date", "now", and "today" are unhelpful since the time of reading does not correspond to the time of writing.

Opposition

• The three subsections, particularly the first, are so short that I'd consider merging them and removing the subheads.

Concerns

• Nothing in the direct quotations should appear in italics unless italicized in the source document(s).

• "The application form includes a requirement to: "...Demonstrate a customer need for this integration through references from mutual customers. Provide a recommendation from a Mentor Graphics product division or demonstrate the incremental value of this integration to both Mentor Graphics and the partner company.", which implies direct competitors to Mentor will not be granted access." - Aside from the problem with italics in this sentence, it is not a proper sentence. Suggestion: The application form includes a requirement to "demonstrate a customer need for this integration through references from mutual customers [and to] provide a recommendation from a Mentor Graphics product division or demonstrate the incremental value of this integration to both Mentor Graphics and the partner company." This implies that direct competitors to Mentor will not be granted access.

Potential resolution

• "based on work by Prof. Tomokage of Fukuoka University" - The Manual of Style recommends using a brief description rather than an academic title. Instead of "Prof. Tomokage of Fukuoka University", it would be better to delete "Prof." and to say something like "(first name) Tomokage, a (something)", where "something" can be replaced by whatever he is known for that is relevant to this context.

References

• At FAC, the refs will all be checked for internal consistency. Use the same date formatting throughout this section. I haven't checked them all, but I see an outlier (Jan 15, 2011) in citation 23. The other citations should all be checked for problems with date formatting.

• Citation 1 includes another nonconforming date format: (1/22/2002 2:33 PM EST). Aside from not conforming to the day-month-year format found in most of the other citations, it includes the exact time. Some of the other citations include the exact time. Unless there is a special reason for this level of precision, I'd delete the exact time.

• Citation 19 lacks an access date. Citations 35 and 36 are incomplete, and others might be too. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)