Jump to content

Talk:Juniper Networks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge discussion

[edit]

the list of acqusitions is already in this article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

content from "Juniper Networks Technical Certification Program" article added to a new "Certification" section Ckt2packet (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core Wars Section

[edit]

Does anyone else think this reads too much like a marketing pitch? I work for Cisco, so it's not appropriate for me to edit it, but it reads somewhat like competitive collateral... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.25.233 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole article has this problem and I have marked it. --Kvng (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this section is written about products that are no longer commercially available. Hence complaint on advertising is not verifiable <removing label>. Please contribute to article if some content is not high quality (currently rated B-class) Ckt2packet (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made some effort towards identifying specific issues with the article and fixing them where the solution was obvious. The article needs a lot of work to ensure that is is neutral, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership programs

[edit]

Proposing a removal of this section following flags raised by from other editors. This should take care of some buzzwords and ad-like content. Ckt2packet (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings, I've been looking at this article, and see some missing links (like the LN Series http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/release-independent/junos/information-products/pathway-pages/ln1000-series/) and some broken links (the link to "UNOS" rather than "JUNOS" ). From the instructions about editing, it seems that I should request these changes, rather than make them as I have a COI. Suggestions? Glasssculpture (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the UNOS --> Junos issue. Disavian (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! Glasssculpture (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Enterprise Space"

[edit]
Giving it all she can take!

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:A8A6:DF42:3C8F:7CFA (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

[edit]

I have a financial connection with Juniper Networks.

The current article looks basically on track to me, but contains a large volume of primary sources and is about ten years out-of-date. It includes trivial promotions of the sales staff, but not more significant recent corporate issues. It contains a dedicated Criticisms and Controversy section, which I feel is equally as non-neutral as the dedicated Awards section, especially since it relies on primary sources and does not meet the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS.

I've prepared what I feel is a GAN-ready draft at user:CorporateM/Juniper Networks that I was hoping a disinterested editor may consider as a replacement for the current. I realize the impossibility of someone reviewing a 100+ cite article on a $4 billion+ organization with almost 20 years of history. I'll be poking around a bit to see if I can find someone with enough knowledge on the topic to be able to tell whether it's neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency and future record-keeping, I'm providing links to where this draft has been discussed here and here. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juniper Networks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless you have a very strong reason, it's not a good idea to see image sizes—doing so overrides user settings, and this kind of fine tuning almost inevitably ends up being less optimal that one would suppose given the huge variety in screen sizes and orientations out there.
The images didn't fit well in-line with the table without custom sizes; I can leave them as standard thumbs, but it was kind of a mess that way if I remember right. CorporateM (Talk) 05:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing—what looks fine on one screen will look awkaward on another, and there's no way to optimize the image sizes for all different kinds of screens, which is why it's generally best to leave them alone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • its first day on the New York Stock Exchange was two months later: I imagine it should be easy to find the actual date.
 Done The source doesn't give the exact day of that month that it was listed, but I did find out it was actually originally listed on NASDAQ before moving to NYSE later on, so I corrected that and put a month/year. CorporateM (Talk) 05:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the network edge: is there something good to link to here?
Maybe Edge device? I don't see any articles the general concept CorporateM (Talk) 05:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a bunch of categories. You might want to hunt around for others that apply.
  • Recent history: "recent" will date quickly. Maybe "History since 2008" or something?
  • In November 2013, Juniper Networks announced that Shaygan Kheradpir would be appointed as the new CEO: when did he begin?
January 2014[1][2]
Is there some reason for not stating so in the article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well, for something like that, I would probably just include one or the other (the announcement date or the appointment date), just like acquisition tables are often based on the announcement date that is better covered in secondary sources, rather than when the acquisition closed. Anyway, I went ahead and added it so there are both dates now. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juniper acquired intrusion deception company Mykonos Software: should that be "detection"?
    • Ah, I can see this is explained later in the article. This will be confusing—can the explanation be moved up?
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 06:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you use %, and sometimes "percent". Probably best to settle on one style.
 DoneCorporateM (Talk) 05:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The product family was discontinued later that year: because it was unsuccessful, or it was superseded by something else?
  • Juniper acquired the Juniper Secure Meeting product line: was it called that before they acquired it?
  • The gateways sold well in the marketplace: as opposed to elsewhere? Would the intended meaning be changed if "in the marketplace" were dropped?
 Done trimmed "in the marketplace" filler. CorporateM (Talk) 05:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • in recent history Juniper: this will date—we'll need an "as of"
 Not done Not sure about product history, but for corporate history a "Recent history"-type section is pretty de-facto. They usually include about 10+ years, so this section won't get full until the year 2025 or so, at which point we'll have to start pushing stuff into more historical section titles. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there has been a consensus that this is the way things should be done, the fact that's it's the "de facto" way of doing it says no more than editors have picked it up from other articles when looking at how to structure an article. Poor practice is poor practice. Imagine the article were written ten years ago. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at a few FAs on company's still in operation; I see that it's not "de-facto" as I had believed, but rather the precise style seems to vary with stuff like "Recent operations" or "2010s" both being in use. What about "From 2015?" or do you have a better suggestion? CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the section's only a few paragraphs long, why not just merge it with the preceding "Further developments" section? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I got my wires crossed. I changed the "Recent updates" section from the product area to "From 2015". I think the Recent History and Further Development sections are too long to combine; the combined 6.5 paragraphs would become one of the largest sections on the page. Considering at least some FA articles follow a similar format, I think we're fine. CorporateM (Talk) 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6.5 paragraphs really isn't that long, but I won't push. I'm surprised "recent whatever" has managed to get through any FAC—it's really poor practice. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent update: again, this will date very quickly, and likely shouldn't be a separate section anyways, especially as it's a single sentence
  • Around 50% of its revenues: is "revenue" not normally as non-count noun in this context? Countable "revenues" suggests to me "types of revenue" rather than "total revenue".
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be 1–2 percent: it's best to go with either "1–2%" or "1 to 2 percent".
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 05:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Ref #71 doesn't say anything about the settlement it cites. Also, I might word it to make it clearer that Palo Alto was the party that paid—"reached a settlement" could be read either way.
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #128—unless I'm misreading, isn't this talking about a piece of hardware (an appliance), whereas the article "a remote access software product"?
I'm not sure what you mean. Citation 128 doesn't seem to mention the word "software" and is about an appliance. CorporateM (Talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the Wikipedia article talks about "a remote access software product", whereas the source talks about an appliance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Oh I see. Fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
The main reason I wanted the chart was because it shows that the stock price did fall back down to regular levels, whereas the source material only really covers its explosive growth. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two issues:
  1. That that was your aim isn't clear—I'm going over teh articel word-by-word and it wasn't clear to me, so it's far less likely it will be to casual readers
  2. More importantly, it's a Fair Use image for which a free equivalent could be made, thus violating WP:NFCCP #1. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Just trimmed the image. CorporateM (Talk) 21:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

[edit]
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 01:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small Request Edit

[edit]

The current Lead contains the following text:

"Juniper grew to $673 million in annual revenues by 2000, challenging Cisco's once-dominant market-share in networking products."

In this discussion with @Thincat:, we seemed to agree on a slightly modified version with a specific date and market-share reference:

"Juniper grew to $673 million in annual revenues by 2000. By 2001 it had a 37 percent share of the core routers market, challenging Cisco's once-dominant market-share."<ref name="three"/>

Though I am making many other minor tweaks boldly in response to GA review feedback, because this content is about a competitor, I felt it would be more appropriate to use Request Edit. CorporateM (Talk) 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are several errors in the following text, some of which were recently introduced by an IP here and some of which were my own errors
In October 2013, Juniper introduced another proprietary protocol network architecture called MetaFabric for a new set of switches, the QFX5100 family, that were needed to adopt the MetaFabric architecture.[119]
Corrections are as follows:
  • The source says "networking architecture" as oppose to "networking protocol"
  • Juniper said Metafabric is not "proprietary". Checking the source and doing a Google search seem to verify this. The only thing I found in a quick Google search is here where a Juniper spokesperson says it is not proprietary.
  • The statement "not IETF or IEEE compliant..." is currently unsourced, but I did find a source for it not being TRILL compliant.[3] The source says this is because Juniper is an advocate against TRILL (not really sure if any of this belongs on this page though, rather than a sub-page on Metafabric if one exists)
  • I wrote "the QFX5100 family, that were needed to adopt the MetaFabric architecture", but the source just says "that is one of the foundations of the new architecture" not that the switch is required.
CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those all look reasonable to me, so I implemented the edit request. Please check my work for errors. As always when I respond to edit requests, I take full responsibility for any changes I make. Also, I have no COI regarding Juniper or their competitors (The area of engineering I work in mostly involves microcontrollers that cost less than a dime -- the sort of thing you find inside toasters and children's toys). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Guy Macon:! Just one nit-pick. It seemed a bit awkward that it says Metafabric is "for" a set of switches. I double-checked the source and it doesn't look like it's built specifically for the switch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. What wor.ding would you suggest? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: "MetaFabric for and a new set of switches" CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I researched through the Juniper equipment documentation and I have not found any Juniper equipment that is capable of IEEE 802.1aq shortest path bridging. 166.173.249.212 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bent, Kristin (January 16, 2014). "New CEO Kheradpir Lays Out Vision For Future Of Juniper Networks". CRN. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  2. ^ Bass, Dina. "Juniper CEO Resigns After Review Over Customer Negotation". Bloomberg. Retrieved May 3, 2015.
  3. ^ Duffy, Jim (March 22, 2011). "Industry split on data center network standards". Network World. Retrieved August 19, 2015.

List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks

[edit]

FYI - I've posted a suggestion that we re-purpose the well-sourced summary of Juniper's acquisition history from this article to the sub-article, as suggested by WP:Summary style for sub-articles. CorporateM (Talk) 20:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the article

[edit]

I read the article and I have a few comments.

1. Most of the references to Juniper Networks and Cisco Systems only use the first part of the name of the companies. I fixed the introduction and the next two paragraphs but then I stopped because the amount of fixing is rather large.

2. Internet is a proper word and needs to be capitalized. I see many instances of it that are not capitalized and need to be fixed. I fixed a few but, again, more need to be fixed.

3. Some information about the crash of the company stock after 2000 should be included in the article.

4. "Juniper promoted its products as stable enough to make IT staff bored and Cisco announced lab tests from Light Reading proved its products were superior to Juniper, whereas the publication itself reached the opposite conclusion." I don't understand this sentence. It seems contradictory and illogical.

ICE77 (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O/S Linux based system

[edit]

To understand the Juniper Networks system architecture in principle, Would it be ok to write the Juniper Device is based on O/S Linux based system? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juniper_Networks&oldid=1207880382"