| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ignite (event) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Ignite OSCON
editThere was an Ignite event at OSCON 2009, that I didn't see mentioned in the article. Just FYI... 70.251.156.117 (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
PechaKucha
editIsn't this basically a variant of the Pecha Kucha presentation format? It'd be nice to see some credit to the Pacha Kucha people in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.1.111.178 (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Group 7 Edits
edit | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Michigan/SI 110: Introduction to Information (Winter 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
The existing article dedicated to Ignite lacks a history and crucial details in its explanation of the topic. In our edit of this article, we plan to lay out a more in depth history of the event including how and why it was started, the people who run it, and the planning and production involved in the events. We will provide further description in the steps involved to create an Ignite event, and also the variety of subjects that are covered in each of these "fast-paced geek events". We will focus on the format of the events, namely the fact that each speaker has 20 slides that auto-advance every 15 seconds for a total of just five minutes. For now, we have began our research on the event with the website itself, igniteshow.com, and plan to find many more sources to provide a detailed description of this event to provide readers with a thorough knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goblue2013 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I like how the article goes into depth on how the literal event works. The article is separated in a very succinct manner and is easy to follow. The only thing I noticed is that there are a few repeats in the article, where there are multiple sentences that say the exact same thing. The citations also confused me because I wasn't sure which references corresponded with what information. Overall, a great job, just need a little more editing! Gracewlo (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- You guys had some great sources and seemed to do great research, however the way they were presented and organized on the page could have been neater to avoid distracting from the actual content. Along these lines, the style of writing seems a bit disjointed between sections and a little less clear and smooth than the average Wikipedia entry. This isn't a glaring error by any means, but just makes the entry seem less professional and could make some users question the quality of the information. In addition, the event has a lot of current activity surrounding it, so it could have also been useful to include a section on more current elements of the event as opposed to just the history. You seem to know a lot about the topic, so with a bit more editing and time spent cleaning up the page I think it could better reflect this! Kcnelson (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)