Wikipedia

Talk:Social web/GA1

< Talk:Social web
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Lionfish0 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago44 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Smallman12q (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The terms public relations, marketing, and advertising do not appear in the article.
The term has not yet been explicitly used...

Once these issues are addressed, I'll look it over again. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here.Smallman12q (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Some good suggestions there. Note that you do not necessarily have to write entire sections to address those issues, paragraphs (or paragraph-long subsections) may be enough to address the "comprehensivity" issue. I'll also trow in one more meaning: the pre-Internet social web, as referring to the network of social relations (see if you can find a better definition here, and you can see the use of this term in pre-1990 books on Google Books, for example). To cover this, you may need a brief section on "meaning outside the Internet context" or something similar. This does not need to be longer than few sentences, but it would add to the article, as some people may come to this expecting to read about social web in this older context. This para would also allow you to tie the meaning of this term closer to our course; note that this meaning may be not connected to the more modern, Internet-focused, primary meaning you've been describing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Is it possible to put a parenthetical disambiguation on the title of the page, as to only refer to Internet age social web? This would nullify the need for a pre-Internet mention. If not, we can look into adding a small note. Erikmhatter (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • It would, but that would require the other article to exist in the first place. If you feel like it would be better, you can create article on social web (non-Internet context), stub it and adding a disambig, but I think that for now, a small note would be better. Plus, I am not happy with my proposed title above, so till we figure out a better name, new article may not be the best idea. Good thought, though. And if you have an idea for a better title, do suggest it here, certainly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's coming along...here are some additional comments:

  • is it "social web" or "social Web"? I have seen it both ways, but in most books and articles I have read it it just social web. I only saw 1 or 2 in which it was social Web. Mjc106 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • the lead needs some improvement...
    • there shouldn't be an external link in there
    • it should be broken into 2 paragraphs: a description of social web and a summary of its impact
I have adjusted this section so it is in two paragraphs, and moved the information I put in yesterday into the history section. Do I need to make this section more dense, or is it ok now? Mjc106 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Needs to be more "meaty." Also needs more wikilinking such as for relationship -> interpersonal relationship. Have a look at other social science GANs to get an idea of what is needed to pass (Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society).Smallman12q (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Comments 2

I added a few more sentences to the first section. I am not sure what else I can add without sounding redundant. If anyone has any ideas please feel free to throw them in. Mjc106 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • all paragraphs and sections need to be referenced
  • the "see also" section is a bit unweildy, have you looked at {{navbox}}?
  • you could add quote boxes to add some "color" to the article...for an example see their usage in iLoo

Smallman12q (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

-I think we covered most of the sections in our article. I am just going to get rid of the section. Mjc106 (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comments 3

Some additional comments. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see what is expected of a GA.

  • Please use the terms public relations, online marketing, online advertising and data mining explicitly in describing the social Web.
  • I suggest the intro be 3 paragraphs instead of 2: 1st one defining the term, 2nd describing the history, 3rd reflecting its relevance today
  • The historical aspects of the social web are somewhat neglected. There should be a mention of the early, non-graphical social web such as listserv, IRC, MUDs and even VRMLs. You should mention how the early web was social, was subsequently commercialized (the social portion took a backseat), and following the bubble, the social portion was more prominent (source)...
  • The technical aspects of the social web are neglected...Ruby, PHP, Python , Java are Dynamic programming language. There should be a mention of Perl and cgi which were used back in the day.
  • There doesn't seem to be a mention of social web browsers such as Flock (web browser) and RockMelt. There also should be a mention of how certain software such as AIM and Skype improve the social web experience
  • WP:NPOV- The article should be nuetral...this means avoiding giving certain websites undue weight such as with the sentence: "Often APIs are utilized to tie non-social websites to social websites, one example being Campusfood.com."
  • There doesn't seem to be a criticism section, or any criticism of the social web. Criticism includes: privacy concerns, participation in the social web detracts from and may substitute for real life social activities, the cost of participation in the social web in terms of lost productivity from distracted employees, abuse such as online bullying in the social web, and the ability to influence people toward "radical" attitudes and behaviors. (There is more...you'll have to find sources...)
  • The prose should be clear and concise...some of the sentences are akward...
  • All sections, and preferably all sentences must have at least one source. There really shouldn't be any {{cn}} in a GA.
  • It'd be nice if you could add some quotes in...though it's not required for GA.

Some sources you can use (you can use http://reftag.appspot.com/ to cite google books), or add to further reading:

  • Richardson, Will (2009). "6: The Social Web learning together". Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Corwin Press. ISBN 9781412959711. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  • Pardede, Eric (29 May 2011). "Social Web: Web 2.0 Technologies to enhance knowledge communities". Community-Built Databases: Research and Development. Springer. ISBN 9783642190469. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  • Tomei, Lawrence A. (30 October 2010). "Using the Social Web Environment". Online Courses and Ict in Education: Emerging Practices and Applications. IGI Global snippet. ISBN 9781609601508. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  • Dumova, Tatyana; Fiordo, Richard (1 January 2009). "Social Capital, Social networks, and the Social Web". Handbook of Research on Social Interaction Technologies and Collaboration Software: Concepts and Trends. IGI Global snippet. ISBN 9781605663685. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  • Dingli, Alexiei (30 April 2011). Knowledge Annotation: Making Implicit Knowledge Explicit. Springer. pp. 36–37. ISBN 9783642203220. Retrieved 14 June 2011. - describes early social web experiment

Discussion

edit

Hey Group,

How do you want to split these items up. I will look up some stuff today, and we can go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can do a brief section on data mining and how social web apps are built.Erikmhatter (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added a line about the phone. Here is the diff in case anyone wants to add anything, or change it around. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_web&diff=433467039&oldid=433446415 Mjc106 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll look for mentions of the older definition of social web, but frankly I don't think it's very necessary or relevant to the rest of the article. Still if it's needed (at least while there isn't another article on the pre-Internet social web) then I can cover it. I'm swamped today and tomorrow though so I'll get to it as soon as I can. --Rsoruss (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article still requires a thorough copyedit.Smallman12q (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Round 1 of copy edits completed -- some cleanup still needed on Social Web to real life section that I'll continue later. Also I've added several Citation needed tags where I thought it appropriate -- I'm not sure if all of them need to be filled in but there are several lines where a source should be attributed to the information or statement contained within.--Rsoruss (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

In response to Smallman's question about whether we are terming it "social web" or "social Web," I would argue that we go with the latter -- this would make the meaning less ambiguous by tying it back to this term's relation to the web itself, in my opinion. Thoughts?--Rsoruss (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not really sure on this one, I saw it both ways. I can go in and capitalize the second W in all of them if this is what were deciding on. Let me know. Mjc106 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favor of "social Web," personally. If you need help going through should we go with it I can help change the wording over--Rsoruss (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think I got them all, just double check. Mjc106 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there anything else that you guys think we need to hit? I think we got mostly everything. Mjc106 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is still work to be done. As grad students, you may be a bit dismayed by additional work, but a thorough GA is something many Wikipedians look forward to. I hope I don't appear any more demanding than Piotrus=P. If you have any questions, please ask.Smallman12q (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
We're actually undergrads, but we understand there is still work to be done. There's a lot to cover and only three people, but we'll do what we can.--Rsoruss (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
My apologies, I thought Piotrus was w/ grad students. Anyhow, if you need help, let me know and I'll fill in some of the missing info.Smallman12q (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few more references. Erikmhatter (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You should use WP:RS for a GA. This means not self-published...unless the blog is part of a major organization.Smallman12q (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
In the meantime, Smallman12q, if you think the article has progressed beyond start, perhaps you'd like to reassess it to C or B classes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've reassessed the article as B-Class : "The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. " per Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. It is mostly complete...and it is mostly well sourced. I'll close the GA Review on the 20th.Smallman12q (talk)
Thank you very much for your time reviewing our article. Erikmhatter (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thank you very much for your time and effort! --173.79.69.217 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
My pleasure. You guys came a long way from when you started.Smallman12q (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, you may want to check those links I just found today: [1], [2]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unresolved issues

edit

The following are a list of unresolved issues as requested by Piotrus:

  • The article does not adequately address public relations, advertising, marketing, and data mining in relation to the social web
  • The article does not adequately address the increasing commercialization of the social web (in terms of companies with higher valuations based on the social web such as facebook)
  • The article does not mention the role and response of the government to social web (such as United States Air Force Web Posting Response)
  • The article lacks criticism on the subject
  • The article doesn't adequately summarize historical internet technologies pertaining to the social web( such as listserv)
  • There is no mention of VRMLs or similar technologies and their relation
  • The technologies used to implement the modern social web require expansion
  • The intro lacks a historical summary
  • The historical social web should also be covered (OCLC 1153026)
  • WP:RS

Smallman12q (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The assignment has ended, and I don't expect any further student editing as the motivation (grade) is gone (although it would be a nice surprise). The article has been improved from start to B-class. Thanks for you assistance, hopefully somebody else can take the points above and improve the article further! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Share Icons

edit

If people are looking for more share icons, and what they might mean (what I was looking for), this website has a frighteningly large list (don't know how many are real): http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php (might be useful to have a wp page on these things?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_web/GA1&oldid=1087980374"