Talk:Technology/Request for feedback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Technology

I am requesting feedback (from Wikipedia:Requests for feedback) for the technology article, which has undergone a very slow metamorphosis since its origination in Wikipedia. It would be hard to categorize this article as new, since it was conceived in 2002, but, only now is it emerging from its B-classification. Therefore, the editors of the technology page could use your help moving the article to A-class.

Here are the questions?

  1. Is the article broad enough?
  2. Is the article too broad?
  3. Does the article flow? is it engaging? clear?
  4. How is the lead section?
  5. Are there enough images? too many?
  6. Is the article too long?
  7. Is the article informative?

Please make the feedback at Talk:Technology/Request for feedback or by hitting the Edit link to the right of Technology, above.

Thanks, SteveMc 22:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try and have a proper look at it next week, but from a quick scan through I can immediately see that it has far too many links. Many terms are linked repeatedly and many common terms are linked that don't need to be. The "See also" section repeats links from the article. There is also a lack of references and a mixing of citation styles.
Lead section: The introduction overuses "technology" (that's going to be hard to avoid) and is repetitive. I gave it a very quick copyedit to try and remove some overuse of words, but it needs reviewing. (I also removed the see also link - you don't really want to encourage the reader to go elsewhere in the first sentence). The last sentence seems to be re-covering the sentence before in less detail but with examples: I'd consider merging those two. Overall the lead reads like a definition, but with such a general subject that's probably not inappropriate.
Hope this helps (obviously you only see the bad things when you are having a quick look) - Yomanganitalk 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yomangani,
  • I went through the article and delinked repeated and common terms. I am not a great judge of context, so many more could be delinked. Plus, is it possible that this article is so broad, that it may have a lot more links than other articles?
  • I think I got the citation style fixed.
  • I worked on the introduction.
More to come. Thanks, SteveMc 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I delinked some more in the first few sections (I think good rules are not to repeat links - if the reader is interested they will have probably clicked it the first time, and not to relink the titles of the main articles). It probably will have more links than most articles because it is an overview of the individual subjects. Yomanganitalk 01:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I got the repeated links out of "See also" and I fixed a couple more references. SteveMc 02:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Re:lack of references. I am not sure what to do about this feedback. First, I am not sure that I agree. Second, if I did agree, I am not sure how to fix it. In either case, how to fix this is really a pragmatic issue, in my opinion, an unpractical one. In other words, much of the information contained in this article is a matter of generally "common" knowledge, especially to someone who "lives and breaths" matters of a technical nature. But, it is not original research, but is expert knowledge, allowed under Wikipedia:No original research policy, therefore finding sources for these statements could be problematic. Not that I am against citing sources, in fact, I am willing to work to do this, but I am very unsure how to draw the line between what needs citations and what does not, for this article. SteveMc 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You could be right (as I said, I only had a quick scan through). A lot of this could be covered by the "apple pie" get-out clause of WP:OR. I'll have better look this week and see if I can see anything that needs citing that isn't already. I probably had a knee-jerk reaction to the number of links and lack of references brought on by reviewing articles on narrower subjects, so looking at this will be handy for my reviewing technique too. Yomanganitalk 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs is a good editing/rewrite. I've tackled the lead section -- I hope you like it. The history section just isn't complete without an explanation of the technological stages (Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Industrial Revolution, Industrial Age, Space Age, Information Age, etc.) and technological levels (hunting/gathering, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, etc.) the previous edits were completed by User:Nexus Seven 14:25, 16 August 2006

Looks good to me. I will have trouble adding text on all of those ages since I have little knowledge in those areas. In some ways, the stages are there, but not specifically. The Industrial Revolution is there, but not as a separate section. Adding those stages is going to make the article very long, are they really needed? Is there anything else that could be done instead? SteveMc 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above - I feel that using the stages of technological progression as a basis for the article would give it good structure and flow, and allow you to talk about the developments made and the social impact of them, which more accurately deals with what technology means. LinaMishima 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick/long note about the "ages" approach. I have aluded to this previously but will point it out again as I believe it bears reiterating. The problem with the 'ages' listed above is that technicaly the Stone Age finishes about 10,000 yrs BC and everything before this time is classified as Stone Age however more recent examinations of a continously growing body of evidence would indicate a progression that goes back a good deal further and one that is much more gradual yet constantly accelerating(e.g we now know we had weaving before?? Agriculture). While I do agree in some respects with the comment that "using the stages of technological progression as a basis for the article would give it good structure and flow", I think it is also true that this approach is basicaly limiting(see other Encyclopeadias e.g. Encarta). I do think the 'ages' should be mentioned but only as a sub-section of the outline indicated earlier by Maureen. While that outline will produce a very long article I think in this case it is justified - after all we have been practising the subject for at least half a million years!(that we are sure of so far).
I would also add that Bushcraft should be added immediatly after Fire, as many of the skills that precede Agriculture fall into this category. As to what is important, that's easy - PLUMBING and various other domestic appliances - trust me on this, go primitive camping for more than a few days and it's not the computer or TV that is missed but hot showers, flush toilets(and toilet paper:-), warm-dry clothing-beds-and-houses, stoves, kettles, and supermarkets(logistics). These are still the fundamental problems of technology, the rest is mostly just cool stuff to keep us amused. Rossfi 13:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)