Talk:Digital content/Archives/2014

University students' edit summary

In order to improve the “Digital content” wikipedia page, we plan to organize the page with 4 separate headings or sections: overview, history, see also, and references. Our hope is this structure will format the page in an encyclopedia style manner. After quickly accessing the quality of the article, our group has hopes to add elements of quality articles while removing common signs for bad articles. Each member of our 6 person team will provide increase the amount of information on the subject by drawing from several neutral content reliable sources to improve the article. Additionally, we hope to remove three signs of bad quality. FIrst, we hope to fix grammar mistakes that we have found. Second, through our new structure we will include aspects of the topic that are missing. Third, we will increase the number of references in the article.

As a group of 6 university students, we will be working on this article at least till March 1 and would appreciate the help of any editor interested in joining us!

Peer Review

Hi, This page has really good content. Make sure to cite all your sources. For example, you should site the following line: "According to a report done by IHS Inc in 2013, the global consumer spending on digital content grew to over $57 billion in 2013, which was up almost 30% from $44 billion in 2012. In past years, the US has always been a leader in consumer expenditure on digital content, but as of 2013, many countries have emerged with great consumer expenditure. South Korea's overall digital spend per capita is now greater than the US." There are other parts that are missing citations as well. Additionally, under the section types of digital content, you have 5 sources listed but they are not used in conjunction with any information. You may consider deleting those citations. Also, make sure to go over the grammar.

I also really like how you linked other pages content to your page. This is extremely useful because they can just click on the word and learn more about that subject. Your group did a very good job of utilizing this feature. I would just suggest linking the word one time. For example, in the history section, your group links "digital revolution" three times. I feel like this may be redundant.

Your group also did a great job of bolding important words which can help reading identify important words as they read your article. Cool binary code picture! Best of luck! Rensywu (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review (lduboff)

Overall, I think your digital content page is very clear, well written and easy to understand. In my opinion, it’s hard to define something like “digital content”, a very broad category. However, your group did a good job of breaking it down into various categories, explaining exactly what it is and giving examples of digital content today.

I like that you gave a history of digital content and I think it will be helpful to readers that you added hyper links to certain terms in your article, such as the digital revolution. I think in general, the history for digital content can be more in depth, explaining the actual history of how technology has evolved over the years, but your history section is still in depth and I like that you mention what digital content will do in the future.

I also like the way you broke digital content down into categories. Although each category is quite broad, it explains how software for example, can be free as well as paid.

One thing I would change about your digital content article is adding more to the Business implications section. You have a good start, but I don’t think the section is big enough now to be its own section.

Overall, I enjoyed the article. It was comprehensive and contained valuable information.

Lduboff (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Lindsey DuBoffLduboff (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)