Talk:Media Cloud

Untitled

Added a section for Influence Alishahc (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

The article exhibits the potential for becoming a "quality article" per Wikipedia's article evaluation guide. It takes a neutral standpoint, and seems generally well-balanced, although "How it Works" seems a bit sparse compared to the other sections. The lead section is clear and succinct in it's description of Media Cloud and its functions. For the most part, the structure of the article is clear, though it might read more easily (and be more visually appealing) with subheadings included under some of the sections. For example, rather than sticking in a bulleted list of where Media Cloud gets its stories from under the lead section, it would be more appropriate as a subheading for How it Works, perhaps as "Media Sources." Additionally, there should be a heading or subheading somewhere in the article clearly explaining the "five basic functions." As a layperson who is unfamiliar with these terms, it hinders gaining a full understanding of the topic. Most of the citations seem reliable besides the Yahoo Answers source. Rlrab (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Rlrab

I believe the group has achieved the goal of writing a good wikipedia article. The article in itself is well written and easy to understand. This makes the viewer able to absorb the informational with more ease. The second thing I noticed was the quality of your sourcing. Anything that needed to be sourced is properly sourced and this makes me trust the information in the article. It also follows the guidelines to editing wikipedia, which is obviously good. Finally I enjoyed the fact that there was a neutral stance instead of an opinionated article. Wikipedia makes a strong point to remain neutral and you guys did a good job following this. Although the article was good, there were two things that I thought you could do better. The bullet points in the beginning are informative, however to me the format looks a tad messy. Maybe a different formatting would make these look better and make the page look better. Lastly, I would change the use of linking to other wikipedia pages. You guys did this a lot, even for some ordinary things that most people don't need to look up. I think this distracted me from the actual topic of "Media Cloud", so maybe remove some of those. One thing to add would be a little more information on "How it works". Currently, this is very brief and I think it could use some development. Overall, great job on the project! Gvanalst (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this group did an excellent job of creating a good wikipedia page. I loved the way the page flows from topic to topic explaining the what it is what its used for and so on. There is also a significant amount of information under each of the topics which shows that this group did a good job at finding articles to support the page. The references at the are plentiful and well sourced which shows that this group has done its research. One thing I would have like to have seen developed a little more is the introduction. Yes, it does create a sufficient summary of the page, however, the bullets seem a little odd and don't match the rest of the page and I would have liked to see the introduction mention parts of every sub section. Even though this article is still very raw and needs more development it is definitely well on its way to becoming a true wikipedia article. Overall I think this group did a good job on the project. Gpopper (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, I feel that the the edits made to the "Media Cloud" article greatly serve to improve the article's quality. It takes a neutral standpoint on the topic and actively quotes from a wide variety of reliable sources. My principle concern with the article is its slight over-usage of direct quotation as well as its organization. Throughout the entire article, the editors almost always chose to utilize direct quotation from its references. Though this is positive in the sense that we, as peer editors, are made fully aware of the content's origins and there is no confusion as to whose original ideas are being expressed in the article, it sometimes leads to an unnatural or forced writing style. It is for this reason, that I suggest the use of paraphrases be employed more often. This would allow for a more natural organization of the article as a whole. In its current state, the article divides its content into five individual sub-topics - What Media Cloud Does, How It Works, Uses and Applications, Influence, and Future Use. First, it seems as if the first section, "What Media Cloud Does" seems to briefly discuss the purpose of the its launch. The "How it Works" section, very briefly describes the mechanics of media cloud. It appears to me that the "Uses and Application" discusses the ways in which Media Cloud has been applied in both a research capacity. The "Influence" section discusses at length the use of stream algorithms - something I feel would be better suited for the "How It Works" section. Lastly, the "Future Use" section discusses its potential for future application in the digital age, primarily Twitter and Facebook. In my opinion, it would serve the article well to make a number of changes regarding its organization. First, the sections describing media cloud's purpose and the mechanics of its operation should be merged under a single heading, "Purpose". The relationship between why media was cloud and how it works are closely related so these points should be discussed in tandem. I also suggest to include the discussion of stream algorithms (specifically how they work and are used in the media cloud) at this point in the article. Next, I suggest that the editors combine the description of media cloud's uses, application, and future uses into a single section. This would also eliminate any redundancies and allow for more flow in the language of the article. The influence section doesn't really appear to make sense to me, as the use of stream algorithms does not really equate to media cloud's influence. It is for this reason that I suggest the editors delete the "Influence" section entirely and simply discuss the mechanics of stream algorithms in the "Purpose" section and its role in future applications in the newly created "Future Uses and Applications" section. Overall though, well done! Ashleypcooper (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This group did a fine job in improving the quality of this Wikipedia page. The lead section is understandable, and the group made a wise choice in refraining from delving into the more technical aspects of the Media Cloud in the beginning. My only edit would be to use less direct quotes and try to paraphrase the material instead, and to link "Harvard University" to its Wikipedia page. The structure the group decided to present the material in is another strength of this Wikipedia article. The content is arranged in a logical progression, which really helps the reader form a holistic understanding of the topic. The development of content in each section is balanced overall; the "How It Works" section could benefit from an image or diagram that would serve as a visual assistance in understanding a procedure. The group also succeeded for the most part in providing neutral coverage. There is a noticeable emphasis on the positives and potential benefits of this project, and not much discussion on its drawbacks or criticisms. I think adding that would create a more robust presentation on this topic. The group uses credible sources, but I think it could expand on some vague parts. For instance, under "Uses and Applications", it says "Many companies are taking advantage of the ability..." which is too general and it would be helpful to list the companies. That would create a better picture of who the target market of this service would be. Anghuange (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media Cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mediacloud.org/dashboard/media_sets/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227203521/http://www.mediacloud.org/blog/2011/05/06/media-cloud-relaunched/ to http://www.mediacloud.org/blog/2011/05/06/media-cloud-relaunched/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140217175447/http://www.ramp.com/platform/mediacloud/ to http://www.ramp.com/platform/mediacloud/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)