Wikipedia:Peer review/Collaboratory/archive1

Collaboratory

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions to help improve this article, which I hope to submit as FA soon. Thanks! C22an 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate impression is that the page is in need of serious wiki linking. It looks like you are using Harvard referencing, so the {{ref_harvard}} templates can be used. Also could you add it to one or more appropriate categories? Thank you. :) — RJH 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Thanks for your comments! I have added internal and external links, a See Also, and External Links sections. The citation style I'm using is APA (similar to Harvard), which seems to be in line with the Wikipedia citation guidelines. I would change the style, but since I don't know Harvard I'd rather not. After all, the important part is to cite the sources... Thanks again!C22an 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

Just as a suggestion, it would be helpful if the introduction was a gentle overview, rather than an extended discussion of the word definition. The current intro might tend to put off some readers, and could probably be moved into its own section. You could just state at the start something along the lines of: "collaboratory" is a portmanteau that combines the words collaboration and laboratory; then briefly delve into a reader-friendly description of the potential benefits and issues. Food for thought, anyway.

Hmmm, good point! WIP.

There are many words in the text that can be enhanced with links, which is useful for those who want to delve into a subject further (or just want to understand what the word means.) For example: digital libraries, behavioral scientists, workflow management, databases, data transmission, hierarchical tree, node, task management, electronic notebooks, combustion, model and asynchronous collaborations.

Excellent catch! I fixed all and added a couple more. Though I have to be careful not to go over the allowed 10% :)

I think "globally distributed" should have a hyphen.

Corrected. How about "globally disarticulated"?

The folks who do the FA evaluation are likely to object to the use of bold-fonts for definitions such as "Collaboration readiness".

Reversed the font to regular. Although it seems a bit unusual to me. How would one highlight the important parts? Underlined fonts I guess are not good because they can be confused with links. How about italics? Or maybe colors... :))

The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics section suggests using italics when writing about words as words. — RJH 16:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first use of a $ should be linked to US$, since other nations use the same symbol for their currency.

Corrected.

Here's some suggested categories: Category:Information technology, Category:Collaboration and Category:Laboratories.

Done.

Thank you for your work on this. :) — RJH 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for all your help! If there's more please let me know :) C22an 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]