Talk:DARPA Network Challenge

Plans for additions to article

MFTWrecks and I (we are in a course at Carnegie Mellon University together that has an assignment to improve a WP article) are planning to expand this article by adding more information about the competition and also the strategies used by successful teams, including the MIT team, the GTRI team, and the iSchools team. One source we are planning to use is at http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/4/106587-reflecting-on-the-darpa-red-balloon-challenge/fulltext . A sandbox for our updated version of this article can be found at User:Miestersean/DARPA Network Challenge Sandbox. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Sean (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "known competing teams"?

Should we remove the "known competing teams" section? This seems less informative than the list at http://redballoon.wikispaces.com/Groups Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article comment

"References"
— Link to article revision

Use of the Tang et al paper is good. I'm surprised you didn't use the following as reference. [Pickard, G., Pan, W., Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Crane, R., Madan, A., & Pentland, A. (2011). Time-Critical Social Mobilization. Science, 334(6055), 509-512. ] Having gone through peer review, they are more authoritative than some of news reports or MIT websites you did cite.

Posted on behalf of robertekraut by InstructorCommentBot (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already had it listed as reference #7. We found that a lot of the information was highly technical (e.g., mathematical models), so we didn't include any of that. The rest of it was mostly summary information about other competitors, so we followed their citations for that information and used the main citation, reference #3, "DARPA Network Challenge Project Report," directly for the article. Sean (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article comment

"The 2009 DARPA Network Challenge "
— Link to article revision

This abstract can be beefed up. It doens't provide a concise overview of the article that follows. It should describe what the actually challenge was, not just the goals, and perhaps something about the winner or the results. See the description of a WP lead about what is needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28lead_section%29.

Posted on behalf of robertekraut by InstructorCommentBot (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph to the abstract to give a better description of the actual contest. Thanks for the detailed suggestions. Sean (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article comment

" submissions were legitimate or fake"
— Link to article revision

Need to say something about the problems the winners needed to solve -- not just to find the balloons, but also to weed out false reports posted by competitors or vandals. Then the discussion about ways to deal with assess legitimacy makes more sense.

Posted on behalf of robertekraut by InstructorCommentBot (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We added a brief explanation of the purpose of the challenge in response to this feedback. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.234.158 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]