Talk:Spectrum commons theory: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Dating comment by Mdseriis - "" |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Landon, would you please explain what are these new technologies that would allow for a peer-to-peer management of the telecommunication spectrum? This needs to be explained in the opening sentences otherwise it is impossible to understand the very foundation of Spectrum Commons Theory.[[User:Mdseriis|Mdseriis]] ([[User talk:Mdseriis|talk]]) 22:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The article needs more work. In particular, I would like to see a few examples of how such theory could be applied. The section "Methods" needs to be renamed. These are typologies of spectrum commons rather than methods. The notion of the tragedy of the commons is based on the idea that material resources are scarce whereas in the opening definition you seem to suggest that new technologies do not make the spectrum scarce. Also, you need to add proper references to Coase and clarify his thoughts. I am also not sure that we need this table here as it does not add much to the theory.[[User:Mdseriis|Mdseriis]] ([[User talk:Mdseriis|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 01:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Peer review == |
|||
Landon, |
|||
Your article is very well written and the structure is very easy to read. I particularly like the table, it definitely give the whole article a very organized look. You also covers the topic of spectrum commons theory quite extensively. I have a few suggestions that might improve the article as follows: |
|||
* The introduction of the article sounds like it was written for a professional or someone with at least some familiarity with media studies, which an average Wikipedia users (like a high school student?) might have problem understanding. It doesn't mean that we have to appeal to the lowest common denominators in written language, but I suggest clarifying the definition of spectrum commons theory using simpler terms. |
|||
* You might want to link this article with the spectrum commons page to increase its credibility. Some users may not know what is spectrum commons in the first place, thus it might be more convenient to have a direct link. |
|||
* Although the History section is very well written and I wouldn't change anything in that section, I don't know if history of spectrum commons requires such large attention, comparing to the Methods section. You might want to expand on the Methods section. Also the name "Methods" is ambiguous, I'm not sure what they refer to. |
|||
* Your first link on the reference list only links to the page cato.org but not the page number that you were referring to. |
|||
[[User:Lavoile|Lavoile]] ([[User talk:Lavoile|talk]]) 20:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Hey Landon, |
|||
*My favorite part about your article is absolutely the table. I think that it separates the different events into a really manageable and readable view. |
|||
*I think that some of your wording might a little advanced for those stumbing across this page. While someone with a higher education will certainly understand it, I think that it could be written for the more average person (like Lavoile said) |
|||
* I think that you should further elaborate on what the telecommunication spectrum is because the spectrum commons theory is apart of it. Or at least link it. |
|||
*I would write a sentence or two on why the three examples you put are methods of the spectrum commons theory and I would also suggest adding more to Supercommons because the definition is a bit unclear. |
|||
*The references look good but as Lavoile said, your first link on the reference list only links to the page cato.org but not the page number that you were referring to. |
|||
[[User:SaraLueders|SaraLueders]] ([[User talk:SaraLueders|talk]]) 22:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
|||