Talk:Google Earth Engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Our stub article Google Earth Drive has minimal content to start with. There is no lead in overview or any more specific details on it. We plan to not only create an introduction to the article but also add detailed information to the body part of the article. One important change we want to make is to explain the distinction between our article, Google Earth Engine, and the existing article, Google Earth. These two things appear very similar at first and even we got confused at the difference. The information already on this Wikipedia page is up to date; however, it is very sparing and uses few sources. We will add 6 more reliable sources using our new information literacy skills. Animorphis (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Animorphis

Peer Review[edit]

Your group did a very good job in expanding the original stub by adding reliable resources as well as some applications of the Google Earth Engine to provide more clear definitions. The structure is clear and the coverage is neutral and objective. Also, the links to other resources and inside Wikipedia in the stub are numerous and helpful. To provide suggestions, it will be better if you can provide more applications of Google Earth Engine in different fields, since according to the background section, this search engine can capture agriculture and climate information, and you only provide one detailed application. Also, there is only one subsection in the application part, which makes it very weak. So if there is no more available applications so far, I may just summarize the application part into one shorter paragraph to strengthen the application in deforestation. In addition, I think if you can include a picture to differentiate the Google Earth Engine and Google Earth, it will be more clear. Overall, this is a well edited stub. Rong Zhou (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall your group did a nice job by expanding upon original stub article and transforming it into a developed Wikipedia page. First off, I liked how you linked your Wikipedia page to other pages by making key words hyperlinks, as most groups did not do this. Furthermore, I fully understood what Google Earth Engine is from the clear definition provided at the top of the page. Another thing your group did successfully was putting correct references on the bottom of the page and within the article. Good job, I think many groups probably had a problem with this aspect of the assignment! I also like the structure of the page as the subtitles are correctly ordered, beginning with a brief definition, moving on to background information and applications. I think more could be added to the Background subtitle to better depict the history and progression of Google Earth Engine or a History subtitle could be added individually. Although I like the structure, I do believe that the Deforestation subtitle looks a little out of place to me as it is the only provided application of the Google Earth Engine. In order to improve upon that, I would suggest adding more subtopics, similar to deforestation like global warming and the melting of glaciers and relating them to the Google Earth Engine. Also, I think that if there were more subtitles and just more information about Google Earth Engine in general the page would be improved. I also agree with the above reviewer's suggestions to differentiate between Google Earth and Google Earth Engine and think a picture could add to the overall clarity. Comprehensively, this is a well edited stub article and you guys definitely put in time and effort to improve upon the original page. Nice job! Spenchag (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your group did a very good job as far as expanding your stub in a clear and unbiased way. The information you added to the page was relevant, and you made the distinction clear over what the difference is between Google Earth and Google Earth Engine. I think the section you added on deforestation was both applicable and interesting, however I would've liked to see more of this kind of thing. Rather than talk generally about applications and give one good example, I think a few more examples would have made this article even stronger. If there are no other really good examples, maybe just incorporate deforestation into a longer applications paragraph. Also, another thing I noticed was that a lot of your sources came directly from Google's website or blog. While this is definitely good (because it shows that you went straight to the source), perhaps it would have also been to your advantage to use a couple more articles or sources that did not come directly from Google, so as to give your research a little more variety. Usually people like to see that you're getting your information from a lot of different sources, and although it's great that Google is your main source, it could be beneficial to add a little more of other research to your page. Finally, I also really like that you added a lot of hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages, because to me this feature is one of the coolest things about Wikipedia, and I didn't notice a lot of groups incorporating it. You guys did a great job, this is a very well-edited article! Lguldan (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This topic is one that i particularly find interesting. I like to learn about hoe Google or internet engines work in conjunction with each other to bring us applications like Google Earth. The information that was added to this article was both relevant and applicable. I did not know that Google Earth was used for more purposes than just looking at your own house, it actually plays a vital role in green projects and initiatives to help keep the planet clean and healthy. I think that a little more elaboration in some parts of the article would serve well. For example, the background section talks about the landscape software and how Google uses it for Google Earth, but i am interested to know how Google found and came into collaboration with said software. More background information would be helpful for clarification issues. Also i feel that more topics could be added to this article like what software Google Earth is using today, what plans it has for the future, new updates, etc. Overall your group did add a fair amount of information to the article, but perhaps a little more in depth information would help the overall article. Good job! Tlatchaw2 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your group did an excellent job of working with Wikipedia;there are subsections, accurate source citings, and appropriate keyword links to other pages. Additionally, the information the group added to the page is all relevant to the topic of Google Earth Engine as well as interesting. I do believe, however, that this page could be made even better if some of the information were to be moved around a bit. Right now, the Applications subsection contains a lot of facts that could be moved into the Background section to make it more substantial-- this section should probably contain a lot of details on the development of Google Earth Engine. The Applications section could then be expanded on and potentially include more details on other apps aside from the tracking of global forest loss/gain. One more thing that would really make this page great would be the addition of some pictures-- Google Earth is such an interesting program, and I'm sure there are some amazing images floating around the internet of satellite views. Aside from these small critiques, I think this group did a great job of researching Google Earth Engine and providing very interesting information on the topic!Sdeross (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This group did a good job adding and editing this Wikipedia page. Before reading this page I was unaware of what Google Earth Engine was and now I am well informed. The brief description at the beginning of the page is concise and to the point while also providing an adequate and useful explanation of what Google Earth Engine is. This fact alone is important to the overall goal of Wikipedia. Although the additional information is relevant and adds to the understanding of what the Google Earth Engine is, I think there could have been more information added. I did notice that this page had several references, which helps the reliability and validity of the page. I would like to see more information on the background of Google Earth Engine like when it was first created instead of jumping right into the Landsat program. This page seems a bit bare and could benefit from more general information such as the history of the program or recent developments in the program. Additionally, I think there could be more examples of Google Earth Engine’s applications instead of just deforestation. Overall this stub article is well written and provides quick important information to readers. This group did a good job!Vgcarls (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I find this wikipedia entry to be very interesting and informative. The tone is very objective and without bias and the structure looks very good. My suggestions include developing the page a little more; although the information that is included is relevant, I think there is a lot more to talk about on the subject that might be even more important. Also, the introduction could definitely be expanded to include a more thorough overview of the topic. The section after the introduction about the background begins in a confusing way. I think it would be beneficial to clarify what Landsat is before talking about its relationship to Google Earth Engine. This happens a few times throughout the page, where I feel like you could introduce topics and connections more clearly so that someone who does not know anything on the topic can easily understand what Google Earth Engine is and the branches of it. The only application you build upon is deforestation, which is definitely important, but the second part of that section does not seem to follow the first. At first glance, I did not see its connection to deforestation at all because it was not introduced clearly. Some important topics I think you could have spoken of would be history, similar systems, other applications. If you had shortened the actual explanation of an application and introduced another example it would really change the direction of the article. Overall, the page is really great and these are merely critical statements. Great work and I enjoyed learning about Google Earth Engine. Astubbs12 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)astubbs12

Overall, I think that your group did an excellent job of editing this stub article. The first thing that I noticed was the long list of sources. For me as a reader, that gave me confidence that what I had been researched well. Also, the hyperlinks that you included were very helpful. There were a few organizations that I had never heard about, and it was nice to be able to click the link and get a short summary. My only critic is the organization of the article. I thought that each paragraph added its own piece of useful information; however, I do believe that changing the order of them would make this article even stronger. For example, I think the beginning of the third paragraph gives an excellent explanation of Google Earth Engine. I would try and combine the second and third paragraphs or make two new paragraphs combing sentences from each. I also thought the final paragraph could just go under applications without its own subtitle. In conclusion, I think that you all made an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. I enjoyed learning about Google Earth Engine. Makendall (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this article really exemplifies what it means to expand a stub. This group took a topic that had minimal details and few sources and focused on adding as much detail as possible, while backing it all up with appropriate references. Although, information was sparse on the subject, the group did not choose to simply provide large amounts of text, which probably would be a lot more subjective. The group’s decision to focus on succinctness is definitely commendable. Similarly, the lead section is very understandable thanks to being brief and specific about what exactly Google Earth Engine is and what it does. The overall article is nicely broken up into a few sections that logically progress, first explaining the origin and background of the topic and then going into specific ways that it is used. In addition, the subheading under the applications section offers a great in depth example to further elaborate the ways that the Google Earth Engine has been applied. Furthermore, the division of the sections is well balanced, with no aspect dominating the page. While the applications section is longer than background, it has a subsection that is distinct from the main section, and thus this does not upset the balance of the article. The article as a whole is very neutral and only consists of referenced facts, and opinionated statements, even if they were referenced are avoided. The references section is well populated and most, if not all of the references seem authoritative and relevant. However, there are still some changes that would greatly improve the article. While the sections are well balanced and detailed, the article would benefit a great deal from having at least a couple more sections, perhaps on the creators of the platform and infrastructure related to its development. Additionally, in order to provide a more diverse understanding of the uses of Google Earth Engine, perhaps there could be a couple more subsections under the applications page about the other uses that were briefly mentioned, or include information about how this service differs from Google Earth. Nonetheless, this group did a great job on this article especially with the dearth of information available. Alishahc (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The article "Google Earth Engine" provides a fairly concise description of from where, and for what, the engine was created. As a whole, the article is a good description of the purpose and the history, and compared to the previous pages, the content level has greatly increased. Likewise, the amount of links within the page definitely provides a necessary, and deserved connection to other sources and pieces of information. The most worthwhile addition to the page, however, is the structure and layout of the page. Compared to the previous layouts, there is a much higher level of readability and more of a progression between ideas. In terms of language usage, the language is unbiased concise.

The drawback to this article is the lack of relevant comparisons to other softwares of a similar nature and purpose, or further applications of said engine. This suggestion might be undoable, considering the newness of the product and idea, however, in order to fully embrace Wikipedia's purpose, more context would reinforce your lack of bias. Possibly introducing more of the problems that come from the engine, or some more of its advantages would add to the article. Furthermore, this seems to be a technology with very relevant applications in the future, so adding further context in terms of future usage would add a lot. Evanmack (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

The background section of the article gives a clear understanding of what Google Earth Engine is, without the reader having to click around to multiple pages and read further into the provided information. I learned from this background information that the Google earth satellites pass around the Earth every 16 days. The article also uses neutral language which complies with the standards of Wikipedia.

The sources appear to be reliable and relevant to the information regarding the page. However, I feel that there could be more sub-topics of information, especially about earth processes besides deforestation. For example, if I google Google Earth Engine, I find information about climate change that could be included in this stub. Sasuss1130 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

The overview section of the article was concise and descriptive. It allows the reader a decent summary of what the Google Earth Engine is and does, while allowing for the elaboration that comes later in the article. I think your group wrote very articulately and it allows for the easily-read nature of the article while also allowing the reader to gain true understanding of what the Google Earth Engine is used for. The sources you used are reliable so your article appears to be credible. An area where you could have improved is the applications section. You only really gave one use of the Google Earth Engine despite its multiple potential uses. Another area that could have been elaborated on was the deforestation category as you only gave one example of it being used in relation to deforestation. Overall you did a good job editing this article and I'm glad I picked it to review. Ianblock (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I think your group definitely did bolster the original wiki and definitely added a lot more information to expand upon it, as well as add credible sources to the article, a very key and important aspect to Wikipedia pages. After reading the article, I have a much greater understanding of Google Earth Engine and definitely learned a lot more about it and how it functions. You guys did a great job at explaining Google Earth Engine in a way thats provided good detail, but is easy for people to understand. The subtitles your group created make the page very organized. This made the article more easy to follow, understand and visually appealing. Furthermore, a key pillar of Wikipedia is to have a neutral article with no bias. I definitely think you guys accomplished this and created a very neutral, unbiased article with strictly relevant information. Moreover, the fact that your group included hyperlinks really sets you apart from other groups, as many did not include any. This makes the article easier for people to read and understand, as they can quickly look up a term they do not know. The section before your "Background" section I think is very nicely added and created, as it briefly and quickly explains to the reader what Google Earth Engine is in a few words and gives the big picture of the article. As far as the aspects that could still be improved of this article, I think adding in some pictures of satellite imagery and what Google Earth portrays would make this article much more visually appealing and more fun to read. There are no pictures included at all, and after all, Google Earth Engine is all about imagery, so it would be nice for people to see what exactly you are writing about. Furthermore, I really do like your inclusion of the "Deforestation" section. It is definitely interesting and relevant and shows the usefulness of Google Earth. However, you should have included a few more similar examples to really expand upon and solidify the real life applications and usefulness of Google Earth Engine. It also would have made the article longer (it seems too short now). Finally, I do feel like some more sections could be added to this article to make it more detailed and informative. For such a well known program thats lots of people use, the article just seems too short and not complete. Maybe for example include a section about the future of Google Earth Engine and what Google is planning to do with it, or even other similar programs. Overall, nice job editing this article! Danmik95 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The additions made to the Google Earth Engine article were commendable in both their substance and quantity. I enjoyed comparing the original stub to the final changes and seeing the growth thanks to your efforts. The information was easy to comprehend but not simple in its detail or message. By expanding both in quantity and quality, your group made the article into a respectable wiki page than I expect to be well reviewed by future users. I appreciated the inclusion of a background section which helped me, someone who did not know about Google earth engine, understand how it came about. Furthermore, the deforestation piece was refreshing and eye-catching. However, if the article was to be improved further I believe the opening paragraph could be extended to include more general information. By expanding the original paragraph your group would have achieved an even more pertinent article. Additionally, the plethora of references is both helpful and difficult to decipher at the same time. The article could benefit slightly from a smaller group of quality references. Overall, you undoubtedly improved the article you set out to write and it was a pleasure to read and review. mmcleodoneill (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your group did a really nice job on the additions to the stub article. After reading the article, I found no grammatical errors which goes to show that the article was reviewed before being finalized. The first section was well done, as it was straight to the point and provided the definition for what the Google Earth Engine exactly is. The sources used seems reliable and properly referenced. The number of sources used is also a good amount to provide enough information on the topic at hand. However, an area of improvement could have been providing more information and details on the different applications within the Google Earth Engine. Aside from that, good job on the assignment. Yusufbell (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Your group did a wonderful job improving this article. Reading through, I was unable to find any grammatical errors, and the links were well done (probably the most difficult part of the assignment). Each link I clicked on went to a reliable, legitimate website and I felt confident that the information gathered from those sources was acceptable. All of the in-text citations were implemented correctly as well, and all were functioning. I believe it may be more aesthetically pleasing to have the "Deforestation" title to be in the same form as the other titles, but that is a small change. As far as content is concerned, I believe that the opening paragraph could be strengthened and added too a tad more so that someone who is clicking through quickly does not have to read the entire article. Throughout the other sections, there was an excessive usage of indirect object pronouns, a few of which could have been replaced with the actual nouns to improve the readability of the article, although this is a stylistic decision. With the exception of maybe requiring slightly more information, the article was well edited. Dontsayjk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The group made significant changes that made the article more appealing. I appreciate the quick concise definition of Google Earth Engine. I clearly states what the reader is going to read about with a easily comprehensible definition. The article includes sufficient amounts of resources and references for the length of it (even though I felt that the article could have been expanded on). Many hyperlinks were used (which is a good thing), to provide extra information for readers that need more clarification/resources. The Applications portion could have contained more subcategories to lengthen out the work. Maybe other categories such as global warming and climate changes could have been added. However, the structure of the article is clearly put. Overall good expansion on the article over time. Maybe add a picture or so because the article does not contain that much information. No grammatical errors noticed by myself. Overall, nice small wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhague94 (talkcontribs) 05:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Earth Engine. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)