Talk:4th Industrial Revolution

Some grammar / wording "cleanup" might be in order
Could we get someone to review some of the text of this article? ...(such as, the portions mentioned below)?

If not, it's OK. I am a native speaker of English, and (if necessary) I am prepared to make some updates myself. However, I thought it might be a good idea to see first whether anyone has any comments on a few suggestions for some "proposed improvements" to certain portions of the text of this article (see below).

In case anyone wants to follow along, these comments are all based on the "'16:22, 27 December 2016‎' version" of this article, (which was the current version of the article when these comments were written).

[1] In the subsection about the "First_Industrial_Revolution" (right before the first occurrence of footnote number "[3]"), it says, in part:"[...] the transition from mostly agrarian, rural societies became industrial and urban."

IMHO, this is not how a native speaker of English would say it. I have heard of "the transition from A to B", and I have heard of locutions such as "the transition when A became B"; but, (as shown in the "blockquoted" quote above), this portion of the text of the article is using half of each. They do not fit with each other. Square peg and round hole.

Perhaps that sentence could be changed to say [something like]"[...] the transition from mostly agrarian, rural societies to more industrial and urban areas." or "[...] the transition when many agrarian, rural societies became more industrial and urban." ...where the word "more" might be optional there, before "industrial".

[2] In the subsection about the "Second_Industrial_Revolution", it says:"[...] used electric power to create mass production." IMHO, it should say [something more like] "enable" or "facilitate", instead of "create". Maybe even [something more like] "enable manufacturers to implement" or "enable companies to adopt".

[3] In the subsection about the "Third_Industrial_Revolution", it says:"The era started to during the 1980s and is ongoing."

The verb (half of an infinitive) seems to be missing between "to" and "during". Actually, I do not recommend to just delete the word "to", because the sentence"The era started during the 1980s and is ongoing." is not technically true. The technology of that era -- (the era of the Digital Revolution) -- did explode on the scene [even more than before] during the 1980s, but it had been around (for "early adopters", e.g.) earlier. (In fact, the lede of the Wikipedia article about the Digital Revolution says that it "[...] began anywhere from the late 1950s to the late 1970s [...]", so it would be an exaggeration -- or, just plain false -- to say that it "started" during the 1980s). It would be more accurate, -- and perhaps more consistent with the intent of the original editor, who kindly included "half of" the infinitive of some verb (such as the verb "to flourish") there -- to say [something like]"The era started to flourish during the 1980s and is ongoing." ...although the best choice of the verb remains open to debate. Instead of "to flourish", we might prefer "to explode" or "to become ubiquitous" ... or something like that. (We also might want to start the sentence with "The technology of that era" instead of just "The era".)

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to Rifkin and Third Industrial Revolution
Seems there are much confusion (perhaps marketing led) on just how many revolutions we are having.CF

David Slight (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The picture/map...
I don't understand what on earth it's for. Mazibuko Street in Johannesburg? 

Different.joy (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to have since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Industry 4.0 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)