Talk:Android Developer Day

If you guys added the pictures to the article, they are not centered. I'm sure it is pretty easy to center them, but it just looks weird in the current layout. Additionally, the styling used on "2014 Convention" does not match that of the styling used on the other conventions. It is confusing. Also, after reading the first paragraph under "2014 Convention", I think a lot of that information should be in an intro or description paragraph at the top because it pertains to all Android Developer Days. There seems to be a certain set of information presented under the other "20XX Convention" sections that is missing from "2014 Convention". The information you guys added is great, but it seems to be in the wrong location and formatted improperly. Jineshshah36 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Jineshshah36

Plans for revision: 1.) Write a better description of what the event is about. 2.) List the speakers of the event 3.) Discuss the topics covered at the event 4.) Give a brief history of the event 5.) Define the purpose of the event 6.) What is the schedule at the event (2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvanalst (talk • contribs) 01:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Links we plan to use: http://www.androiddeveloperdays.com/ http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp/servlet/event.showcfp?eventid=36084&copyownerid=61337 http://www.eteration.com/android-developer-days-is-reloaded-for-2013/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvandage (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC) http://www.androiddeveloperdays.com/schedule/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvanalst (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/androiddeveloperdays — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvanalst (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC) http://conference.researchbib.com/?action=viewEventDetails&eventid=33246&uid=raf091 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvandage (talk • contribs) 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of Android Developer Day
The first issue that catches my attention is the name of the Wikipedia article; the name of the article is Android Developer Day but the event is Android Developers Days. This is just a minor change that can clarify to viewers if this event is multiple days or just a one day event. With regards to Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view, the editor uses the term yours but should change this to third-person using the terms his or her instead of yours.I like how the editors separated each Convention and gave details about that specific event. In addition, the added hyperlinks and sources added to the article came from credible sources. The last issue I want to address is about the participants category. I believe viewers can become confused because the list provided is for only the featured speakers at the 2014 ADD convention. Unless Wikipedia editors are going to update this category yearly, editors should take caution in providing information that needs to be constantly updated. Instead of listing featured speakers, a possible solution could be to name and give details about important founders of ADD. This would contribute to the History of ADD and eliminate the issue of having to update the article quarterly or yearly. Ethanforman (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So to start off, pretty well done article! The coverage of the conferences was comprehensive and specific,and I really understand what they are by the end of reading it. There are some small concerns, though. There is ambiguity about what the article is-- android developer "day" or "days". This should probably be clarified. Moreover, refrain from using wording like "this year" which really loses value when the article spans for more than one year. Also, making 2014 convention it's own section breaks the consistency of the article. even if teh convention warrants a greater significance, it should still be with the other sections otherwise it confuses the reader. Also, makign the 2014 section larger than the 2012 and 2013 section leads the reader to think that this conference is considerably more important than the other sections which either isn't true or is not really made clear in the description. Ronaldbasin] ([[User talk:Ronaldbasin|talk) 1:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Mark Kurzeja (Kurjagger) Class Summary

The Android Developer Day article was both concise and easy to read. The information presented was laid out well and proper use of headings and sub headings made the article easy to "jump read" and get the important information quickly. Things that you did particularly well: As well, there were a number of things that I noticed that could be improved: Overall, The article was well put together and worked well with the topic. Your list of references was inclusive and well cited and the links provided on the page made for easy navigation if the user wanted more information. Good job all. Kurjagger (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Concise wording
 * Use of many external sources
 * Large amounts of internal linking
 * Well documented
 * Listing of "this year" or "soon" makes maintenance of the page difficult as time, itself, progresses
 * Defining Synergy and its role seems out of place
 * "As mentioned above" reference break with edits over time
 * Listing of various topics for 2014 conference is too verbose
 * Three-deep headings not needed with 2.2.1 Sub Events

Excellent work on this article. I felt that overall the structure was very well thought-out and easy to follow. I think the most important parts of the article were the summaries of past conventions. These gave me a significantly better idea of what android developer days are. This may also be an area of concern as the introduction still left me wondering what exactly the event included. The only serious problem I can see is as mentioned above the issue with using "this year" and "soon" as these words will eventually lose thier credibility and accuracy. User: Nickmich1695|Nick Michetti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmich1695 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your article does a great job of using clear language to help effectively convey what ADD is. Here are a few strong points in your articles:

-	you added a lot of internal links in the content of your writing which is helpful -	all of your content is well documented with a lot of sources making the quality of the article better since it is more credible -	the article was concise and did not have too much unrelated information. -	Specific examples of the conventions from the past few years really helped show what the conventions are like

Here are some things that could be improved:

-	I would agree with the general consensus that the name should be changed to Android Days -	I like that you listed topics from the 2014 conference but I think now the other years should have some topics included

Overall, your article is concise and easy to read yet contains insightful information and is very informative. Alexober (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought this article was very easy to read and was very informative. Things done well:
 * It was to the point and covered a lot about the history of the convention
 * It was really defined what happened in each convention so far, which is very helpful to the reader
 * It was nice to know the speakers that have talked in the convention
 * You really defined what the ADD really was

There should a few changes. Overall, the article was solid and I think it is a job well done!Sharonkang08 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You should change the title to Android Developer Days instead of Day because it is slightly misleading.
 * How do they decide which country and city holds the event each year? How do they come up with the topics that they discuss at these events?
 * The structure could be changed around a little.

Thank you for these comments SharonKang08! One thing I'd like to mention is that the 2012 Convention portion of the article discusses how Ankara is a prime location for technological developments and discussions due to the number of tech universities in the area. Also, sources we have seen refer to both "Day" and "Days" which definitely has the potential to cause confusion. Thanks! Kevpas (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This article was obviously thoroughly researched and explicated. The introduction was very clear and concise, and I instantly grasped purpose and goals of ADD. I think it was a very good idea to break down the history of the convention by year, making it much more navigable. I was impressed by how much information they were able to find on specific discussions held at each conference. However, I found long lists of number specifics almost distracting and would have rather seen more about what was accomplished at these conferences. In the last section, I appreciate the extensive list of other topics addressed, but, as some one who is non-literate in the tech community, these lists were not too meaningful to me. It would have been helpful to hyperlink to other pages or briefly summarize them. I also noticed that some of the other participants have wikipedia articles written about them, and it would have been nice to be able to click instantly to find out more about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmadchill (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the article was well written and had a good flow of ideas. While in the opening paragraph it was easy for the reader to understand what Android Development Day (ADD) is, the subsequent historical background was also written effectively. It was easy to understand where ADD started, and how the most recent (2014) conference came about. Given our assignment's prompt, your edits did an excellent job in finding thorough information relating to each sub-topic, with some (not all) well chosen sources. The sources were also cited properly. Another aspect that was done quite well was the "Participants" section, whereby the reader was able to understand the importance of ADD by seeing who attends the conference.

There are a few aspects that could use some improvement:
 * There was a discrepancy between "Android Development Day" and "Android Development Days", alongside some other (minor) grammatical mistakes
 * Your "box" could be improved to include things like participant number, conference budget, participant growth rate, past locations, etc (overall general, but useful, information)
 * A subsection further discussing what sorts of activities occur within the actual conference, the selection process, etc
 * Any famous/large ideas coming out of each ADD conference could be analyzed in greater depth

Acanelas (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of Android Developer Day (By: Waleed Khan)
I thought that this article was written in both in an informative manner as it clearly described the main objective of the "Android Developer Day" and the main activities that occur in the convention. The graphics on this page really caught my attention and made me want to read the article and learn more about the topic that was being presented. I also liked the fact that the group made sure to include information about how one can attend this event as that may be very important to readers who enjoy android development. The group not only used a wide variety of sources but also made sure they were credible, which ensured the page was based on reliable information. I also enjoyed reading about the past events of Android Developer Day as it gave me a good understanding of what actually occurs at these conferences. Furthermore, by providing information about future events, the group made sure to give the reader an insight of the activities that will occur at the conference later on in the calendar year.

One aspect that I think the group could improve on is making the "history" paragraph more in-depth in explaining specific details about how the Android Developer Day was created. I believe that by adding this information, the group will be able to further illustrate the objectives behind creating this event. Also, I feel that the group can also add some details about the global impact of this topic as it would make readers realize how this event affects thousands of people around the world. In the end, I really liked this page as I believe that a lot of time and effort was put into finding proper sources and adding relevant information that makes the article appealing to readers. By including notable participants, the group showed that the "Android Developer Day" gains attention from people who are highly skilled in the software industry. Being a computer science student myself, I enjoy reading about events that revolve around software and I will definitely read more about this topic in the future.

To summarize:

Pros:
 * In-depth/well-detailed article
 * Good/relevant images
 * Variety of reliable sources
 * Well-written

Cons: Waleedk1 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could add more to "history" paragraph
 * Add more about global impact of Android Developer Days (What does it mean to software developers?)
 * The "box" at beginning of article could have more details about the Developer Day (It mainly just has pictures right now)
 * Maybe include more details about "sub events" (the paragraph can be written more in-depth)

Review of Android Developer Day
This article was actually very delightful to read the structures seem to be lined up well. The beginning of the article was very brief and simple to read along. The pictures along the description lines also increased my understanding towards the project. The history sections of the day had concise information that did not bore the readers when most of the wiki articles are busy giving bundles of information this article does not do that. Also, the articles and sources that the group had selected to cite all had credible information and the information on such articles were carefully structured and narrowed down to its bare essence. However, there is one aspect that this article could use is maybe by including a bit more information about each of the sections of history and maybe a brief paragraph in exactly what an "android" is. Although many readers of this article are likely of what an android is there are some viewers that have encountered the term for the first time. But overall this was an excellent article with good and credible sources structured nicely thank you for providing this information.Jaejeong (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of Android Developer Day (By: Brandon Wong)
I thought that this article was very detailed and informational in talking about Android Developer Day. I liked the way that the history of the convention is split in to different years. I also thought that the details of each convention were clearly displayed and concise. I liked the graphics that were used but if they were organized a little better, then they would really make the page perfect. I also feel like the group could have commented more on the effects that Android Developer Day has had globally. Moreover, the side bar on the right could be organized better and should have a little more information in it. However, overall, the group did a good job on writing about all of the aspects of ADD. Furthermore, they used credible sources and properly cited them throughout the article. This helps confirm that the article is correct and does not contain any false information. Lastly, I liked how the group posted related events at the end of the page. This is good for reading more into the topic and creating interest in different areas. Bwong94 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of Android Developer Day
This article was professional looking. The stance of the article stayed unbiased during the entire article. Good grammar and spelling were used. It looks like a lot of work and good collaboration was put in. It was very detailed and for a person reading this article who wasn't familiar with the topic, no question would be left unanswered. There was a smooth transition from one section to the next. Each section was concise and to the point. Even though the images don't add any information to the article itself, they are still good for style. One thing that I would've done differently was to have the "2014 Convention" come right after the "2013 Convention" for the sake of continuing the chronological flow.

Review of Android Developer Day -cineyr
This is a well done article overall. First of all, the content is structured in a way that makes sense for the most part. One suggestion I would make is to make 2014 the same header level as the previous 2 years. This would be more visually pleasing. The intent actually seems to be to inform what the upcoming convention will have to offer. It would then be much clearer to change the headers from just "2012 Convention" to "2012 Convention Review" or something along those lines and call the 2014 Convention section a preview. Another aspect done well in this article was conciseness. I feel like the information was stated simply and clearly. I also think it was a good idea to include the picture of the Android robot with the caption. This clarifies the topic even further. Cineyr (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of Android Developer Day
Great job on the edits. The layout of the page was very well organized and the contents were informative. I especially thought including details such as the names and background of speakers who will speak at the 2014 conference was very helpful. In terms of improvements that would make the Wikipedia page even better, they were to first include more details for the introduction section. Although I understand that details were provided later on in the article, I think it would be even more informative to include information such as the specific locations ADD was held at, the founding year of ADD, and some past speakers. By adding in such details to the introduction, it would give ADD and the page more credibility to people who only chose to look at the introduction rather than the whole article. The other suggestion I had was to clarify the difference between Android Developer Day and Google Developer Day. The partnership between the two events was mentioned a few times in the article but I wasn't quite sure of their relationship. Other than that, great job again! Cszutsen (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Szu-tsen Chou