Talk:Mass amateurization

I object to the deletion of this article. A concern was raised that it is a neologism. I disagree. Shirky is not the only author to address "mass amateurization" and the term appears in other wikipedia articles. SCTT (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Substance
Hi SCTT I made a few minor changes. Specifically, I added produsage to the "see also" section. I think that this is a really well put together article with lots of sections and subsections to cover everything. I think that you now need to elaborate on each section to make it all come together. Specifically, the "social media" section and all of the criticsm sections could use a little bit more bulk with specific examples. You have the outline, you just need to fill everything in a bit more. Also include theories, perhaps make this another section. CONTENT:Very good. Could use more specific examples and more content in general in each section. STRUCTURE:Excellent. Well thought out sections and subsections. SOURCES:Need more. With specific examples and theories. Jonessam2013 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
SCTT,

So I think you article is nice introduced and I get a true idea of what Mass amatuerization is. I also think the background sections is nicely laid out and very well organized. I think the way you show Mass Amateurization and the Internet could be shifted around a little bit. Seeing as there is so many other sites than the ones listed that you could use as examples, I think you should put them into more bullet forms or list that is constantly adding more expamples (intsagram, reddit and many more). I think you could refer to this sites throughout your text instead of having their own section. I think maybe a little more simplicity and reorganization for that section would be much more first time reader friendly. I also think there should be two sections one titled institutions and one titles collaborators explaining each side kind of like you have already started to do. Once you hit on those two sides then I think another section "Power Law" would make sense and it would actually flow a little better. I think you have great content and pretty good sources, maybe a few more would help but overall I think its good and just a little reorganization would be better. Landmar (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)