Talk:Technology/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I have not yet read the article, but first impressions are good. The immediate thing that jumps out at me is that there are no sections on the various types of technology. The history section, though, seems to follow technology types (stone tools, metal tools etc.) I am an electrical engineer and looked in vain for a section on my field. So there is a question mark in my mind whether this meets GAC3 (broad coverage). I will be taking a closer look at this in the detailed review but perhaps you could say a few words on the principles of the article structure.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede section

 * The definitions given are a bit woolly and unclear. ...referring to whatever can be said ... concerning and ...encompasses all that can be said about... could include almost anything.  I can't find a dictionary definition that comes close to saying anything like that either on or off line.  I did find this interesting article though.
 * examples include "construction technology", "medical technology", or "state-of-the-art technology". This is a confused list; the first two are specific examples but state-of-the-art technology is not.
 * Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments. Only a very limited number of species have demonstrated tool use and nowhere does it come close to being comparable to human usage.  The sentence is therefore misleading in its implications.  The whole idea that animal tool use is to be called technology I think needs a reference, as does Considering a more generic perspective of technology as ethology of active environmental conditioning and control in the "other species" section.
 * ...and the challenge of traditional norms. I am not clear what this is meant to be saying. Is it another example of technology affecting values?
 * The whole paragraph above is on "technology and society" but it does not seem to be summarising any part of the article (WP:LEAD).
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  09:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC) to 10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition and usage

 * The invention of the printing press...leading to the Age of Enlightenment. A citation is needed that the cause of the Age of Enlightenment was the invention of the printing press.
 * The sentence of Foucalt needs a cite.
 * ...technology predates both science and engineering Probably correct, but needs a cite.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)  to 10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Science, engineering and technology

 * ok  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

History

 * I am pausing the review here to await response of the nominator.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am now failing this article purely because the nominator has not entered into a dialogue and does not appear to be willing to do any work on article shortcomings.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  06:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not for GA review
Not to dismiss the great work so far, but i believe this is very far from a GA, way too much missing, especially considering that wikipedia and the net is part of 'technology'. for example, medieval and modern history are combined!?! Way too light on modern technology, where all the real action has/is happening (exponentially speaking). This reads more like a 'history of technology' article than on the general field of technology Drjonesgp (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjonesgp (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)