User:Km4038b/sandbox

Big Think Second Draft
Big Think, a multimedia web portal, was founded in 2007 with the intent to organize and connect information on the internet. The website is a collection of interviews, presentations, and roundtable discussions with speakers from a range of fields. Individuals and interested companies can utilize filters and e-learning tools to find refined information.

Founding of Big Think:
The concept for Big Think was developed by Victoria Brown and Peter Hopkins. Victoria Brown is the acting CEO while Peter Hopkins maintains the role of co-founder and president of the company. Both founders envisioned “an online platform where the world’s leading experts could weigh in on current issues”. Hopkins envisioned the platform as being a YouTube for intellectuals.

The company began when the pair met while working with Google Video to digitize the VHS archives of the show Charlie Rose in 2006. The shared employment lead to Brown and Hopkins contemplating how to organize information into “short-form intellectual videos targeting online audiences”.

Beginning with solely video content in 2008, Big Think started adding blogs and written content into Big Think in 2009, adding the first big blogger, Mr. Michio Kaku and Strangemaps, in 2010. In 2012, Big Think started live-streaming parts of company interviews, providing individual and companies with “real-time interaction with notable guests”. As of March 2012, the Big Think YouTube channel passed 20 million views, and the video archive of the website included 1200+ clips from 2000+ experts.

Notable Investors:
Some of the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel from Paypal, Tom Scott of Natucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers.

Growth of Big Think:
Since its creation, the website has spawned several specified sites, such as Big Think Edge for Business and Floating University for Higher Education. Big Think has stayed privately-owned and works with roughly 50 employees.

Big Think Response to Feedback
I will need to read through the NPOV Wikipedia standards to make sure that I adhere to what Wikipedia is asking for with its articles. I thought I would be okay with how my article was written, but through the graded feedback, I realize that I have biased language that does not meet the standards of the article and of the site. I will have to research as well how to do links within Wikipedia as well as removing unnecessary links to the article, because I have excess citations that do not need to be there. I want to try to find more sources, but I fear that there may not be many that are credible enough to cite, so I will need to research this topic further and amend my links and information as I continue with creating my submission. Hannah reviewed my additions and mentioned a few typos, and I will need to change those as I make other changes to this article. I also think that how I visualize the article is difficult to show others within my sandbox, so as to Hannahs thoughts on how to organize the information, I believe that once my information is formatted within the original article it will look better than it does currently. The headings will separate the information into nice sections, such as 'Website growth' for the third paragraph, and 'Investors' in the fourth paragraph, but within the sandbox it is hard to see this (maybe this is a formatting error of my own, and in fact I can how my thought process within the sandbox).

Hannah's peer review
First off, it's clear you put a lot of work into your draft and you use clear and understandable language. I think you've thoroughly reviewed the beginning of Big Think and its timeline. As for the sections I would consider separating the description of the platform from the timeline of it. Basically you may want to describe exactly what the platform does in one section and how its founders met/how the company grew in another section. The first two paragraphs of your draft are clearly well researched, but the last two paragraphs don't really have a connection to the previous information. If you were to keep this draft in just one section of the Wikipedia page, I would suggest you integrate these last two smaller thoughts into your bulkier first two paragraphs. Another thought would be to put your information into different sections of the Wikipedia page as it fits. There's a few typos in the second paragraph (a "MR" that looks like it should be Mr and a "he" that looks like it might be a the) but nothing big. The information you've researched is clearly presented and has no apparent bias/influence. Great Job! Ll99ll (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Big Think First Draft
Big Think, founded in 2007, is a multimedia web portal focusing on topics and issues relevant to twenty-first century business success. The website features interviews, presentations, and roundtable discussions with speakers from a range of fields. Companies and individuals can subscribe to filters, e-learning tools, and other elements for knowledgeable consumption of news catered to differing fields. The concept for Big Think was developed by Victoria Brown and Peter Hopkins. Victoria Brown is still the acting CEO, while Peter Hopkins maintains the role of co-founder and president of the company. Both founders envisioned “an online platform where the world’s leading experts could weigh in on current issues”.

The company began when the pair met while working with Google Video to digitize the VHS archives of the show Charlie Rose together in 2006. This lead the pair to contemplate how to revamp valuable information into an accessible format. Beginning with solely video content in 2008, Big Think slowly started adding blogs and written content into 2009, adding the first big blogger, MR. Michio Kaku and Strange maps in 2010. In 2012, Big Think started live-streaming parts of company interviews, which provided individual and companies with “real-time interaction with notable guests”. As of March 2012, the company YouTube channel passed 20 million views, and he video archive of the website included 1200+ clips from 2000+ experts.

Since its creation, the website has spawned several specified sites, such as Big Think Edge for business and Floating University for higher education. The site has stayed privately-owned and has a staff basis of around 50 employees.

Some of the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel from Paypal, Tom Scott of Natucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. (List investors in their own category?)

Big Think Improvement Notes
I would start by assessing who owns the company, like who is the current CEO, as well as maybe seeing how much the company is worth. I would also update the description of the website, because looking at the current webpage it does not look like big think is a 'youtube' for ideas. I would create a description paragraph, then a 'beginning' paragraph that would explain why it was created and its initial purpose, then I would create another section for its use in todays time. I could also look into what the original creators envisioned for the website, and if it started as a website or if the website was the stepping stone for another network. There are also a lot of facts and numbers offered by the website that would add to the content of this article in a really beneficial way. Questions like why it was created, how it was designed, who works with it now, what field this website interacts with, and who is impacted by the website now would be some of the questions I aim to answer with my improvements.

Finding a Communication Related Article
Ad-ID: I would start by adding links to this article, as well as rewriting it to maybe include stuff from this year (it hasn't really been edited for a while). I would also expand on the French element to Ad-ID to show where its range is, whether it is American of French. There also seems to be a lot of complex language within this page, so I could do a lot of explaining so that there could be more comprehension of the material.

Advertising to Children: This article seems to be primarily from the U.S. perspective, and is written like an essay, so I would rewrite it to be a little more formal as well as researching the international impact of advertising to children because there is going to be a lot of information about it. I could also bring a contemporary view of how it is being applied (using current examples, not my personal opinion). Theres also a large need for citing some of the studies that are referenced within the article, which is something I will do.

Anthropology of Media: This article needs a lot of links to the information within the article to make it up to Wikipedia standards. Theres also a lot of room within the article to improve the writing, with regards to the content and with rewriting for clarification of the topic. I could also research when the term was first used, its popularity with media studies, and other elements to give background and context to the term.

Big Think: This article hasn't been updated in a really long time and lacks a good amount of information because of the lack of editing. I was able to find the website with a simple google search, so I know that there is a lot of new information from contemporary times to add to the article, along with more information to cite into the article. This is the most promising article because of how much information it lacks.

Article Evaluations
Blue is a film from 2002 about a budding high school lesbian relationship, set in Japan. This movie deals with many elements of growing teenagers, with an interesting love interest twist in the form of a "taboo" relationship, taboo at the time at least. It is a very simple article, exhibiting a basic summary of the movie and the names of the small cast along with an award one of the actresses won. I think there could be a lot more to the article, however there is the element of spoiler alerts that limits what the article can speak about while also keeping the integrity of the movie. Since the article has very limited information, there is very little room for bias' and personal interest, which is for better and for worse for the article. I think one element that could be talked about with this movie is the fact that there is a discussion about homosexuality before it became 'mainstream'. This could have been a good talking point within the article, about whether or not this movie paved any major paths, or if this movie was following or trend. There also seems to be some disagreement within the article about when it was released. In the title it says 2001 film, yet it then contradicts itself within the first sentence by saying that the film was released in 2002. This could be an area to revise, so that there is no conflicting information within the article.

Brett Gilliland is the 21st and current football coach for the University of West Alabama, starting his career with the university in 2013. The article is pretty underdeveloped, with very minimalistic information on the coach with information like when he played football, when he started as a coach, and then when he signed on to coach the University of West Alabama. It shows some statistics like his coaching record of wins and loses, when and where he was born, but lacks any biased information like how good of a coach he is, if there are any social scandals to his name, and any family information if there is any. Just like the first article, there is a lot of room for improvement, such as bringing in information about this years football season with his coaching skills, if he has taken up any pro-bono coaching jobs, and any other information that could add to his character as a coach. One of the things that distracted me the most about this article is that there are vibrant red and yellow colors, to signify some external links about football coaches and conferences Gilliland is apart of. I think this hinders the visual fluidity of the article, drawing your attention away from the important information and to external links that, although pertinent to the topic, could distract you away from the topic at hand.

Finding an Article
One article I want to expand on in the article about the Black-billed Koel. I would try to add images of what the bird, and other birds in its family, look like, along with more information about its geographical location so that one could picture its habitat. I would also love to be able to add the bird's call to the page for additional information. Dietary, mating, and other biological habits of this bird would give more depth into the organism, as well as any potential quirks about the bird, like maybe it needs to find a blue flower for its mate, or something of interest.

Another article would be about the genus of flower Neogardneria. This is an interesting page because this is a genus with only one known species within it, yet there is no page for the species that is within this genus. I would possibly add the page for the species of orchid, and pictures for this new page, but I would also treat this page for the genus as the page for the individual species because they are one in the same. I would expand on where the flower is, any possible names it could go by, the popularity of the flower where it is found, and any special elements of the flower like its peculiar smell or taste. There could also be information on who found the flower, when, and if it is used in any studies.

I would also like to write about Cotton Tree Lodge as another possible article. This article is flagged as being written as an advertisement, so I would rewrite this article to remove the bias while also pushing more points that would make it significant. Things like where it is located, any interesting history, ownership history, and other elements to round out the article about the place. I could also add links to where it is and links to other elements.

A final article could be about the Acanthoderes amplifrons beetle. I have a lot of capabilities with this article. I could add pictures, where it was discovered, how it was discovered, its importance to the scientific community, and who the people who discovered the beetle are. I can link it back to the people who discovered the beetle and also more about its taxonomic lineage.

I could also branch into the habitat-selection hypothesis page to add to the content on this page as well. I would add more tags to this page so that it could attach to more of the wikipedia world, while also maybe adding links that direct back to this article into other articles so that it can be get more recognition for its importance. I could find more experimental information to back up the first study mentioned, as well as adding more information from the original case into the page.