Talk:Lightning talk

Origin

The Python conference was having short talks (7 minutes long, I think) in this format prior to 2000. But the name "Lightning Talks" is original with me and as far as I know it was not used before YAPC 19100.

The Python folks subsequently adopted the name, but I believe they had the idea first, although I didn't know this at the time.

-- Dominus 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin skepticism

Really? You previous article editors really imagine that the first time a series of people people gave short talks was some Python conference in 1997? Did you ever go to school? Or take part in business meetings? Or graduate school research paper reports? OK, let's put it this way -- I'm calling for a citation of some reputable source documenting that there was never a series of short talks before 1997. Gwideman (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does not appear to claim that short talks originated in 1997. —Mark Dominus (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that was are now called lightning talks originated at the Python conference. Short talks hav obviously beeen given at other times and places. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

SI 110 Course Assignment

The article stub is written with poor quality. The lead section is too short and lacks substantial information about the topic. Many aspects of this topic are missing, for the article stub only explores history and format. Also, there are not enough references used. Laurdeut (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To address these concerns with the article, our group plans to expand this article. We will accomplish this by updating the sources to be more credible and adding more depth to the article by splitting the history and format sections as well as adding a significance section. Ellerywf (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To improve these sections, we intend to do the following:

History:

• Delete sources that are no longer accessible.
  • Removed speculation ("may have originated") of where lightning talks may have originated, in particular the 1997 Python workshop Laurdeut (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Create a more concise section that deals with the origin of the term.
  • Rather than speculate about its origin.

Format and Definition:

• Separate the Format from the history.
• Include the main description of a Lightning talk.
  • As well as other significant conferences that use lightning talks.

Significance:

• Create a section as to why Lightning talks are important in todays society.

Ellerywf (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, stuff you are doing wrong:

1. You edit summaries are not good enough. edit the indivivual section and say what you are changing - not "updated format section"
2. You removed the "Python conference in 1997" bit. If the link is gone have a look on "The wayback machine" at archive.org for it.
3. The history section is one big sentence that doesn't make sense anymore.
4. blank "Significance" section
5. You added you comment at the top of the talk page not the bottom
6. The "Format" section has some weird usage and repeats points several times. Can be improved.

- SimonLyall (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In about 24 hours from now I'm goign to go through and fix the above - 10:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We will be working to address your criticisms by tomorrow. We are pleased to have your guidance in correcting our mistakes. Our group is new to Wikipedia editing and are learning new techniques as we work. Ellerywf (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

My comments on elements of "quality articles":
I think your contributions to this Wikipedia article definitely improved it, although it still lacks some necessary points. While your leading section is understandable, it lacks a bit of substance. It should summarize your key points while giving some background information that is important to the article. Your structure is clear but could definitely use some more headings, subheadings, pictures, and so on. At first glance, the article looks a little plain; as though it could use more detail to the already existing sections. In addition, the article could be more well-balanced. Important sections like "significance" should have more information in it then the "definition and format" section. The coverage is definitely neutral, so great job on that. You had a lot of reference and footnotes within the article which is very important. Because I don't know anything about this topic I don't know how reliable they are, but to the naked eye, it looks very well-cited. There are a few grammatical edits that could be made to make it flow better and the language is not necessarily consistent throughout the whole article. It seems like some aspects of the article are missing: for example, you could have a section specifically dedicated to past presentations and examples. Or, you could add more about the history of the talks (expand on YPAC, etc). Aside from this, I definitely understand what a lightning talk is after reading this article and your edits definitely improved what previously existed. Madlevine (talk) 7:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation: I think you have a good start to editing this article and making it better. However, there are some aspects that still need work. First off, what I liked about your editing was the lead section. It is very clear and understandable. It gives the reader a good idea of what a lightning talk is. Another element of your article that is good is your references. You cited 9 sources which is a substantial amount given how small the article is. There are definitely some elements of your article that need improvement. For example, much of the text is repetitive and could be placed into multiple headings. The "significance" section does not really give the reader any new information. It is basically stating the definition of a lightning talk again. There are also some grammatical mistakes throughout the article, which leads the reader to believe that the article has less credibility. Lastly, I feel as though you should have added a section about famous lightning talks or examples of lightning talks to give the reader a better understanding of what they are. Mrosey823 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review: I think this was a great improvement to the original stub article! The introduction is clear and concise and gives the reader an easy roadmap to what will be discussed. The Contents section is clear as well, so the reader knows what to expect and can predict the structure. One of my main criticisms of this page is the balance of it. The lead and history sections are both very short, while the definition and format section is extremely long. The significance section is short too, which is what I found the most strange since this is the section that I feel is often most important to an article. The coverage is neutral, which is great because this was definitely the hardest part for me in editing my article, since it can often make the writing dry. There seems to be a decent number of references of quality sources, which makes the source seem to be reliable. Another criticism is that many of the sections overlap in terms of information, so it gets a bit repetitive. For example, in "Definition and Format", it speaks to how lightning talks allow the audience to gain knowledge quickly. "Significance" then says this again, making the information repetitive. Also, there is some slightly contradictory information. In "Definition and Format", the article says that these talks cause "the audience to be more attentive to the speaker and gain a broader array of knowledge from the presentations given." However, in "Significance", it says that "The main point of a lightning talk is the delivery of the presentation, not necessarily the content in it." These points appear to be contradictory to me because one says that it allows people to gain knowledge, while the other says this is not the point. If both of these are true, then I think the second limb should be expanded upon since it is not really talked about much. This article would also benefit a lot from proof reading, because it is an easy way to make the article appear more reliable! Laberle (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy and origin.

The article seems to lack significant evidence and reputable citations. Also, there is a blanket statement that this type of quick presentation started in the 1990's which i find hard to believe. In addition to the lack of evidence and significant facts, the article is very redundant and short. It lacks actually information, so instead it seems to be filled with the same statement about how a Lightning talk is a quick presentation and when the coin was termed. This article could use a little more attention in finding sources and other information.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightning talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916015953/http://spspmeeting.org/2013/Sessions/Data-Blitz.aspx to http://spspmeeting.org/2013/Sessions/Data-Blitz.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)