Talk:Travel technology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecancel23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Omac77.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GNE: GDS NEW EDITION

I would like to also see any information regarding new technology (either in production, in development, or proposed) involving the topic above. 170.128.174.210 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add more examples of travel technology in different countries, not just the U.S. Each section in the article needs more content, as well. The lead section is concise. It has a good introductory sentence. The lead section includes aspects of the contents and sub-headings in the article. The lead section mentions the definition of 'e-tourism', which is not mentioned in the article, so that could be a place for improvement. The content in the article is relevant to the topic. There a few examples of travel technology mentioned in the article, but there is room for more. The examples are up to date. There is content missing, like more explanations of more examples. This article does not address Wikipedia's equity gaps or topics related to underrepresented populations. The article is neutral in tone. There is no argumentative tone. The article only mentions facts about Travel Technology. It does have an underlying tone of being able to make things much easier for the common tourist. Other than that, there is no bias. In regard to sources, there are not many. Not every fact is backed by a source. In fact, many of the sections don't have a single fact sourced. There is lots of room for improvement here. Each of the links for the sources work, and the book links work too. There are only 3 'notes' for sources. I believe there are definitely better sources available, both peer-reviewed and not. This is a widespread topic that does not have an adequate Wikipedia page on it. The article is very easy to read and it flows well. There is not enough information in each section. The talk page is essentially non-existent. There is one comment from a user. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Overall, this article has lots and lots of room for improvement and I think it's a great project. Omac77 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)