User talk:Hyeonjungko/GraphDatabases

Individual edits for grammar/ writing:

-"A key concept of the system is the graph... a collection of nodes of data and edges representing the relationships between the nodes." ---This sentence doesn't seem to make sense after you removed some of it.

-"Graph databases have attracted considerable attention in the 2000s, due to two factors: Major tech corporations' successes in using proprietary graph databases[2], and the introduction of open-source graph databases." ---I would change Tech to technology and maybe word the sentence so that it is not so binary, by saying "two primary factors"

---In the Background section, it seems to talk more about traditional databases more than it does graphical. Try to give more information about graphical databases, or consider changing the title to something that explains why the graphical data bases are useful/ used vs traditional ones.

-"There were criticisms that RDFs are impractical and cannot be scaled[10]." ---This seems thrown in and needs a little bit more background/ or to be worded differently. Maybe something like "Some limitations of RDFs are..." if it's not controversial.

---For performance, maybe add a sentence on how this makes graph databases a good fit for their specific uses.

-"Gartner suggests the five broad categories graphs could be sorted into[12]. " ---Don't forget to add the 5 types here

---Several unfinished ideas in "Usage" and "Operations"

---It seems like the information in "background" could be added to the in-comparison section (unless you plan to add more additional background)

-"Despite the graph databases' advantages and recent popularity over the relational databases, the graph model itself should not be the sole reason to replace an already placed and well-designed relational database. The benefit of utilizing a graph database becomes relevant once there is an evidence for performance improvement by orders of magnitude and lower latency[6]." ---Very good idea and clearly communicated, but be careful about using persuasive wording. The word "should" makes it seem like this is an opinion.

Overall comments: The article has a lot of very good information and you seemed to cover the technical side very well. For such a large article, it is fairly well organized and divided into a number of sections. Since it is such a technical article, working to add more general- easy to understand information would help it be more universal and not just a resource for people with background information as well. It may be a good idea to go through every sentence you added to the article 1 at a time and decide if a citation is need for that information. I would imagine that a large portion of the information in this article requires citations- especially since the existing article was flagged for bad citations.

I like the additional content. I believe they contribute positively to the article as a whole.

One thing I'm concerned about is sources. Like background section does not have any sources.

I like how there's code now showing how the language can be used. Pictures of sample outputs might be interesting.

I wonder if background and history could be integrated.

Maybe there can be more of a comparison between different graph databases.

Performance section can be expanded and made more detailed and sourced.

Maybe a small summary to knowledge based applications in addition to the link.

YiwenDong191919 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)