Talk:Flow Hive

Commercial! This guy and the comments explains the problems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC839GxDUqk They did not invent the plastic comb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.147.212 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad source for 1st point of criticism

The linked source for the claim that wax removes toxins from honey directly quotes a personal blog at [1]. The claim is not backed by academic literature and searching for wax removing toxins from honey only points back to that blog or pages which quote it. The point should be removed until a valid source is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosted butts (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article no longer claims this. Betterkeks (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "Criticisms of the design" section reads like an ad

It relates to the point raised above as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeleriksson0 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked most of the article to make it more neutral and balanced, but there is one section left that requires work. Betterkeks (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of an earlier similar design

User:218.214.100.144 added claims that the design was patented by "J B Garriga" in the 1940's, but did not provide any sources and inserted the claim multiple places out of context. It might make sense to include in the article if it can be backed up by sources. The old revision with the claims MoHaG (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the patent that the user referred to MoHaG (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV

Hello all,

I have reinstated the Neutral POV Template which was removed without discussion and without addressing the issues raised. Much of the article is based on unsourced statements or on publicity material from the company and the Crowd Funding company it uses (the latter is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist). Too much of the article reads like an extension of the publicity material for the company. The problems raised in the inline comments need to be addressed before the template is removed.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template because there had been No action since May 2020. The editor who added it said there would be discussion on Talk but did not do so.

Whilst Indiegogo is appropriate when any other self reference would be I agree that the citations of 51,000 and $1.1 million are obviously inappropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I copyedited most of the article to make it more neutral and balanced. There is one section left that, IMO, requires substantial work, and so I have moved the notice to that section. Betterkeks (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]