Talk:Wink (platform)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I picked this article to review because it is one of the three articles waiting the longest for a review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening note: I took this article for review from the list and now it is unclear whether whether or not there are unmade proposed changes. (Possibly only at the proposed stage due to potential-COI) Are there? If so may I suggest just making them and I'll review the result as a part of the article review. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed - Hi again! North8000 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

The article has a confusing practice of using the same name to refer to both the company and the product. If you combine that with the text going backward and forward between making statements about the company and the product. One suggestion would be to refer to the company as Wink Inc.. I would do that myself but I don't know at which time they became a corporation (vs. some other type of entity.

Fixed North8000 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead it says "After going through bankruptcy proceedings, Quirky sold Wink" .....is this saying that Quirky went through that or Wink? Since the lead should (only) be a summary of what's in the article, I thought that I'd find the more detailed info in the article. But there is no mention at all of the bankruptcy in the article.

Fixed North8000 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It needed a statement of what it does, which is what functionality it offers to the user. I put it in. Please revert if you do not agree.

Done. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes this criteria. As a suggestion for future improvement, even with the small addition that I made, it could use a little expansion on what the product does and how it is used. There is content which talks around the "edges" of that topic but less that goes directly into it. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria. You do an excellent job of writing neutral articles with a self-declared (potential)COI. I took a hard look at the two additional links *beyond the official website). I noted that they were not inserted by CorporateM. Also since they are third party listings and comments,I think that they provide useful additional information. I also re-read the external links guideline and I think that they are OK. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Passes this criteria. I think that the logo is about all that can be expected on a topic such as this. It is public domain so no use rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - End of checklist section - - -

Discussion

Hi @North8000:. Sorry for the slow reply. I forgot there is a one-month-old Request Edit on Talk here and the article is probably not up-to-date enough for GA without it. Maybe you or @Daylen: have a minute to review the requested change? Naturally I am not suppose to myself on account of WP:COI. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that me putting it in might make me too big of a contributor, but I guess I could be reviewing it while deciding whether or not to put it in. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the one area where I'm a little tougher than a typical GA reviewer is in empathy for a typical reader who is trying to learn about the topic by reading the article. I think that this article is overall a nice and impartial job but with my "empathy" criteria in mind, there numerous places which are a bit confusing or uncovered. I'll cover these in the most closely related GA criteria. I just wanted you to know what's behind what I'll be saying, I'm not just trying to be super-picky. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! Sincerely North8000 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Reviewer.[reply]

Thanks @North8000:! I just noticed the following sentence: "All of these radios mean you can use the hub to control a wealth of third-party devices including thermostats, security cameras, door locks, lighting systems, sensors, ceiling fans, garage door openers, window blinds, doorbells, and more." This sentence is unsourced, repetitive with the first sentence of the Products section, and seems a bit promotional. I was going to suggest trimming, and/or incorporating it into the first sentence if you feel that one is a bit confusing, etc. @Ping, CorporateM, and CorporateM: (Talk) 14:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is mostly repetitive, and does have a couple peacock words in it. And so I think that a trim and merger is a good idea. On the flip side, I'd try to avoid losing any "what it does" content, which I think that the article is a bit slim on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

(this notice is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! Sincerely North8000 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Reviewer.[reply]