User talk:TeaglesCS/sandbox
Glibjibb Peer Review
[edit]Major Points
[edit]- So far, the article seems to be almost identical to the iBeacon article, with mentions of the iBeacon later on left alone instead of changed to "Bluetooth Beacons." You will need a lot more unique information to distinguish this article and justify generalizing iBeacons to all Bluetooth Beacons.
- Perhaps there could be a section for each type of Bluetooth beacon, and you could filter out information that is not uniques the to iBeacons into a more general section. The sections for protocols and comparable technologies, for example, could be expanded on into separate sections, and the position tracking section could have more information.
Minor Points
[edit]- 2nd paragraph typo - "Bluetooth beacons (use)"
- Unclear transition for when you meant to use Bluetooth Beacon vs iBeacon
- New information in added sections could use citations
Peer Review (4/3/2016):
Major Points: The overall topic of the article is appropriate and well-covered. However, I agree with the review above ^^^ which says that it is very similar to the iBeacons page. If you're trying to generalize and replace the iBeacons page, having similar (but generalized) information should be fine, but if this page is to stand alone then it should have more information concerning bluetooth beacons in general. I think completing the History of Development section should be enough, especially since you can add information about a variety of different devices there.
Minor Points: The formatting and wording seems good. Since most of the text came from the other page, the neutral tone is still there, which is perfect. I think only the details need to change, like how the Techincal details section still has the same information as the iBeacon page's equivalent section.
NaTaHu (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)NaTaHu