Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:57, 10 May 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Size of the picture

I have reduced the size of the picture (in fact, halved it). The main reason is that the picture was excessively big and taking the attention away from the text. As pictures in infoboxes are usually used to give a quick view of the subject, there is no need for this size. The present, 100 px, size is big enough to give readers a good view at the looks of the speakers. When they want more detail, they can double click on the picture for the full size.

Beside that, the big sized picture gave the article a promotional look. The Banner talk 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

200px is the size used in HTC One GA article. Dmatteng (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor user:The Banner has been blocked again, this time indefinitely for being uncivil and disruptive editing. So his opinion has to be viewed with a grain of salt. Dmatteng (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Banner that the 200px picture looks silly, and have reduced it to 100px. The article plainly suffers from a promotional tone and the fat picture is part of the problem. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review HTC One article. While it hasn't yet attained FA, it has attained GA. I got the size right from there. What is your opinion? Are there any guidelines that would apply to the article size? Dmatteng (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While I generally encourage editors to look to GA and FA articles about similar topics for a means of guiding article writing, you can't take what other articles do as binding (or necessarily even correct). The aspect ratios of the two images aren't all that similar; the UE Boom one is much longer than it is wide (probably even longer so if it were cropped fully). This makes the infobox needlessly long, which is stylistically undesirable. I'm not even sure if the image width in the HTC One article is appropriate. Furthermore, the HTC One article is substantially longer than this one; the extra length of the infobox doesn't disrupt the flow of that article as much. And even then, I don't think we're saying the image width is necessarily inappropriate, but that a narrower image size is stylistically preferable, as well as ameliorating concerns of the article being a vehicle for promoting this new product. And while it's not necessarily representative of consensus, we have three experienced editors here agreeing that the image should not be displayed at 200px width. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are not sure that the image on HTC One article is appropriate, why not you try to change it there? Lets see if they will agree with you, or what will be their rationale if they do not. If they will set it to 170px or 150px I'll accept it as well.

The speaker is indeed bigger in the real life than HTC One. But with image set here at 100px a reader would get impression that the speaker is smaller than the HTC One smartphone. Let me also remind, that the AfD's consensus was to keep the article, and it was agreed that it is not promotional, in its form, with the big image. I assume the editors who voted that way are no less experienced, with one saying: "far from promotional." Dmatteng (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about that article; I'm not about to edit it just to make a point here. And you're misinterpreting the consensus at AfD: the discussants said absolutely nothing about whether the article had a promotional tone. Rather, they discussed its notability. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. "Notability" and "promotional tone" are entirely different things. All the AfD establishes is that an article about this product is not subject to deletion for lack of notability. That's it. And like Mendaliv I don't care about the HTC One article. In this article, a 200px picture looks like it belongs on the side of a bus. JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually taken a look at the AfD? It wasn't brought because of notability concerns, but by a promotional tone that resulted in The Banner proposing it to AfD as "advertisment". Dmatteng (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it. What the nominator should have said was, "Mere advertising", because articles aren't deleted for reading like ads. Those are rewritten (as we are doing here). Articles are deleted when they are written about non-notable items with no purpose other than advertising them. And, while I think this is a dead horse - the AfD was about notability - you should take little comfort on the matter of promotional tone when the article's strongest defenders offer comments like, "the article is not so blatantly promotional as to be considered unsalvageable" or "the article as it stands now is not ideally formatted, and does sound somewhat promotional". JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've read it thoroughly. The consensus was based on a finding of notability. In fact, the last couple !votes discussed that any problems of promotion were not insurmountable. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

360˚

Is "360˚" meaningless in the lede? Dmatteng (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional tone

I agree that the article reads a bit too much like a product placement, with e.g. the inclusion of marketing slogans, claims re product capability that appear to come from the manufacturer's own materials ("up to 15 hours of battery life") and the liberal use of qualifiers like "sturdy", "rugged" and others that might've come straight out of an ad. I'm making a few edits to tone some of these things down and ask that discussion here, and consensus, precede any effort to restore the older version. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with John's assessment, and that a toned down version should prevail. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Trusted Reviews" liked the thing well enough but its bottom line was not unqualified:

Verdict

The Ultimate Ears UE Boom is a convenient, cool-looking portable Bluetooth speaker that offers superb volume for its small size. However, like most other style-obsessed portable speakers of late, it seems expensive given the sound quality and level of tech sophistication it really brings to the table.

I think if the article is to contain summaries of reviews, this one should be included for balance; my concern is that after a while, it gets a bit silly (this is not a clipping service) and perhaps they are better all left out. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In my earlier version, I had dumped the long quotes entirely. I really think that's the better option. As you say, we aren't a news aggregator. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also while balancing should be a concern, it has to be through the lens of due weight; I'm not sure of the prominence of Trusted Reviews, but I don't think they have the industry prominence of CNET or PC Magazine. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Trusted reviews are not as prominent. There are many available reviews, but I have selected the two that are known, prominent and reliable. Dmatteng (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

…and favorable. I didn't pull Trusted Reviews out of a hat but rather out of the references. I agree that it's not on a level with the other two reviewers but I worry about cherry-picking, or the appearance of it, when a tepid summary from a review that is reliable enough to cite for some purposes here isn't summarized alongside the more glowing write-ups. It might be easier, and less contentious, simply to pull the summaries altogether. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

From this viewpoint, inclusion of any information can be seen as cherry picking. I have included two review's summaries from the most prominent sources that are available, and I included two, precisely to avoid cherry picking impression. Dmatteng (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Price

I avoided price issue because there is no set price for the speaker. It can be bought from variety of source at different prices. Trusted Reviews was written I think around 2013 when the price was different from today, and it will be different again tomorrow.

While some articles about products do deal with prices (and some even mention it in $$), I think its rather not encyclopedic. Dmatteng (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Price in terms cost in currency generally isn't included unless it's explicitly mentioned and is somehow relevant to discussion of the product. See WP:CATALOG. Price in terms of relative costs, on the other hand (i.e., where a reviewer comments on something being costly, or costly in comparison to similar products) seems perfectly fine to me. That something is expensive, close to the cost of a similar product, much cheaper than a similar product, etc., particularly where a reviewer comments on it or it becomes part of that reviewer's rationale, certainly isn't unencyclopedic in the same way as a price list. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And responding to the worry that because, for instance, the Trusted Reviews discussion of price of the product is dated information, all the review information is subject to this same criticism. An article from the 1960s discussing a car's engine as "lightweight" or its acceleration as being "speedy" should not be interpreted as imparting either of these qualities relative to the reader's current world. In the same sense, this product might have had good sound compared to 2013 products, but compared to what's out now it might be utter crap. At any rate, my point is that the datedness of sources doesn't merely apply to price, and I don't think price is any different than these other factors merely because it's more controllable by the manufacturer or retailers. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey, lets get some more input on this issue. But lets refrain from making edits prior to consensus. What is your opinion, if a reliable review stated that the product was somewhat pricey, but at this time it is no longer the case, should we still say that? BTW: The issue of the product being pricey is included in the quote from CNET. Dmatteng (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While the sound quality comparative to other speakers may change, it won't start pumping strong bass, nor will it be too quiet. Those things will stay (unlike the price.) Dmatteng (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's no longer the case, find a reliable source that says so. The threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wirecutter and iLounge, in reviews less than a year old, also describe the unit as "pricey" or "expensive". The complaint seems to be pretty common, and absent some indication from the sources that the thing is being discounted, I think it's absolutely fair to include that criticism. JohnInDC (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey. Generally in this case we would say: As of 2013 the speaker was considered expensive. However, we might get a consensus on this one. How about to change the wording from "High price" to "Somewhat pricey", similar to the quote from CNET? Dmatteng (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Somewhat pricey" is slangy and informal and just another way of saying, "it costs a lot for what you get". We should stick with plain words. JohnInDC (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We could attribute it. However, how about: "Relatively high price." Dmatteng (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "relatively" adds anything meaningful. JohnInDC (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey, I'll keep this one. Though probably different wording would be preferable and will be addressed in the future. I have taken a look again, the TrustedReviews say: "it seems expensive", and "but the whole market is afflicted by sky–high pricing. It’s a lovely little speaker, but expensive at £170." We won't be introducing OR. Please word it in the content that other speakers are also high priced and it "seems" and lets include it. It is not really a critique of this particular speaker either. In any case, I'm not against inclusion of that it is relatively high priced. Dmatteng (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional tone & slogan

I think some editors simply do not have the experience with editing articles about products, and bringing their personal views on the subject without prior reading of the relevant guidelines and how other product articles look like. In this way any article about a product could be seen as a promotional.

Lets take the issue of a marketing slogan. It is a part of the infobox. There is actually a field called "slogan". Not even to mention that HTC One GA has it included. Dmatteng (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some editors lack experience but I don't think Medaliv or I fall into that category. So laying that digression to the side, where it belongs, my objection to the marketing slogan is not that it is inappropriate in all cases but that here it is 1) just a marketing slogan; 2) it has achieved no particular note or fame on its own (contrast "See the USA in your Chevrolet" or "I'd like to buy the world a Coke"); and 3) the entire article suffers from a promotional tone and the inclusion of a vapid marketing slogan is symptomatic of the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually prefer the WP:TAGLINE rationale which, while tailored towards film articles, is honestly quite applicable to marketing slogans generally. Things like lead sections and infoboxes are supposed to have a concise overview of the subject, having context. Taglines and slogans generally don't work that way. I haven't seen anything indicating that this product's slogan has any significance outside of the marketing campaign. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is designed that way, to include "marketing slogans". I assume there was a consensus around it. I think you would like to take a look at other articles about products, especially those that use the infobox. The slogan doesn't have to be notable to be included. As long as a product has a slogan, it can be included. Similar to weight, it doesn't have to be notable to be included in the infobox. Dmatteng (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Infoboxes are often designed without consulting the greater community. And either way, it lies to individual articles to develop a consensus as to what should or should not be included. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the slogan entirely by analogy to WP:TAGLINE. It literally adds nothing non-promotional to this article. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"BBB" and reverts

I'm not sure what "BBB" is or how it would warrant bulk reversion of thoughtful edits, each explained in an edit summary and discussed here at Talk. Please do not revert those edits again without achieving consensus here that they are inappropriate, ill-considered, or that the article is better in its prior iteration. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant BRD. In any case, such post should have been made on my talk page. You are welcome to move it there if you agree. Dmatteng (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I think we should leave it here. I would also add that, in the past 24 hours, you've bulk-reverted edits by two different editors trying to clean up the promotional tone of this article. Four times in fact. You are already in violation of WP:3RR and I would think very carefully about reverting these edits again. I would also suggest that you go and read WP:BRD a bit more carefully. You seem to have overlooked parts of it, for example, "consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed" and "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page." JohnInDC (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I plan soon to restore the less promotional version of the article - sensibly-sized picture, less marketing folderol ("acoustic skin with plasma coating"), removing OR "summary" of reviews and the rest unless there is a consensus achieved against it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the marketing lingo has to go. "Acoustic skin" and "plasma coating" need to be given context. Otherwise it's just one step removed from blatant peacock wording. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that "high price" - identified by at least three reviews as a shortcoming - was also removed from the article with the last blind revert. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also is there any conceivable justification for an unsourced "reviews analysis" section that claims to describe a "consensus" among all the reviews on particular (favorable) features of the product? It strikes me as a pretty clear violation of the prohibitions on synthesis and original research. JohnInDC (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's blatant synthesis. Summarize what's in the sources (it's much preferable to using non-free quotations anyway) attributing where possible. And you do not need two sections for it as there were earlier. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lede, bass and price

I think price issue is worded okey now, but it has to be moved to Critique section. At the same time the bass shortcoming was mentioned in virtually every review. I think it would be better to introduce this shortcoming in the lede, instead of the price. Will be a good balance and similar to GA. Dmatteng (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that none of the pros or cons be described in the lead, to spare editors the painful and ultimately pointless process of tallying which pros and which cons were described in which reviews and whether their mention in the first paragraph is warranted. I think it is sufficient in the intro paragraphs to say, paraphrased, "This is a compact bluetooth speaker manufactured by UE, and intended for outdoor and portable use". People interested in the reviews can read the rest of the (short) article. JohnInDC (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Most of the article body as it stands, such as the extensive specifications, is bordering on WP:IINFO/WP:NOTGUIDE territory. As it stands, the lede could probably stand as an article on its own. That's not really the right direction. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Combining reception and criticism

Is there really any logic to keeping separate sections? There isn't enough material to justify the sort of split treatment in the current article, and not even Dmatteng's model article HTC One (2013) uses such a structure. At this point it's just redundant. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against it. Please implement and lets see how it will look. I assume as we are now discussing sections merging, the promotional tone has been sufficiently removed and the adver tag is no longer needed? Dmatteng (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional

I would expect the editors, especially experienced editors to respect the normal editing process. I understand that some editors of opinion that the article is/was promotional, but it is not a reason to engage in 'sword swirling'.

Please identify the words and sentences that you deem promotional and lets discuss it on the talk page prior to implementation. Most often such instances can be remedied by a rewording, not by removing or adding a negative issue in order to try to balance it out. Doing so can lead to a danger that the negative aspects will be given undue weight and reduce quality of the article. Please try to do every edit having GA as a goal. Dmatteng (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv and I have identified several instances of promotional language, ad-speak and puffery, as well as content that appears to violate one or another Misplaced Pages tenet, and have pretty much explained every one of our edits here. I agree that many problems can be solved by rewording, but (to take one example), a "Review summary" that describes a "consensus" among unnamed reviews just can't remain. It is unsourced, original research and synthesis. Similarly marketing buzz phrases like "acoustic plasma skin" or whatever that phrase was, lifted directly from the manufacturer's website, can be reworded to describe the final function (water and stain resistant), without parroting the manufacturer's ad copy - and has been. These - to name two - are not difficult or controversial improvements at all, but rather first-level, obvious steps. With these and other edits, the article reads much better now than it did 36 hours ago. JohnInDC (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okey, but why not to do the same in a more civilized manner? You can post that you are concerned with section X for being Y and Z and ask my (and others) opinion. To take the example, you could write: I'm afraid the section "Review summary" is unsourced, OR and SYN. I believe that removing it will improve quality of the article. Then I may agree with you, discuss rewording or let you know my reasoning. Certainly the edits are controversial because at least one editor (myself) disagreed. To take the example you had given, you assumed that 'acoustic plasma skin' is lifted directly from the manufacturer's site, please do take a look at http://www.zdnet.com/the-ue-boom-tops-the-portable-speaker-market-review-7000016306/. So, without engaging in discussion you have removed useful information that is introduced in a reliable source.

So, may I ask again, please introduce the edits that you(pl) would like to do prior to implementing them. Dmatteng (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

First. There is no "opinion" when it comes to an OR, synthetic and unsourced summary of unnamed reviews. It isn't proper, it can't be fixed, and is properly removed by any editor who happens across it. Second, I did not "assume" that the phrase was lifted from the manufacturer's site - I went and found it. Go look for yourself, here. It's right there under "Design- the details / Life Resistant". ZDNET simply repeated the same empty phrase in its review (which doesn't speak well for the ZDNET review, but that's another issue). It's marketing fluff. Finally. The article is better but it was puff and fluff before, and if we waited for your agreement on each edit, the thing would be in the same stage as it was 2 days ago. I appreciate that you put a lot of time into that, that you want it to be a Good Article, and that it is frustrating to have others come in and fuss with your work, but the article is not yours and you haven't got the right to vet every proposed change to it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to respectfully disagree with everything you have said. You don't need to go as far as to investigate a reliable and prominent source just in order to prove your point. TrustedReviews is less prominent and might not be a reliable source at all, questionable, or a poor source. ZDNET said it - we can refer to it. In any case, you might be right, I might be right, this is not the point.

Two days is not such a long time, is it? It is a relatively short article and every point could/can be discussed in order to reach consensus. That is what WP:BRD actually suggests. Yes, it might be time consuming, but that is the proper way.

Consider the alternative: edit warring and exchanging sarcasms and insults; or going to DRN and up to ARBCOM. Those ways are less nice and even more time consuming. I'm in no way suggesting that it is what I would like to do, I'm just telling you my observations of what's happening when editors disagree and do not follow the norms. Dmatteng (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess then we will have to agree to disagree. I am comfortable with the edits I've made to this article, as well as the way I've gone about them. JohnInDC (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We're already going through the DR process. That's what brought John here. BRD is an essay, not policy. WP:NOT is policy, and this article contains blatant advertising. We're removing it in accordance with policy, without violating 3RR. As far as I'm concerned, my hands are clean in this matter. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ad template

I think that the article is now pretty close to respectably factual & neutral and am thinking that the tag might come off soon - thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We're getting close. I really think something has to be done about the "list of features"; if we can't turn that into prose I'd much rather see it axed. We aren't a catalog. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article now is pretty well written from a neutral point of view. The Features section doesn't contain any ad-words. Stylistically speaking, it should indeed be turned into a prose. Dmatteng (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the article is just not there yet and I would like to see the template restored. The list of features is still containing irrelevant info and promotional items. The Banner talk 09:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner has been recently blocked twice for disruptive editing, failure to adhere to consensus and edit warring. Kindly refer to sections "Blocked" and "Indefinitely blocked" on his talk page. I think he is trying to get back at me because I have reported his behavior to an admin and that led to his block. He has also frivolously submitted this article for AfD. All his posts should be viewed in that light. Dmatteng (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stricken per WP:NPA. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Welp I think we're pretty much done here. Thoughts? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My last concern is the sentence The UE Boom was initially shipped without rubberized caps for the USB and audio input ports. Currently the rubberized caps are included, and the company ships them free to customers who didn't get them. To my opinion that is non-relevant and can be removed. The Banner talk 10:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I took it out. I think it's good now - thanks for all the work! JohnInDC (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. That definitely crosses the WP:IINFO/WP:WEBHOST line. If Ultimate Ears wants to tell their customers they can get free rubber caps, they can do it elsewhere. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Dmatteng (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Apps

I think we should write about Android and iOS apps that modify speaker's behavior considering that this functionality was welcomed and is mentioned in the reliable sources. Thoughts? Dmatteng (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Main reason is that those apps are not part of the speakers but external gadgets. The Banner talk 18:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The apps are part of the functionality of the speaker and they do not function without the speaker. Dmatteng (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you can peruse the user manual whether or not you have the speakers. But that aside I don't see much to say about the apps. They let you - set an alarm and equalizer. I don't see much there to distinguish them. Also, having just finished stripping all the bloat out of this article, I don't really feel inclined now to start adding it back in. JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just cruft at this point. Misplaced Pages isn't a product guide. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, my friend, they question is: do the speakers work without the apps. When the answer is yes, it does not belong to the subject and as a consequence not in the article. The Banner talk 22:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning, but the outcome is correct. The fact that this product has some remote control apps for smartphones is trivial. Honestly I think the whole point about the D-ring is equally trivial. It's all little features that don't mean much to the overall story about the subject. If the app support somehow became a major story on its own it might merit mentioning. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Hmmm, I am not entirely happy with this edit. Seems rather promotional. Can the crowd take a look please? The Banner talk 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and I've already scaled it back to list simply the ways in which the device can connect with audio sources. JohnInDC (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

While I have thanked your edit User:JohnInDC could you please expand it a bit? I don't really think naming Bluetooth profiles is promotional. However, I have nothing against trimming it in any reasonable way. BTW: What is 'RCA'? Are you referring to 3.5mm audio input? I think it might needs wikifying. Dmatteng (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed by wikilinking The Banner talk 06:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to modify by adding very brief information, please see if that would be acceptable. Dmatteng (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Listing the supported bluetooth profiles is needless fluff in the infobox that provides absolutely no value to this article. I'm honestly tired of seeing the HTC article being bandied about too. There is at least 50x the coverage on that subject that there is of this one. That's a subject genuinely meriting an extensive, long article. This is a speaker that almost nobody cares about. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been critical about the independence of DMattEng in relation to the subject from the beginning. And with his edits, he keeps crushing the idea of any independence. The Banner talk 09:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hate to admit that I've wondered, but I don't think it particularly matters. If the edits themselves wouldn't be good even if from an unquestionably neutral party, then the fact that the contributor might have a COI shouldn't change matters. The outcome would be the same whether you're dealing with an adman or someone who just wants to write a FA from the ground-up. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I think WP:BRD cannot be used because this information was present on the article. (And if I remember right I have removed it) in order to reinstate in a briefer form in the infobox. Yes, I would agree with you and say HTC One has x100 more coverage than UE Boom. But, it shouldn't matter regarding tech specs. I also remember that you have mentioned that the image on HTC One looks inappropriate to you, and I have discussed this issue on WP:IRC. Why while you are being consistent in your opinion regarding the image size, you bring it to action here and you do not do so on the HTC One? Dmatteng (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Mendaliv's reply above, please stop making personal attacks The Banner. Comment on the content, not the editor. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• Unassessed Brands articles
• Unknown-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles