![]() | Wink (platform) has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 16, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wink (platform) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Over the next month, I will be adding sources, adding an infobox and expanding the article. However, it would be great if I could get some help. If you have any question, post them here or on my talk page.
Daylen ( talk) 01:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Philips Hue devices are always claimed but the Wink Hub never did control them directly. The Wink Hub only supports Ethernet protocols to communicate with the Hue Hub, being a bridge device itself. They have made this false claim since inception attempting to imply all their many protocol hardwares are in use. This is plain deception by the advertisers.
This claim is made for many other devices, but if you load their app into a mobile device and attempt to connect to almost any device, the video will instruct you to press the linking button on the appliance's system bridge/hub. The bridges are almost communicated with via Ethernet and not any of their claim hardware interfaces. More Hub/bridge devices are required than implied making the Wink Hub look more self-reliant and desirable.
This is misleading and the whole article does wreak of advertising. 108.168.119.175 ( talk) 22:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I am affiliated with Wink. The current article contains an indiscriminate list of products and partners. It is heavily tagged to identify issues with sourcing and neutrality. I would like to propose the draft at Talk:Wink_(platform)/draft as a replacement for the current article that would bring it up to GA quality standards. I'm sharing the draft for review and consideration by disinterested editors here on Talk per WP:COI. If anyone has time to review and consider my work for compliance with Wikipedia's rules and alignment with its mission, your time would be appreciated!
Pinging @ FeldBum: who added some of the tags, @ Daylenca: who created the article, and @ Bojo1498: who has shown some interest in the page previously. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Awesome. Since there is clear support for the draft at Talk:Wink_(platform)/draft in the discussion above, I am submitting a "Request Edit" asking an editor to merge it into article-space. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! During the process of rewriting the Wink (platform) article, I am wondering if we should consider renaming the article. Any suggestions? Also, I have added a list below of the page titles that redirect(ed) to the article, please take a moment to review them.
Status | Page Name | # of Pageviews (per month) | How to Proceed |
---|---|---|---|
Article Name | Wink (platform) | 1,173 | |
Redirect | Wink (smart home) | 53 | Keep |
Redirect | Wink Hub | 12 | Keep |
Redirect | Draft:Wink (platform) | 1 | Proposed deletion |
Redirect | Wink (app) | 1 | Proposed deletion |
Proposed Redirect | Wink (company) | N/A | |
Total | 1,240 |
Based on data from July 2016
Daylen ( talk) 20:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zackmann08 ( talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Multiple issues with the article. Mostly seeks to promote the product in question. Entire section talking about the great reviews it received has no value in an encyclopedia. --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 02:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Last year Wink introduced the Wink Hub 2 and since then several reliable sources have published in-depth reviews. I chose the three reviews I felt were most reliable and substantive (one positive, one negative, one middled) and summarized them below, in the hopes that we can update the Reception section with a new paragraph on them. If a disinterested editor has a minute to consider my work, it would be welcomed.
draft paragraph
|
---|
A review in PCMAG of the Wink Hub 2 said it was easy to use and compatible with many devices, but had no battery backup or USB ports. [1] Under "Bottom Line" the review said "...works with virtually every wireless protocol out there and supports dual-band Wi-Fi. Installation and device pairing is quick and easy..." [1] It gave the Hub 2 4.5 out of 5 stars and named it its new Editors' Choice for home automation hubs.. [1] In contrast, CNET gave the device just 3 stars. The reviewer said the device is easy to setup and compatible with many devices, but gave the reviewer error messages. [2] The reviewer was never able to successfully set it up the way she wanted. [2] Tom's Guide gave the Wink Hub 2 7 out of 10. [3] It also said the device was easy to use and compatible with many devices, but missing some advanced features. Tom's Guide said it was good for "basic" smart homes. [3] References
|
CorporateM (
Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
- - - - End of checklist section - - -
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)
Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Reviewer.
(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.
I plan to remove the "to do" template. This has been there for 1 1/2 years with no action. Also it's not clear whether or not the requested statements are correct/ verifiable. IMO this does not need to be in the header of the talk page this is typical talk page material. The removed items are as follows:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Wink (platform) has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 16, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wink (platform) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Over the next month, I will be adding sources, adding an infobox and expanding the article. However, it would be great if I could get some help. If you have any question, post them here or on my talk page.
Daylen ( talk) 01:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Philips Hue devices are always claimed but the Wink Hub never did control them directly. The Wink Hub only supports Ethernet protocols to communicate with the Hue Hub, being a bridge device itself. They have made this false claim since inception attempting to imply all their many protocol hardwares are in use. This is plain deception by the advertisers.
This claim is made for many other devices, but if you load their app into a mobile device and attempt to connect to almost any device, the video will instruct you to press the linking button on the appliance's system bridge/hub. The bridges are almost communicated with via Ethernet and not any of their claim hardware interfaces. More Hub/bridge devices are required than implied making the Wink Hub look more self-reliant and desirable.
This is misleading and the whole article does wreak of advertising. 108.168.119.175 ( talk) 22:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I am affiliated with Wink. The current article contains an indiscriminate list of products and partners. It is heavily tagged to identify issues with sourcing and neutrality. I would like to propose the draft at Talk:Wink_(platform)/draft as a replacement for the current article that would bring it up to GA quality standards. I'm sharing the draft for review and consideration by disinterested editors here on Talk per WP:COI. If anyone has time to review and consider my work for compliance with Wikipedia's rules and alignment with its mission, your time would be appreciated!
Pinging @ FeldBum: who added some of the tags, @ Daylenca: who created the article, and @ Bojo1498: who has shown some interest in the page previously. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Awesome. Since there is clear support for the draft at Talk:Wink_(platform)/draft in the discussion above, I am submitting a "Request Edit" asking an editor to merge it into article-space. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! During the process of rewriting the Wink (platform) article, I am wondering if we should consider renaming the article. Any suggestions? Also, I have added a list below of the page titles that redirect(ed) to the article, please take a moment to review them.
Status | Page Name | # of Pageviews (per month) | How to Proceed |
---|---|---|---|
Article Name | Wink (platform) | 1,173 | |
Redirect | Wink (smart home) | 53 | Keep |
Redirect | Wink Hub | 12 | Keep |
Redirect | Draft:Wink (platform) | 1 | Proposed deletion |
Redirect | Wink (app) | 1 | Proposed deletion |
Proposed Redirect | Wink (company) | N/A | |
Total | 1,240 |
Based on data from July 2016
Daylen ( talk) 20:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zackmann08 ( talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Multiple issues with the article. Mostly seeks to promote the product in question. Entire section talking about the great reviews it received has no value in an encyclopedia. --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 02:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Last year Wink introduced the Wink Hub 2 and since then several reliable sources have published in-depth reviews. I chose the three reviews I felt were most reliable and substantive (one positive, one negative, one middled) and summarized them below, in the hopes that we can update the Reception section with a new paragraph on them. If a disinterested editor has a minute to consider my work, it would be welcomed.
draft paragraph
|
---|
A review in PCMAG of the Wink Hub 2 said it was easy to use and compatible with many devices, but had no battery backup or USB ports. [1] Under "Bottom Line" the review said "...works with virtually every wireless protocol out there and supports dual-band Wi-Fi. Installation and device pairing is quick and easy..." [1] It gave the Hub 2 4.5 out of 5 stars and named it its new Editors' Choice for home automation hubs.. [1] In contrast, CNET gave the device just 3 stars. The reviewer said the device is easy to setup and compatible with many devices, but gave the reviewer error messages. [2] The reviewer was never able to successfully set it up the way she wanted. [2] Tom's Guide gave the Wink Hub 2 7 out of 10. [3] It also said the device was easy to use and compatible with many devices, but missing some advanced features. Tom's Guide said it was good for "basic" smart homes. [3] References
|
CorporateM (
Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
- - - - End of checklist section - - -
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)
Congratulations, this article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Reviewer.
(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.
I plan to remove the "to do" template. This has been there for 1 1/2 years with no action. Also it's not clear whether or not the requested statements are correct/ verifiable. IMO this does not need to be in the header of the talk page this is typical talk page material. The removed items are as follows:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)