Talk:Wink (platform)

Expansion

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)

Doesn't support that many devices

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)

Hi 108.168.119.175! The article is currently in the process of being rewritten. See the section below for more details. Daylen (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten and is now live. Let me know on the talk page regarding any other suggested changes. Have a great day! Daylen (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft

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)

Looks pretty good. I wouldn't have the sentence "As of 2016, Wink software is connected to 1.3 million devices." in that exact form in both the leded and in the article. Refs looks good as well. I would support this change, even if you are affiliated with Wink. --FeldBum (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the duplicative sentence. I reworded the second reference to 1.3 million devices to fix. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. I fully support the article change (this article is currently the worst one I have published and keep on having setbacks to rewrite it). I was new to Wikipedia at the time I wrote this article and wasn't good at writing articles from a neutral point of view. I have went ahead and made some minor changes to the draft and look forward to having it replace the current article. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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 CorporateM. I have went ahead and created a technical request to move the article Talk:Wink_(platform)/draft --> Wink (platform). Below are some recommendations that could be added to the article.

• When was the Wink Hub introduced (date)
• Mention that Wink is also an online retailer of smart home products

Have a great day, Daylen (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Daylen (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Daylen: I'm told the Wink HUB was announced July 7, 2014 and the Wink Relay was announced September 23, 2014, but unfortunately I couldn't really find strong sources for the stuff you were asking for above. Maybe in the future more sources will be published that might allow us to expand the article a bit. I'm also going to talk to them about potentially getting some photos. CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

CorporateM, photos sound great! Here are some sources for the Wink Hub and Wink Relay release dates.

* [1]

* [2]

Daylen (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Page title and redirects

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)

So keep the name as Wink (platform), delete the two redirects with no traffic and add another from Wink (company)? (Or did I misunderstand?) That sounds good. --FeldBum (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Daylen (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wink (platform)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

For the second GA reviewer that comes across this, please see the rest of this discussion here. CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Small update

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. 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..." It gave the Hub 2 4.5 out of 5 stars and named it its new Editors' Choice for home automation hubs.. 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. The reviewer was never able to successfully set it up the way she wanted. Tom's Guide gave the Wink Hub 2 7 out of 10. 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. References

CorporateM (Talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @CorporateM: Is the proposed edit to replace the "Reception" section with this or to add this to it? North8000 (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: I hadn't thought of that. I think typically the norm is for the Reception section to cover the entire history and reflect changes of Reception over time, but at a certain point including every review ever gets overwhelming. With that in mind, I might suggest trimming the current Reception text on version 1.0 to the first two sentences, then replacing the rest with the 2.0 reviews, but it's up to you. CorporateM (Talk) 19:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What you suggested looks good. To really make good decisions like this by myself would require me learning the topic much more thoroughly than intended. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I jus appended it because chopping that last sentence would have chopped a reference.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wink (platform)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Factually accurate and verifiable

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

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)

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)

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)

- - - - 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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

Removing "to do" template

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:

• Add when was the Wink Hub introduced (date)
• Mention that Wink is also an online retailer of smart home products

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)