Talk:Motorola Moto 360

From HCE Wiki - The Human Cognitive Enhancement Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

When you are making a summary for changes you've made in the article, please, do not waive them off with just 'changes'. A simple summary is enough, but provide an actual summary.--Haustein (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2015 (CET)

Since you are away on Erasmus, I will provide the necessary commentary here. From now on, please check this page regularly for new commentary. You can also comment here yourself, by editing the page. But do not remove my, or others', comments!

For general help about formatting your contribution, be it links, embedding images, references or other elements, please see the Getting started on HCE wiki guide.

First of all, please pay attention to closing the HTML tags properly. The trailing </tr> tag in the beginning of the page is there because you forgot to close it somewhere in the infobox. <tr> is a pair tag and it always needs to be closed to function properly. Speaking about the infobox, do NOT create your own items (CPU, battery, display...), simply fill in the categories provided with the infobox template. The information you have added is indeed relevant, but it has no place in the strictly formatted infobox. Move it to the main body of the article.

The remaining required elements have to have a proper reference attached to them. For example, if you know that the device weights x grams, you have to provide the evidence in the form of a proper reference attached to it. This applies to all other items in the infobox.

When you are adding multiple items of the same type, e.g. sensors, you have to specify semantic property for each item individually. Example from your own infobox:

<td>[[Has sensors::Accelerometer, Ambient Light Sensor, Gyroscope, Vibration/Haptics engine, Heart rate monitor, Capacitive touch]]</td> is wrong, because now the wiki considers the device to have just one sensor that is called Accelerometer, Ambient Light Sensor and so on. To fix this, you have to make a semantic annotation for each of the sensors you wrote down. The correct sensors row would look like this: <td>[[Has sensors::Accelerometer]], [[Has sensors::Ambient Light Sensor]], [[Has sensors::Gyroscope]]....

Please refrain from writing the article as a tech review. Your writing style should be neutral, encyclopaedic and it should not address the reader too directly. Consider rewriting parts such as capacity is the same like in the other smartwatches or it is possible to connect it with your iPhone. Additionally, when you are claiming a certain technical information, such as It is slightly different processor then the ones usually used in other smartwatches, the information should be precise and devoid of uncertainty. In this case, write down the name of the processor in question. Do not make your own comparisons. If there are tech reviews that compare the device to others, mention this in the Media impact section further in your article. Don't forget to add proper references.

Do not create new sections, i.e. Display and design. Stick to the provided template.

The information under the section Purpose does not belong into this section. Please follow the guidelines (information between the <!-- --> tags) provided with the template.

As for the remaining sections, do not forget to add references, especially to dates and hard data you mention! The media section is awfully short, please expand it with more information.

The reference number 3 is empty and needs fixing.

--Haustein (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (CET)

There are no categories attached to the entry.

The infobox category is incorrect. It should reflect the lowest level category the entry is in.

Add more references to the infobox.

Add a date to the price that shows when you wrote the price down.

The two values for Controls are incorrectly joined into one.

Refrain from using review like language such as "There is no need to charged" or "Big advantage for the buyers is". Use neural, factual style of writing. Remember, you are writing an academic text, not a tech review.

Do not you second person narrative "you" because of the reasons stated above.

Company and People section is missing.

Important Dates needs more references added. Preferably add a reference to each of the date.

Under Health Risks, you wrote "no proven risks were confirmed with those wearables". But what wearables? What risks? Expand on this a bit more, please.

State clearly, whether Moto 360 is enhancement or therapy or treatment.

Public and Media presentation should be expanded with information from reviews and such. How is the device actually portrayed in the media. How was is accepted among the users. Search blogs, discussions and so on.

The second paragraph under Public Policy could be better. Especially the reference.

Related technologies section is empty.--Haustein (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2015 (CET)