Talk:Amazon to buy smart doorbell startup Ring

NPOV

Seeing that the story focuses on Amazon excessively, I've added a paragraph about Ring's story. This may still need more work on the phrasing of the entire story, with little details missing or being written vaguely here and there. Examples:

• "amid security concerns" is vague
• "Key had let homeowners view deliveries via a Cloud Cam, but Ring's home security devices could help bring more trust to the program" - according to whom?
• "Amazon has been making a strong push into "smart home" products with its Echo brand" - clarify what this is?
• There may be others, this is not a complete list.

Perhaps they're easier to fix by a person familiar with the background.

@Dan445:: see above please. Thank you!

--Gryllida 23:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4387517 [Not ready]

Revision 4387517 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: Analysis concerns; see below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Prelim check for similarities to source raised a couple of flags, one of which I addressed. The other is in the last paragraph, second sentence, which had two different overlength passages from the same source, in fact the passages are fairly near each other in the source. Looking at those more closely (with an eye toward the feasibility of fixing the problem within my purview as reviewer, I found that neither of the two statements involved is apparently quite true: the 70% thing was an estimate before the fact, and the best-selling-product thing was qualified. Having to paraphrase to eliminating copying and combat apparently careless misrepresents of fact is more than a reviewer should ordinarily do (or be asked to do); and the occurrence of these things there — in the first thing I investigated in-depth — raises concerns there could be more lurking. The whole paragraph about Amazon Key appears to be speculation by the Ars Technica source. As presented it's analysis. It may or may not be possible to phrase it so it contains only objective fact, leaving speculation/analysis as such to the reader, but at least a bit of adjustment would be wanted. Oddly, when I was surveying the sources I found multiple duplicates in the list. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4387517 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: Analysis concerns; see below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Prelim check for similarities to source raised a couple of flags, one of which I addressed. The other is in the last paragraph, second sentence, which had two different overlength passages from the same source, in fact the passages are fairly near each other in the source. Looking at those more closely (with an eye toward the feasibility of fixing the problem within my purview as reviewer, I found that neither of the two statements involved is apparently quite true: the 70% thing was an estimate before the fact, and the best-selling-product thing was qualified. Having to paraphrase to eliminating copying and combat apparently careless misrepresents of fact is more than a reviewer should ordinarily do (or be asked to do); and the occurrence of these things there — in the first thing I investigated in-depth — raises concerns there could be more lurking. The whole paragraph about Amazon Key appears to be speculation by the Ars Technica source. As presented it's analysis. It may or may not be possible to phrase it so it contains only objective fact, leaving speculation/analysis as such to the reader, but at least a bit of adjustment would be wanted. Oddly, when I was surveying the sources I found multiple duplicates in the list. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

• See the remarks earlier on this page by Gryllida. --Pi zero (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4387622 [Passed]

Revision 4387622 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4387622 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.