 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
DankPods
editIf some editors want to add something about Craig "receiving increased attention" because of a YouTube review they will need to cite a source that actually says this.
Citing the YouTube review itself only verifies that a YouTuber reviewed one of their products. Tech products get reviewed all the time on Youtube. That doesn't mean that the review has any significance to the company that made the product, and it should appear on this article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how a YouTuber with 1M subscribers, who makes videos about the Craig products, which all receive over 1M views is not inherently a source. If someone made a post saying, "Craig received increased attention after the president said in a tv interview that he loves Craig MP3 players," would that interview be a citable source? It's a verifiable truth that Craig "received increased attention" from the YouTube videos; even if only 1 person watched the video. There are other Wiki pages for products that have "mentions in media" sections that have no issues with "x product received increased attention after y movie star used it in z movie." I'm not seeing the libel or the no citation issue. Can you explain why citing YouTube videos, with over a million views each, is not proof of increased attention?
Thank you, XR Xenonram (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- If the YouTuber has 1M subscribers and videos about this brand get 1M views, that tells me that the YouTuber has a good following and doesn't tell me anything at all about the brand. I'm sure that there are more people aware of this brand now than there were, but that's true of most every YouTube video discussing a product. What makes these specific videos noteworthy of mention over any other reviews or marketing efforts promoting this brand, or over any other product reviews that this YouTuber has done? That's the information that would be provided by a reliable source discussing these videos.The definition of a reliable source is laid out extensively at WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Whether someone making a post about it qualifies depends entirely on who that person is and how it was published. Someone who has no particular expert knowledge posting something about it on a blog or internet forum would not be a reliable source (see WP:BLOGS). A published story in a reputable news outlet or journal might be another matter entirely. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Does no one know of the relationship between Craig and Pioneer? There was once (cir. 1970) audio actually branded Craig-Pioneer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.128.57 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that Pioneer manufactured the devices for Craig. (at least that's what it says on the labels I've seen) 71.215.98.163 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Broken Image alignment
editIs it just on my machine, but the images like the netbook are poorly aligned when they should be aligned to the right? -1ctinus📝🗨 14:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that wasn't a great setup. Since there's not much text there I took out the in-line images and put them into a gallery at the end of the section. If the article is expanded, they can be brought back in-line. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Lawsuits
editThere seem to be a lot of lawsuits against or involving Craig Electronics, such as the ones listed, as well as ZENITH ELECTRONICS LLC, PANASONIC CORPORATION, U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION, and THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK v CRAIG ELECTRONICS INC [1], Motile Optics, LLC v. Craig Electronics, Inc.[2], and potentially more, so I was wondering if we should add these and make them their own category? Thanks, Taikutsu8222 (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)