Blakethewikilord

Bio

Welcome, my name is blakethewikilord, as a partially prophetic pioneering power parading through the social media and the dot net I stand here and with you today to impart the knowledge I have received. Having gone through many adventures, the life changing epoch that was Lima-Peru(Teaching overseas) and the adjacent jungles catalyzed my Apollo 11 which I reside today firmly in, yet ready to attempt my life’s next Fosbury when the Falcon Heavy or SLS is ready to have me abroad.

I understand most English speakers do not have a full understanding of English and the nuances that come along with it and even the proficient writer can miss a reader’s view from time to time. I feel there exists a responsibility and standard for what we try to convey to others which all mediums should try to abide to; it is often for the benefit of others we write.

Article Critique

I find myself interested in technology, particularly in mobile devices. I normally do a lot of research and am of the belief that everyone should be able to learn about the products we often put so much money towards. I own a LG V20 and am quite enthusiastic about it, which is because I am so invested in the technology surrounding it. Having done my own research on the device I was surprised while reviewing its Wikipedia page, it was severely lacking when compared to other pages for similar devices. While on the LG V20 page on Wikipedia I found three aspects of it worth commenting on: Structure, Citations, and Grammar.

Structure

One of the issues that stuck out to me was the inclusion of information that wasn’t relevant to the article, an example is at the end of the introductory paragraph the author says, “The LG V30 was unveiled on 31 August 2017, as the successor to the V20”. Being that the article is not about the LG V30 this seems out of context. Moreover, the author leaves out information that would be relevant to distinguishing the software on the device from another device’s software while including a supposed update from a single carrier (T-Mobile). Potential updates from one carrier would only be relevant to a small percent of people and don’t have value to most readers.  

Citations

While fallowing up on some of the sources I came across several which did not seem to back up the claims that they were supposed to support. The most notable issue was that the dates of the phone’s release in different countries were not represented in the websites that were linked to prove those dates. The author could have made sure the articles had the information to back up the dates, instead it looks like the articles were only selected based on them being from the country of each date release citation.

Grammar

I noticed that the wording and grammar at certain times were not correct or gave a misinterpretation of the subject. There are two grammatical errors in the article, Dark Grey was written as “Gark Grey” and the digital to analog converter or DAC was written as “DACs” with the “s” having no use. The author gives an incorrect impression with the opening statement when stating “LG V20 is an Android phablet manufactured by LG Electronics”, there are two issues with this statement. The first is that the author uses the term “Phablet”, i.e., a phone with a size comparable to a tablet, to describe the device. The issues with the term are that with many phones now being 5.8-6.0 inch is size the 5.7 inch LG V20 would no longer fit this category, the other being the term itself has drastically dropped in use over the last four years. The second issue is that the author refers to the phone as an Android phablet which was manufactured by LG, this gives the impression that its ownership and development are by Android and the assembly was done by LG. Whereas the phone was developed and made by LG and only utilizes a LG version of Android. This mistake is understandable, separating software and hardware manufacturers is only becoming more difficult but its important we still try to do so.

Summary

I see the work that had gone into the article and appreciate the author describing some of the key elements of the device, and while most of the information is there, the author’s wording lends to the article being skewed at times and the lack of credible sources cast doubt over the information provided. The article hits the basics which is good, what isn’t is that it doesn’t go far beyond those basics and a reader is not given the proper chance to compare this product to another on Wikipedia.

(https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=phablets)