Talk:Berkshire Grey

Add line break between "On December 4, 2019..." and "On January 21, 2020" in the History section
I suggest "On January 21, 2020..." in the History section should begin a new line, like the other events listed in the History section. Toddlute (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Change "includes" to "include" in the paragraph, "Berkshire Grey’s solutions for ecommerce fulfillment..."
Current: Berkshire Grey’s solutions for ecommerce fulfillment, smart store replenishment, and dynamic parcel sortation includes...

Suggested edit: "includes" should be changed to "include" for agreement with "solutions" Berkshire Grey's solutions...include rather than Berkshire Grey's solutions...includes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddlute (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Toddlute (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Change "using" to "deploying" or "implementing" in the History section in the sentence beginning "In December 2018..."
Berkshire Grey isn't using AI-enabled robotics for retailers and logistics companies; Berkshire Grey is deploying AI-enabled robotics for retailers and logistics companies. The retailers and logistics companies are using the AI-enabled robotics that Berkshire Grey deploys. If you prefer not to use the word, "deploying," although it's commonly used in information technology and robotics, "implementing" could be a substitute. There is a distinction between who is using the technology (retailers and logistics companies) and who is deploying or implementing the technology (Berkshire Grey) as a vendor and consultant to the users (retailers and logistics companies).

The modified sentence could be:

In December 2018, Berkshire Grey emerged from stealth mode and announced it has been deploying AI-enabled robotics for retailers and logistics companies, automating tasks not previously performed by machines in commercial settings.

or

In December 2018, Berkshire Grey emerged from stealth mode and announced it has been implementing AI-enabled robotics for retailers and logistics companies, automating tasks not previously performed by machines in commercial settings.

Thanks.

Toddlute (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using the talk page rather than editing the article directly given your conflict. I should have probably said that a very minor grammar edit like changing "includes" to "include" is one that you could make yourself, but I appreciate you taking this approach to be safer. I have made that change, and in this request, I have used the word "selling" which I think would be the most straightforward and neutral word if they are the vendor. In the history section, I have actually made less paragraphs - there is no need for a separate paragraph for each statement, the whole section is meant to be a summary of their history over several years, not a dot point listing of separate activities. Also, you might like to use the Template:Request edit on talk pages where you have a conflict of interest. Thanks Melcous (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Toddlute (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

New maintenance requests
, after you edited this article and removed the Peacock template, another editor posted the multiple issues, COI and advertisement templates. I thought any issues were resolved with your edits following my declaration. I know Wikipedia is collaborative and an editor can decide to post a maintenance request at any time, but do you have any insights or suggestions regarding these new maintenance requests? Are you able to remove them since it seemed you resolved any issues with your edits? Thanks. Toddlute (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I placed the COI and advertisement templates, which speak for themselves. It may take some time to work this out, as the article should not have been pushed to main space by an undisclosed paid editor, which is a violation of the Wikipedia terms of use. It also bypassed our review process. So, even though you have declared your COI, the article still needs to be checked by other editors, which is why those templates are there. I also found that many of the sources were either press releases or based on press releases, so there are questions as to the article quality and whether it belongs here. Give it some time and these issues will be worked out eventually. Hope that helps explain things. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC
 * Thanks for the explanation. Toddlute (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved to draft
This article was initially published straight to article space by a paid editor. I have moved it back to draft so that it can be run through AFC as is appropriate for paid articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Have the issues you raised been addressed to your satisfaction? Thanks. Markfairchild (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)