Talk:Huawei Honor 8 Pro

Edit request: Infobox and specifications
Over the past few months, I've been working with Honor to improve the Huawei Honor and Huawei Honor 8 articles (see Talk:Huawei Honor and Talk:Huawei Honor 8). On behalf of Honor, I'd like to propose some improvements to this article, which was created on April 6 and includes an infobox and three short sentences as a lead. Currently, sourcing for this article is simply one primary (Huawei) URL.

I am proposing a couple minor changes to the infobox and a section dedicated to the phone's specifications. This section is very similar to the "Specifications" section of the Huawei Honor 8 article, and I've worked to ensure accuracy and neutrality. I propose the following:

I am looking for an uninvolved editor to review this proposed text and copy over to the article appropriately. I can respond to questions here or on my talk page. Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am pinging both of you, since you helped with edit requests on the Huawei Honor 8 article and may be interested in this article as well. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging you as well, since you helped with the Huawei Honor 8 article. Are you available to add the proposed infobox and phone specifications? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered, and I have marked this section as resolved. Thank you, User:Pbsouthwood. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request to expand article
Hello, I am back with an additional request to expand and improve this article. As a reminder, I have been working with Honor to improve this article and others, via Burson Marsteller Hong Kong as part of my work at Beutler Ink.

First and foremost, someone added Huawei Honor 9 as the phone's "successor" in the article's infobox. Since the Honor 8 Pro does not have a successor yet, can this be removed?

Next, I propose two new sections: "Release" and "Reception". This way of organizing the article is in line with others for tech products, including Huawei Honor 8. For the "Release" section, I propose the following (markup included below, for easy copy and paste, if appropriate):

Preorders started to be accepted in early April in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The phone formally launched on April 20, 2017. In the United Kingdom, the phone was made available for pre-order from Huawei's vmall store. Honor planned to sell the phone throughout Europe, but not within Australia or the United States, as of May 2017.

The Honor 8 Pro launched in India on July 6, 2017,  and was sold exclusively through Amazon India. Huawei had previously hosted a soft launch event for the phone in Delhi. The Honor 8 Pro was set to launch in Malaysia in July 2017.

The Honor 8 Pro's packaging features a box that converts into a Google Cardboard head-mounted display for virtual reality. The phone also comes with the virtual reality software Jaunt VR pre-installed.

Preorders started to be accepted in early April in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The phone formally launched on April 20, 2017. In the United Kingdom, the phone was made available for pre-order from Huawei's vmall store. Honor planned to sell the phone throughout Europe, but not within Australia or the United States, as of May 2017.

The Honor 8 Pro launched in India on July 6, 2017,  and was sold exclusively through Amazon India. Huawei had previously hosted a soft launch event for the phone in Delhi. The Honor 8 Pro was set to launch in Malaysia in July 2017.

The Honor 8 Pro's packaging features a box that converts into a Google Cardboard head-mounted display for virtual reality. The phone also comes with the virtual reality software Jaunt VR pre-installed.

Sorry for the double ping, but I wanted to keep you aware of this update since you helped above, and see if you might be able to assist again. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have copied over the release section, although one of the references was missing is undefined in that section's markup, and does not appear to be anywhere else on the article or talk page. Please fix this. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The reception section is out of my comfort zone. I do not have the time or interest in phones to investigate where the Wikipedia borders of acceptability lie for quoting reviews, so you will have to wait for someone who does more work in this field. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help thus far. I have to admit, I am not sure where the Carlon markup went wrong. My best guess is that I had planned to use an Android Authority source (I have | this (now bad) URL in my notes), which was written by Kris Carlon, to verify the available colors and head-mounted display. However, this link is no longer working properly, and other inline citations are used to verify these claims, so I think we can continue without this specific source, unless you have any other concerns. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK with me. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the "Release" section. I will see if I can find another editor to help with the "Reception" section. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reception" section
I have separated the request for the "Reception" section, to make reviewing easier for the next editor who is able to help.

For the "Reception" section, I propose the following:

Alex Dobie of Android Central called the Honor 8 Pro the "biggest, highest-specced Honor phone to date". Android Police's Jordan Palmer said the phone "looks to be one of the best phones out of the Chinese giant's sub-brand yet". Andy Boxall of Digital Trends complimented the Honor 8 Pro for its value, build quality, and user experience. Rajiv Makhni of Hindustan Times said the Honor 8 Pro and OnePlus 5, which were released around the same time, "are set to create turbulence in an already churning market and may teach customers that buying phones at prices like 60K is simply foolish". In his review of the phone, PC Magazine Thomas Newton wrote, "The Honor 8 Pro takes many of the best bits of Huawei's recent high end phones [...] and comes up with a satisfying, and very reasonably priced result." Andrew Orlowski of The Register wrote, "What Huawei is doing here is unusual: it's selling its current technology at this price but disguising under the Honor brand. There would have been some nice-to-haves: Qi charging, waterproofing, infra red .... but it's hard to find fault with a product as solid and well designed as this, and we did try."

SlashGear's JC Torres called the Honor 8 Pro "one of if not the most formidable Android smartphones" of 2017, and wrote: "The Honor 8 Pro is definitely one of the unexpected surprises of the smartphone market this year. You would have never expected that Honor, whose smartphones so far have been on the far side of mid-range, would come so close to Huawei's own flagship while still remaining within reach for many consumers." TechAdvisor Henry Burrell awarded the phone 3.5 out of 5 stars, and called it a "promising device" and Honor's "highest spec phone" to date. Luke Johnson of TechRadar rated the Honor 8 Pro four out of five stars. ZDNet's Sandra Vogel concluded her review of the phone by saying, "What I can say is that it's well built and well specified, and also relatively affordable. As such, it's likely to give some of 2017's premium flagship handsets a good run for their money."

Alex Dobie of Android Central called the Honor 8 Pro the "biggest, highest-specced Honor phone to date". Android Police's Jordan Palmer said the phone "looks to be one of the best phones out of the Chinese giant's sub-brand yet". Andy Boxall of Digital Trends complimented the Honor 8 Pro for its value, build quality, and user experience. Rajiv Makhni of Hindustan Times said the Honor 8 Pro and OnePlus 5, which were released around the same time, "are set to create turbulence in an already churning market and may teach customers that buying phones at prices like 60K is simply foolish". In his review of the phone, PC Magazine Thomas Newton wrote, "The Honor 8 Pro takes many of the best bits of Huawei's recent high end phones [...] and comes up with a satisfying, and very reasonably priced result." Andrew Orlowski of The Register wrote, "What Huawei is doing here is unusual: it's selling its current technology at this price but disguising under the Honor brand. There would have been some nice-to-haves: Qi charging, waterproofing, infra red .... but it's hard to find fault with a product as solid and well designed as this, and we did try."

SlashGear's JC Torres called the Honor 8 Pro "one of if not the most formidable Android smartphones" of 2017, and wrote: "The Honor 8 Pro is definitely one of the unexpected surprises of the smartphone market this year. You would have never expected that Honor, whose smartphones so far have been on the far side of mid-range, would come so close to Huawei's own flagship while still remaining within reach for many consumers." TechAdvisor Henry Burrell awarded the phone 3.5 out of 5 stars, and called it a "promising device" and Honor's "highest spec phone" to date. Luke Johnson of TechRadar rated the Honor 8 Pro four out of five stars. ZDNet's Sandra Vogel concluded her review of the phone by saying, "What I can say is that it's well built and well specified, and also relatively affordable. As such, it's likely to give some of 2017's premium flagship handsets a good run for their money."

Phone model reviews can get very nit-picky, with writers pointing out very specific things they like or don't like about specific phones. For this section, I tried my best to summarize reviews using the 'takeaways' from each, giving due weight and ensuring accuracy and neutrality throughout. I don't think either of these proposed sections are particularly contentious, but I am happy to answer any questions or address concerns here. Is there a volunteer editor who can review these proposed additions, then copy over the markup appropriately? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am uncomfortable with the tone of the selected excerpts from the reviews, in particular the TechAdvisor line seems to pick out very selective quotes, having read the review I don't think the quotes reflect the tone of the review as a whole. This is particularly evident when comparing it with other good phone articles e.g. the iPhone 5's article. The first two references aren't based on reviews but rather what seems like first impressions to the phone being announced. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned that the summary and chosen quotes from the reviews may not be balanced. I don't think I personally am interested in reading the reviews and trying to correct any issues I find in the proposed text for the section. An alternative is to thin the section text and let our readers read the reviews themselves and maybe an independent editor will eventually be interested in doing a better summary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your initial feedback. I tried hard to draft a balanced, neutral summary of the reviews, but like I said, this can be very hard to do given reviewers' specific personal preferences and various comments both criticizing and praising the model. I tried to incorporate the most overarching commentary as best as possible, instead of focusing on very specific points raised. I'm not too proud to ask others for help in drafting the best possible section. User:Jcc, if you're willing, can you trim what you believe should not be included? And User:Kvng, I am comfortable with adding a thinned section and letting readers expand appropriately over time. Can one or both of you help here? I am open to helping with the trimming as well, but I'd prefer to let other editors take a first stab, if possible. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC) (ed

The Honor 8 has been reviewed by Android Central,, Android Police, Digital Trends, Hindustan Times, PC Magazine, The Register, SlashGear, TechAdvisor, TechRadar and ZDNet.

Thanks for suggesting this version, but I'd say this may actually be too trimmed. Simply giving readers a list of publications that have reviewed the phone does not seem helpful. Is there a way to only trim the parts that are problematic? I took a stab here:

Several publications noted the model's most advanced specifications by Honor to date, including Android Central, Android Police, and TechAdvisor. Reviewers also commented on the phone's value. Andy Boxall of Digital Trends complimented the Honor 8 Pro for its price, build quality, and user experience. Rajiv Makhni of Hindustan Times said the Honor 8 Pro and OnePlus 5, which were released around the same time, "are set to create turbulence in an already churning market and may teach customers that buying phones at prices like 60K is simply foolish". In his review of the phone, PC Magazine Thomas Newton wrote, "The Honor 8 Pro takes many of the best bits of Huawei's recent high end phones [...] and comes up with a satisfying, and very reasonably priced result." Andrew Orlowski of The Register wrote, "What Huawei is doing here is unusual: it's selling its current technology at this price but disguising under the Honor brand. There would have been some nice-to-haves: Qi charging, waterproofing, infra red .... but it's hard to find fault with a product as solid and well designed as this, and we did try." ZDNet's Sandra Vogel described the phone as "well built and well specified, and also relatively affordable", and "likely to give some of 2017's premium flagship handsets a good run for their money."

SlashGear's JC Torres called the Honor 8 Pro "one of if not the most formidable Android smartphones" of 2017. TechAdvisor Henry Burrell awarded the phone 3.5 out of 5 stars, and Luke Johnson of TechRadar rated the Honor 8 Pro four out of five stars.

I reduced the quotes and tried to stick to things like star ratings and comments on specifications, instead of personal preferences. Additionally, I grouped together similar comments by type: the first sentence is about the phone's specifications, while the rest of the paragraph is about the model's value. The Hindustan Times commentary describe's the phone impact on the industry, and mentions a competitor, so I don't think neutrality is a problem here. The Register comments on the model's value, but also includes a features wish-list, so I'm hoping this is also considered balanced enough.

The second paragraph is simply a short direct quote and star ratings. Is this looking better? I am open to further suggestions, but hopefully this is an improvement over the longer version proposed initially. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue is that everything you've quoted from the reviews puts the product in a positive light and you have a declared COI on this subject. It could be that it is a great phone and no one has found anything significant to criticize about it or it could be an editorial slant. You are not in a position to make that assessment and I've already said I'm not interested in reading all these reviews to determine what's going on here. ~Kvng (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that my proposal is too trimmed. That's because it's not finished. With my proposal, we're putting the raw material out there and hoping that an interested, independent editor will finish it. ~Kvng (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By lumping all the reviews together version 2 is if anything more promotional. I agree that if you are unable to come up with a less slanted version it may better to just list the publications that have reviewed it. The ratio of positives:negatives in the text should reflect that of the reviews but at present as far as I can see you've only listed one negative from all the reviews (The Register) and ignored the negatives that the other publications came up with. What you're fundamentally missing is an 'on the other hand, reviewers criticized the...' counterpart to the text. This structure is particularly evident in the iPhone 5 example text I linked to above, which is a listed good article. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, both, for your feedback. How do either of you feel about the following version?

Overall, initial reviews of the Honor 8 Pro were positive, averaging 8.1 out of 10. TechAdvisor Henry Burrell awarded the phone 3.5 out of 5 stars. Luke Johnson of TechRadar rated the Honor 8 Pro four out of five stars. Andy Boxall of DigitalTrends rated the phone 4 out of 5 stars. Reviews of the phone noted its value, long battery life, metal body, and fast performance. Rajiv Makhni of Hindustan Times, Andrew Orlowski of The Register and ZDNet's Sandra Vogel wrote that the phone pricing is lower than for flagship phones with similar hardware and features. Reviews did however note that the phone did not have contract options in the UK at the time of launch, and that other phones offered better design.

I'm really trying here, so any help is appreciated. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is brief, factual and balanced and I'm comfortable with it. ~Kvng (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for taking another look. If you or User:Jcc are willing to copy over the markup, I'd be much appreciated. I also wonder, should the stub tag be removed from the bottom of the article, now that a couple sections have been added? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

✅ ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have marked this edit request as answered. Editors are welcome to read the originally proposed "Reception" section content above, if they care to expand further. Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image
On behalf of Honor, I have uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons and request its addition to this article's infobox: File:Huawei Honor 8 Pro.jpg (which is currently in the OTRS permissions queue). I prefer not to edit the article directly, given my conflict of interest, but I'm hoping another editor can add the image on my behalf. I am pinging you two in case either of you are willing to help with this very simple request. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have marked this edit request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)