Talk:Motorola W233

Editorializing?
I own a Renew W233, and I like it just fine. (Although it appears to be dying now, after 4 years of use.) But I was surprised by the tone I found when I read this article.

Is this a Wikipedia entry, or an editorial or a product review? If it is merely the former, should it really be using words like "exciting" or "impressive" to describe the product it discusses?

It uses both these words in the "Features" section. The fact that the full phrases used are "much less exciting" and "only impressive aspect" doesn't change the fact that these are words of judgment or opinion.

I was as impressed as I was surprised to find that the "much less exciting" claim is actually supported by a footnote! However, this footnote simply provides an expired link to an announcement/review — on a no-longer-active site — that used to call the Renew 233 "the least exciting phone ever." And it's still editorial language.

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:32 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motorola W233. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318222655/http://www.carbonfund.org/site/more/media/1340 to http://www.carbonfund.org/site/more/media/1340

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)