Talk:Peek (mobile email device)

Merge suggestion
We don't need two articles. If the first had been added to the dab page at Peek, I'm sure the second wouldn't have been created as a separate article ... but it's got the better title. I suggest you turn Peek email device into a redirect, picking out from it any facts not already in the new article. PamD (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to tone down the reception section a little, the NPOV selective review quotes were over-the-top. It could still do with more attention and balance.

I also want to merge TwitterPeek into this page, as that device is simply a 'crippled' Peek. Centrepull (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section Reads Like An Advert
The section on criticism does not contain a balanced representation of both positive and negative reviews. As such, it makes the section read like an advertisement. Please revise the section to provide a more balanced view.

-FoxMajik (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Peek Updates
I made some changes to the Peek article. You will notice that there is another paragraph in it, talking about current Peek problems like Foxmajik requested due to the "advertisement-like" article, displaying only positive response.

-Anynomous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.187.21 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed your additions. Firstly, they were heavily POV, as well has having no citations. For instance, Web browsing has been always controversial for the Peek. If you are going to claim something that is controversial, you'll need to provide a reliable source for such claims. As it is, the entire criticism section above is also clear not WP:NPOV. I am sure there must be some critical reviews of the device. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To elaborate on my suggestion, I'm indicating that the article should be less biased. Referencing some neutral or negative reviews would be useful.  Postulation won't help and neither will being confrontational.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxmajik (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Still marked as spam?
Is there any reason this still is marked as spam? Seems very balanced to me. Is it fair to remove it given the recent changes? 71.60.17.169 (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)