Talk:Zwift

Editing
This article has a tone like it was written by superfans or company employees, like the sentence "While Zwift did not invent what has come to be known as Virtual Cycling, it has perfected the technology and brought it successfully to a mass market and it played a large part in devising a new industry category, that of indoor cycling." I'm trying to tone down some of the hysteria while presenting the basic facts about how the company operates. I'm also going to try to reduce the reliance on primary sources (company PR materials) and delete some of the material that secondary sources (newspapers, magazines) haven't considered worth reporting on.

To start with, I will try to get the opening section trimmed down so that it is a summary of the article instead of an article in itself. NumberJuanwithaBullet (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

For example, the opening section had this sentence: "It also augmented the lexicon of the sport: "Zwifting" and to be a "Zwifter" is now a part of cycling language." The evidence? One opinion column in one minor cycling magazine used the term "Zwifter." NumberJuanwithaBullet (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading the loving tone in which this describes the company's history, you'd think they were retelling the discovery of penicillin. But it's not surprising since the only sources are company PR. I have tried to chop this down into a summary a regular human might want to read. NumberJuanwithaBullet (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

After the stuff direct from Zwift, individual YouTube users, and company-funded fan sites was removed, this article was about 1/3 the original length. I think it's a much better third, though. Now it summarizes the key points in a way somebody could usefully read, and it doesn't sing Zwift's praises and the joy of being a Zwift fan every two sentences. NumberJuanwithaBullet (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)