Talk:Wavegarden

The article is close to being purely promotional as opposed to informative.

"Wavegarden" may refer to the company, but it is also the name of the company's proprietary wave generating systems. This is fine, but Wavegarden the company has the incentive to market Wavegarden technology as the superior wave-generation technology in existence. People who search for "wavegarden" could very well be searching for information about the technology not the company. The Wiki Wavegarden page must provide factual objective information about Wavegarden technology and must not simply hype the technology with unsubstantiated claims. It is fine to maintain technology as a trade secret, and it is fine to call the technology a trademarked name, but any claims about the technology must be substantiated with publicly available evidence.

I want to know how the machine works not how great it is.

For this reason, I'm deleting the last part of the technology section because it makes claims about their newest system without any documentation of how the new system works. It is inappropriate to make claims like "This system improved a number of critical maintenance challenges with the earlier version including; no single points of failure, removal of the underwater hydrofoil and all mechanical components accessible from out of the water" without documenting each claim. If there is no underwater hydrofoil, and all parts are accessible out of the water, how is the wave made now and how is that different from the earlier iterations? What was the single point of failure in the earlier iterations that was eliminated, and how was its elimination accomplished.

Hopefully Wavegarden can provide more technical details and documentation for the technology section.

Removed Un-cited Benefits

At the end of the Technology section the article had stated:

Community benefits include the creation of employment, increase in tourism and elevated value of neighboring real estate.

It cited a Guardian news article as the source for this statement. But the article is about accessibility and makes no claims whatsoever with regard to employment, tourism or real estate property values. I removed the mention of these supposed benefits from the Technology section.

I'd further suggest that editors monitor this article, and if benefits are put back in, the source of such information is scrutinized to avoid this Wikipedia page becoming a PR piece for the manufacturer or developers seeking to build new parks as part of real estate developments around the world.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]