Talk:Ion (paintball marker)

POVCheck

The first paragraph of this article sounds like marketingspeak, not an encycopaedic article. Anyone else agree, or can anyone offer to clean it up? Jouster 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're saying, however it is very accurate. The Ion is a pretty unique paintball gun...I've never seen a design like it. However, if you can show me what you think is maretingspeak, I will try to work it to be more neutral. Firestorm540 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ion's low cost and high degree of customisability make it the leading choice of marker for the beginning tournament player," at the very least, is blatant marketingspeak unless sourced. Jouster 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "The Ion's low cost and high degree of customizability has made it popular among newer tournament players as well as recreational players.", hope that helps! (Sorry it took so long, college & work are killing me) Firestorm540 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't have an Ion and I feel like this is a advertisement. I see a lot of the over the top adjectives ("revolutionary" etc.)

see: Avoid Peacock Terms

pmicka 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revolutionary?

I took out the term revolutionary...though I do contest that it is an accurate adjective, I have changed it, let me know if there's anything else --Firestorm540 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice change, thank you. Can we do anything about this?

The Ion is the most upgradable and customizable markers on the market today. One of the Ion's revolutionary features is the implementation of "body kits."

I also made a change to the last sentence of that paragraph, but let me know if I took it too far. Jouster (whisper) 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a fairly-complete overhaul on the "Manufacture" section (which should probably be renamed). See what you think of my changes. Jouster (whisper) 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did on the "Manufacture" section, and I agree totally that it should be renamed. I changed the second "revolutionary" sentence into something more neutral. Firestorm540 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this article is very close to the point where I'd feel comfortable removing the POV tag (compare it to the marketing tool it was when I first added it!). If we can rework (or, to be honest, completely-rewrite) the first paragraph, then, with everyone's permission, I'll remove the template. Jouster (whisper) 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the first paragraph some more and put in a little note about how the Ion has woodsball potential (I've seen quite a few around here in the woodsball scene) Firestorm540 13:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POVcheck. again.

Okay, I went a little nuts, but I now feel confident in removing the POV template. I think the "operation" section needs work, but it doesn't have to proceed under the POV header. A quick straw poll is in order. Jouster (whisper) 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support removing the POV template: our work here, POV-wise, is done. Jouster (whisper) 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing it...and since nobody has voiced their opinion within 5 days, I think that means that it's a 2-0 vote for removing it. POVCheck removed unless another user believes it still needs cleaning up. Firestorm540 18:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work, everyone. Thanks to all who contributed. If someone with more experience with Ions wants to mess with the "operation" section a bit, that'd be great, but I'm thrilled to have been a part of a process to de-POV an article that proceeded so quickly and with so little acrimony. Congratulations to us all! Jouster (whisper) 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for S&G, here's the diff from start to finish. Jouster (whisper) 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]