Talk:Educational technology/Archive 1

Cleanup request

I have added a Cleanup request for this page. Specific issues include writing in first person, irrelevant links, and links that are not formatted correctly. Rculatta 05:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that a complete re-write is warranted. There seems to be no structure or coherence to the current entry. Is it good form and appropriate to begin this? There is a stub page called Education Technology (travers) Travers 13:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have cleaned up this page. It is now rather thin on content, but I think it now looks like a Wikipedia article, rather than a notice board.

A remaining problem is the existence of the two other sites with similar names: Education technology and Educational Technology.

Alan Pascoe 21:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the section on Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. The problem with schools adopting the Multiple Intelligence materials for instructional purposes is that there doesn’t exist a body of scholarly research to support spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions) wasted on Multiple Intelligence and it certainly doesn't need to be included in our definition of Ed Tech. Multiple intelligences is not necessarily a bad theory; rather, the tie to education is not mature enough for schools to have jumped on the bandwagon. Much money is being spent with very little to show in the classroom. Further, the research that exists on the implementation of multiple intelligences demonstrates that the money being spent is not justified. Of course students have varied learning styles that should be recognized, but taking it a step beyond to multiple intelligences is not instructionally validated.

Sean Lancaster known here as --Jayhawksean 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article could use some proof reading. --Pdienstm (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I have placed Redirects on Educational Technology and Education technology. I have also created Education Technology and placed a redirect on that.

Alan Pascoe 23:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Very long "See also" list

With 29 entries the "See also" list has become quite long. Can it be meaningfully shortened/structured/replaced with categorization? I am not knowledgable enough in the field to do this myself, I'm afraid. --Tobias Bergemann 10:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to move these links to sub-headings under Theories & Practices.

Alan Pascoe 19:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

External links in pre-November 2005 version

I have reviewed the external links that were present in the last version prior to November 2005 (18:20 19 October 2005). Though still not directly relevant to the Educational technology page, they are relevant to the Technology Integration page, so I have placed them there.

Alan Pascoe 16:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Influencial Educational Technologies

It would be interesting to add a section to the article that describes the most influential educational technologies of today, their effectiveness in different instructional scenarios, the impact they have had in changing traditional models of designing and delivering educational experiences, their advantages and disadvantages.

Valeria Pietz 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Actually, any part of the body of the article could do with development. I see from your user page that you have professional knowledge of the subject. The article needs people like you to develop it. Prior to November, I had no knowledge of the subject. I think I have laid the groundwork for a good article, but it is difficult for me to make significant further progress. Alan Pascoe 20:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you had no knowledge about this topic prior to November, you are doing great. Unfortunately, this is "crunch" time for me as we are getting all online courses ready for the spring semester.

What might be worth adding to the article is a brief paragraph on Learning Management Systems. (Blackboard and WebCT), now merged, are among the most important players.

Other types of technologies that could be introduced in the article are Camtasia, video clips, audio clips. All technologies that are used more and more extensively, especially in distance education.

Also, virtual reality might be worth mentioning. I am somewhat familiar with Activeworlds, but I am sure that there are several other VR software packages out there that are used for educational purposes.

Valeria Pietz 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll see what I can do. Alan Pascoe 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What about adult education?

The second paragraph of this article suggests that educational technology solely relates to K-12 education, but what about adult education such as corporate training, higher education and military training? I have a lot of "book" knowledge about the subject, but I doubt I'm qualified to edit the entry at this point!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdiane1 (talk • contribs)

Indeed. This was actually one of the aims of the second paragraph, to point out that ET is not just about school education, the other being that it is not just about electronics and networking. If you can think of better wording, go ahead and change it. Alan Pascoe 21:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The theory of expected knowledge can help people who wants to 'adult education technology.' http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Expected_Knowledge.pdf

Merge with ?

Instructional technology almost is a repeat of this page. Looking further Technology Integration has many elements of the other two. This request is growing as I contemplate it. Somehow these three pages should become consistent. I'm a newbie so I'm not sure how to proceed. On my user page I have a very rough outline on what I mean. --Rberkey 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be established first if Educational Technology and Instructional Technology really are the same thing. The problem with this page is that no-one has yet established what Educational Technology is. I did find references to two books on the subject, which I added to the Further Reading section. The entry for the Januskewski book on Google Book Search indicates that this would be a good place to start. My recommendation is that someoene gets hold of a copy. Unfortunately, only three libraries in Britain hold this book, and none of them are convenient for me. There are, however, 223 libraries in the United States holding copies -- is one of them convenient for you? Alan Pascoe 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a constant issue in the EdTech. Generally I think EdTech is the big umbrella for technology in education and often the Masters degree program names, i.e. A Masters of Education with an Educational Technology focus. Also, the US Government uses "Educational Technology" for their overall office and national reports like: 2010 report. Instructional Design (ID), training, Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Performance Improvement, Needs Assessment, are more for the business end of making training and course design and I see them as under the EdTech umbrella. I believe EdTech has a long history back to the 1920s, and ID does too, but as a technique or system similar to software production. ID blossomed during WWII. Perhaps the folks at the national organizations, like ISTE.org and ASTD.org can help? Caleb Clark. Director, Educational Technology Program, Marlboro College Graduate School —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

Debatepedia.org: technology in education debate link

Is an external link appropriate to the debate page on Debatepedia on the question of whether technology is beneficial in education idebate.org?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Debaterx (talk • contribs)

Added. Jayhawksean

The website as a whole fails our external links guidelines, being a relatively new and lightly edited open wiki. I really think it should be removed. -- SiobhanHansa 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Constructivism section

Since the sections on behaviorism and cognitivism are only briefly summarized and do not include criticisms, I thought it was appropriate to keep the same level of detail for constructivism. I don't think you need to get into the controversies around any of these theories here; let's leave those debates in the full articles instead of copying them onto every article that mentions constructivism.

Also, constructivism is called a learning theory even in the title of the Wikipedia article. Dlewis3 does not personally agree with that idea and says it's a philosophy instead. Although I've asked him in the past for a citation for that argument, he has not yet provided one, so that falls under original research. However, I do recognize that it's controversial, so I'm compromising it and calling it "a learning theory or educational philosophy."WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is misleading to treat constructivism as parallel to the theoretical perspectives of behaviorism and cognitivism. That such listing is a mistake is clear from the mentioned principles--which are cognitive and result from information processing models. Constructivism is a philosophy that recommends less teacher guidance based on ideology, not any empirical evidence (which suggest that guidance is generally beneficial). I also cannot see what constructivism has to do with educational technology. Technology can be used in instructional methods whether they follow the recommendation of constructivism or not. To some extent, the same can be said of the theoretical perspectives, but behaviorism did include specific approaches and devices that are very much instructional technology. Social learning theory of Bandura and Vygotsky's ideas are a basis for collaborative learning and DOES have a direct technology connection via social media and the online environment, but those theories are not essentially constructivist despite the label "social constructivism".Robotczar (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorism is Problematic

"While still very useful this philosophy of learning has lost favor with many educators. But Behavioral learning theory (e.g Classical Conditioning and Operant conditioning) is still very useful to explain lower level unconscious implicit memory and learning." is mostly what I have left.

Behaviorism has nothing to do with the concept of implicit memory, and little to do with the unconscious (although Skinner deals with it in About Behaviorism). Implicit memory is a cognitive construct not found in Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, or any other learning theorist (of the behaviorist schools) I am aware of.

There are no source citations for any of this as well.

This appears to be the kind of summary you'd expect from some secondary text which doesn't really know behaviorism very well. Pavlov, Skinner and Thorndike had very little in common, and I have added the Skinnerian efforts - which aren't very Thorndikian or Pavlovian. They are, interestingly, based on his theory of Verbal Behavior. Thus, it is a kind of proof of the applicability of verbal behavior outside of the laboratory, and to humans - both claims to the contrary repeatedly asserted by Skinner's critics. Amusing. --Michaelrayw2 (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I made one small change (moving Skinner from a 3rd level heading to a 4th level heading so it's under behaviorism). I don't know how much we really need to get into all the different theories in the history of behaviorism for this article. Michaelrayw2, could you do a one paragraph summary overview of behaviorism, perhaps with one sentence each for Pavlov, Skinner, and Thorndike? I think that would be sufficient for an article that isn't really focused on any of these theories. I think it would be fine for you to scrap the section and start over. My knowledge of behaviorism is fairly thin, so any help you could give would be greatly appreciated! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Afaik Pavlov & Thorndike were minor players in educational technology. It is a mistake to think that they represent some continuous line of learning theory. See Mecca Chiesa's book on how radically different Skinner is from the other behaviorists. Skinner did have an extensive influence on educational technology, which this article is about. If anything Pavlov and Thordike should be dropped, and PI, PSI, etc. should be mentioned as they had some traction for awhile and still a bit of a legacy (PSI has picked up with the trends in distance learning I've read). --Michaelrayw2 (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think if I had tried to pretend I knew anything about behaviorism, it would be obvious that I was faking it now. :) Sorry about that; I really am not at all familiar with the history. Your suggestion of adjusting the section based on what is most relevant to ed tech sounds perfect. Cut the stuff that isn't relevant and focus on what is. You know what you're doing, and I trust your judgment. Thanks for enlightening me!WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved comment

This comment was added to the article text by [[Special:Contributions/Beth-Dodd|Beth-Dodd] on February 7, 2008. I'm moving it here, as it's really a discussion point and not article text.

(Comment) While I do not doubt that Saettler's book is comprehensive, and perhaps the "most comprehensive", anything published in 1990 has to be largely out of date as is the technology of that time.

WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 Definition of the field

I added the AECT 2008 definition of the field... could be controversial...maybe not.

--Dlewis3 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Advanced learning technology

The Advanced learning technology article lacks the substance to stand on its own. As it is a subset of educational technology, it seems reasonable to append it as a section in this article.

Neelix (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after removing the copyrighted material from that article, I'm not even sure if it's worth salvaging. The entire Advanced learning technology article seems to have been taken from this site, with some small paraphrasing done to remove the references to the specific organization. If you're up to creating some actual content from multiple sources, that's fine, but otherwise I would rather see the Advanced learning technology information deleted entirely. Even what I left is clearly from that source, but at least there was a passing attempt to paraphrase it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WeisheitSuchen that the Advance learning technology information should probably just be deleted entirely. Jayhawksean (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup request

The part that talks about behaviorism, constructivism, etc. does not really belong on this page. I think we need to look into editing what information really is relevant and what isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ame0401 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If it was just general overview of the learning theories, that would be one thing, but since it talks about each theory and how that affects your perspective on educational technology, I think it's relevant. If you're coming from a cognitivist perspective, you're probably focused on cognitive load and multimedia processing when you make decisions about technology use. If you're coming from a constructivist perspective, you may focus on technology that creates environments for problem solving. Second Life may not make sense as an educational tool from a cognitivist perspective because of the ill-structured environment, but a constructivist might find it quite valuable, especially for more advanced learners. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The section seems really out of place. First, behaviorism and cognitivism do not even mention technology or educational technology. Also, the section is titled, "Theories and practices" -- what kind of practices are being described? And connectivism seems a bit of a stretch given that I doubt any teachers are learning this so called theory, let alone using it consciously in their teaching. And it's received serious criticism about whether it's even a learning theory versus a pedagogical view. We're doing a disservice to educational technology to include this here. Further, if you look up Learning here on Wikipedia there is no mention of any of these learning theories or so called theories. They shouldn't be on the educational technology entry either.Jayhawksean (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Theorists section is drawing some of the names from a list of popular bloggers. Blogs are not peer-reviewed, nor are they scholarly. While there are often neat ideas or nice tips and tricks presented via blogs (or even valid arguments being promoted), the bottom line is that using blogs for an educational field is not helping the field gain respect. Certainly educational technology has scholarly journals and there are people in the field who could be considered big names who argue via a peer-review process. But to grab names from the pool of bloggers and labeling them "theorists" because of an edublogger award is not worthy of mention on the educational technology Wikipedia entry. This section could be renamed as popular educational technology figures or something like that, perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhawksean (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Technology in the Classroom

Much of that part sounds like some advertisement you'd hear on TV ... fix plz? ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.40.240.137 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging with "Impact of technology on the educational system"

A link on the educational technology page brought me here, but I can find no discussion of the possible merge.

As a professional educational technologist for several decades (and reviews editor of the British Journal of Educational Technology for two of those decades) I can see no reason to merge.

1 "Educational technology" has an impact, we hope, on only a part of the "educational system" - the effectiveness of learning - not on the whole. 2 "Educational technology" is a technology in the proper, wide sense of being the application of science (knowledge) about learning to improving the effectiveness of learning; "technology" in the "impact" material seems restricted to hardware and software, rather than to philosophies, systems and approaches.

So educational technology is both narrower (1 above) and wider (2 above) than the impact of technology on education (a far better term than "the education system" by the way, as there are very many education systems).

I do not support the proposed merge, even if the impact material were absorbed entirely into the educational technology coverage.

Eric Deeson UK 24 Apr 12 Eric Deeson (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Eric. I am picking up your points. Do I correctly mirror your post by restating things as, "Educational technology" properly considered is a domain of "learning theory" and is not to be confused with the use of "hardware and software" within education? FeatherPluma (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the points made are important they do not actually address the issue of whether to merge. In fact, they distill to an unhappiness with all parts of the status quo. Neither article is strong. I will merge, get contributors "on the same page", and hopefully the process of merging and reconciliation and further contributions will improve everything. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

from talk page [Impact of technology on the educational system] article which I am merge redirecting here, for possible later use:

Technology in Education. (2011, September 1). In Education Week. Retrieved November 9, 2011, fromhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/

Hudson, H. (2011). The Digital Divide. Instructor, 121(2), 46-50.

Merger proposal (from Edtech)

I propose that Edtech be merged into Educational Technology. I think that the content in the Edtech article can easily be explained in the context of Educational Technology, and the Educational Technology article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Edtech will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Edtech itself is an uncited article / stub, and is a fork of Educational Technology, based on the Edtech text which states that it is an "Acronym of Education Technology". (Although this usage does not fully conform to the immediately preceding posting, a clarification that addresses the point can be added easily.) FeatherPluma (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Educational technology category page

How should the article be integrated with or effectively link to the Educational technology category page? It seems that the See Also section should be reduced and that this should instead link to the category. Roycekimmons (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Theory & Practice Issues

I am not sure why theory and practice would be in the same section. The section doesn't even include any "practice" information. I also suggest the "theory" section is not useful as is, primarily because it simply lists brief descriptions of three theoretical perspectives (not theories). Unfortunately, the article does not say how these "theories" relate to educational technology. If these theories have something to say about educational technology, that information should be included, otherwise, I suggest omitting this information or just putting in links. The list of theorists is also problematic because some listed are not very much associated with ET theory and some who are, are omitted. It is sort of astounding that this article doesn't even mention R. E. Clark who asserted that media use cannot affect learning. This is a significant theoretical issue and places limitations on what can be expected from ET on student learning. Robotczar (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please consider using your ideas yourself to edit the article to improve it. I made some changes that pick up on some of your comments. You indicate that the descriptions are theoretical perspectives (not theories). I added wording to address your point. However, Wikipedia naming conventions prefer brevity, so the names of links within this encyclopedia are driven by that choice of styling. I separated theory from practice. I disagree that practice is absent, but agree that the connection is wobbly. I will add a brief mention of Clark when I have a moment. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Following up on your comment, I have removed all the theorists. For future accessible reference (beyond the readily available back versions) they were Alan November; Seymour Papert; Will Richardson; John Sweller; Don Krug; David Warlick; Alex Jones; Russell Long; George Siemens; David Wiley; David Wilson; Bernard Luskin. Many have their own WP article, some do not. I am sure they could be added back here, perhaps also Clark, but as you comment, if these theorists and their theories have something to say about educational technology, it might be more useful if the contribution they made was supported by wp:rs here, along with inline discussion in relevant text in this article e.g. history section etc. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism Criticism

This section consistently advocates based on opinions instead of presenting information. It quickly takes an advocacy position for "ecological" perspectives, instead of simply reporting that some educators assert that position. It is inappropriate that the second paragraph says that "unless this happens, it is likely that…" It can be reported that some scholar or researcher makes this claim, but the article offers this position as established fact.

The third paragraph has some repetitive information, but it is focused on babies and DVDs which is only tangential to this topic because babies are not in the formal educational system. Ditto for problems related to the use of computers and cell phones. This research is about general use, not technology used in a regulated instructional environment, which would address concerns about distractions and time wasting. This article should stick to technology use in formal education, as part of a designed curriculum.

The next paragraph presents unrelated, unsupported statements that are wrong. Increasing corporate profits via hyped technology is a legitimate concern, but no support is offered for this assertion. Much of what this paragraph says is incorrect. Most online tests are not adaptive, and being adaptive is unrelated to corporate hype or profit. The Khan academy is thrown in and criticized without citations or even a coherent argument. (Why is focus on the end result bad?) The "computer-based instructional model", whatever that is, does not "encourage" students to work individually. Whether students work individually or collaborate is about pedagogy, not technology. ET can support collaborative learning for example via online discussion forums and other social media.

Is the percentage of MOOC registrants an issue important enough to be considered in this article? That information is better on the MOOC page. This information is really not basic to the topic of educational technology. Also, MOOCs are in fact, an educational environment using a specific pedagogy, it is not a form of educational technology. Omit it.

Again, the Everest effect section takes a position instead of reporting it as that is is said by some specific people. This section also makes some large claims, one citation is insufficient to claim that the instructional environment, including instructional method, changes just due to technology.

The rest of this section has similar, or worse problems. One can hardly understand the relevance of "phantom objectivity" to this topic. Maybe a philosophical diatribe belongs on the technology page, but not here. Technology is not going away any time soon, and as been present in education since the inception of formal education. Books are media and technology. Please get rid of this stuff. Some legitimate criticism exists, and this sort of stuff simply distracts from the real issues. Robotczar (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please consider using these ideas to edit the article to improve it. Careful edits to mainspace would be most welcome. I made some changes that pick up on some of your comments. However, a more thorough rewrite based on some of these principles is very reasonable, and you could think about doing them ! Of course I do not agree with everything - for example, that MOOCs "are NOT educational technology", but are instead a categorically different DNA called "educational environments". Well, yes, I see what you are saying on the positive side, they ARE "environments" of a sort, but what why would that exclude them from being educational technology - is there some clear criterion? Babies are not excluded here, nor are informal educational approaches, or self-learning, nor even diatribes about phantom objectivity, as long as there is some relation to educational technology in its broadest inclusive sense. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)]

Thanks for your response. I will consider some editing of the page, but my objections here are large and I think some talk is required before heading in a new direction. An instructional delivery environment sets parameters for technology use for instruction. Both MOOC and online courses use the same technology--it is in instructional method that they differ. Does online technology compared to classroom technology affect student learning independently of pedagogy? Many studies (and Clark) suggest not. Whatever the case, this issue needs to be mentioned--it is rather germane to ET. Overall, I see a problem in viewing technology, or educational technology--technology used in formal education (not for babies or self learning)--as an educational method. (A page on learning technology could include babies and self learning. Generally, this article confuses learning and education.) Educational technology (as used in this context) involves use of tools to support instructional methods, it is not a method itself. Whether one agrees or not, this is a key issue that needs to be addressed on a page addressing the definition of educational technology.Robotczar (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have good sources for clearly worded modifications, go right ahead. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger from e-learning

To prevent WP:CONTENTFORKING, which Wikipedia policy seeks to avoid, I propose that e-learning should be merged and redirected to this page. Although at first sniff e-learning "emphasizes" learning, and educational technology "emphasizes" the technology, in theory and practice the literature and the domains of these two terms almost entirely overlap. As the e-learning article's citations point out, the vocabulary and terminology in this area is used inconsistently. Unfortunately, there is a veritable slew of terminologies, all competing for the same fact space. In usage, "e-learning" is an extremely significant (but incomplete) subset of "educational technology". I acknowledge that "e-learning" is perhaps particularly prominent in sources. However, educational technology now brings together the content of many previous education articles, much of which was forking/mirroring/duplication and WP:OR. These multiple, small, inadequately unattended articles stood separately, based on detailed arbitrary circular pseudodefinition explanations of vocabulary, resulting in fragmented and conflicting content. Perhaps paradoxically, completing this merger and redirect would allow further content consolidation within this article, and help keep this article size more reasonable. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done FeatherPluma (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Classroom performance systems

Article has little other than a dictionary component with a recent citation, and can be readily merged here. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done FeatherPluma (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Web-based teaching materials

Same issue as immediately preceeding proposal. Tagged as lacking proper referencing since 2007. Propose the same solution. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Done FeatherPluma (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Ubiquitous learning

Article is essentially two usage examples that bring together the concepts of ubiquitous computing with "learning". The limited content worth retaining is suitable for merger here. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Initial trim / merger now underway. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Digital teaching platform

Article has been tagged since 2010 as reading like an advertisement. There may be some content worth retaining, and the article would seem to be suitable for merger here. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. On initially trimming, discovered that the contents were single-product specific and much more "advertorial" than initially realized. Redirected here, but nothing worth saving. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)