> Andreas, I think you made substantial mistakes here. It may be partially or
> perhaps excused to the facts that [...] the "reviews" (which are not reviews
> at all) are misleading, even in English.

How are these my "substantial mistakes" if those articles "are misleading, even in English", as you say?

> In my view, neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on
> hardware that he or she has received, the first one you link is based on
> a picture and what the author read elsewhere, and the second is based
> on what the author read elsewhere.

This may be true. I don't know. The first article is filed under "Android Tablet Reviews", hence I called it a review, so it's not really my invention or misunderstanding but the author's claim (or whoever put it in that category). I should have put quotation marks to represent that. This is my lapse which I admit.
For the second article it's true that I assumed it's a review. I may have been wrong there. Yet it contains numerous statements that are expressed in a specific way so they normally could only be made by actually testing the device for real (as does the first article albeit to a much lesser degree). And as the article contains no reported speech or explicit references to original external statements I assumed it's a review.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your views on those two articles.