I don't want to be unfair to the device, which I'm sure has a perfectly good screen. I was just criticising the choice of wording in the review.
I'm sure the screen is "sharp and clear". The question is merely over the metric - "sharp and clear" compared to what? A VGA CRT looks "sharp and clear" compared with an NTSC television. I'll believe that the phone's screen looks sharper and clearer than that of, say, my Sony Ericsson P800, or even of an (original) iPhone. I'm merely suggesting that, since the article explicitly states that the screen is 800x480, if the phrase "sharp and clear" is used, the display ought to look especially "sharp and clear" relative to other 800x480 displays. In fact, since the phone has a PenTile arrangement instead of triple-stripe (from what I read elsewhere), the display is measurably *less* "sharp and clear" than a phone with a conventional WVGA LCD - the description is actively (although I'm sure unintentionally) misleading. PenTile and AMOLED have very justifiable benefits, but sharpness and clarity aren't among them. It's true, I've not seen a Wave - I'm just working on my knowledge of several other phones with similar display technology, including a 3.2" PenTile display.
As for saying the screen is large, the article says "a large 3.3in screen". You could argue that it's a small 3.3in screen (from the aspect ratio and the way the area is defined from the diagonal). You could argue that it's a large screen compared with arbitrary non-smart phones - although it's on the small side for a touch-screen smartphone; I say this without judgement, having liked the 3" WVGA screen on my G900. What you can't really do is claim that the screen is 3.3in, and qualify that with "large" - either it's 3.3in or it's not. If the article aims to point out that a 3.3in screen is large, even if we forgive the missing comma ("large, 3.3in screen" would have been less ambiguous), it should really have some reference point. It is, after all, a very small screen compared with an IMAX. There are phones with screens with a larger-than-4" diagonal; a 4" sceen is still "large" because it's bigger-than-average. For a smartphone, 3.3" isn't.
Yes, I'm being picky. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that loose wording in reviews can be misleading. Someone might assume that the screen is exceptionally sharp, or be above-average size, based on what's been written, and neither of those assumptions would be correct.