Talk:Air-Cobot/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Some of the prose is awkwardly phrased; it would benefit from a copy-edit. An example is "This should allow for example to assess the propogation of a crack." This is a comma splice: "These are obstacle detection bumpers, they stop the platform if they are compressed." The copy-edit should be done after all the content issues are resolved.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The section "Communications" contains mainly extraneous material and lists. Optimally, the noted papers would be references; it is not necessary to list every single exhibition and presentation related to this technology. Further, the section is merely a translation of content at https://aircobot.akka.eu/?q=page/communications.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The references section does not comply with the MoS. Footnotes should come before references, and references need not be broken into three categories. General references are appropriate.
- --Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- On review, I think this complies enough with the MoS to pass. FalconK (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- One reference is to youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VwkQFIo7fc). This is generally not accepted as a WP:RS; see WP:NOYT. Other sources are reliable; reliance on primary sources is not undue.
- It is a video from Airbus Group on their youtube channel. --Crazy runner (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The source http://lci.tf1.fr/economie/entreprise/air-cobot-le-robot-dont-dependra-votre-securite-8622912.html is gone. If possible, cite through archive.org or find a replacement reference.
- C. It contains no original research:
- The research is original, but it is all published in WP:RS. No trouble here.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- The lists in "Communications" are identical to those at the project's website, but this is normalized text and it is almost certainly not a copyright violation. However, the list is extraneous; many of its contents should be cited as references instead.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- The article contains many forward-looking statements, mainly unreferenced, such as "If the project continues, in prospect is the coupling with a drone to inspect an aircraft's upper parts." This seems to run a little against the thrust of WP:CRYSTALBALL; it would be better to avoid making predictions without citing and attributing them.
- For the coupling with a drone, I add "The CEO also revealed that". The reference is given for this statement. --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh! Yes, I see that. FalconK (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Akka pull quotes should be removed.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The article text from the beginning of "Robot equipment" through the end of "Project continuation" is written from a neutral point of view. The remainder of the article is fairly laden.
- I feel like this article is a little too breathless in its praise of the project. While it is clearly a very innovative invention, the article includes phrasing that seems more the province of a prospectus; an example of such language is "Led by Akka Technologies, this multi-partner project involves research laboratories and industry."
- It's still a little tiny bit more "in favour of" the project than I hoped, but reading it now, even as minor as the changes are, I don't feel like it's quite an advertisement anymore. FalconK (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The article is very well-illustrated! The given captions are suitable. The included pictures are relevant to the topic, except the picture of poster presentations being given in the "Communications" section; that should be removed, since it is not strictly about the project.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I am glad we have an article on this innovative and revolutionary research! However, at the moment, the article copy reads more like a presentation, prospectus, or research proposal than summary information about the project and research. Avoiding praise for the project, commercial detail, and laden language would go a long way to making this a great article. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to inform; it cannot be to persuade or promote, even if the position taken or thing being promoted is not directly commercial in kind.
- Pass or Fail: