Talk:International Aerial Robotics Competition

International Aerial Robotics Competition was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
March 18, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Firewall (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Firewall is the Creator and annual organizer of the International Aerial Robotics Competition and as the one maintaining the repository for historical information, has made significant contributions to this article, updating it periodically when new missions are proposed or completed.)

GA nomination, question

This article has been nominated at GAN by an editor who appears to have carried out only two small edits. Do the main contributors agree that it meets the good article criteria, and are they happy for the nomination to go ahead? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Proceed. Firewall (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then to complete the nomination you need to add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection at GAN where the article is listed}} to the top of this talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. This is a fascinating article, and if nobody else has in a week or so I'll probably take it on myself. In the meantime I can tell you that it will very likely fail GAN as it stands, because of the paucity of citations. I'd suggest attending to that as a matter or urgency. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Firewall (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Aerial Robotics Competition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be doing this review, and I'll be posting my comments here shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GTMax image at 600px is really too big. See [1]. Images should not overwhelm the screen; 300px or so is a reasonable upper limit, but 600px is OTT.

The same applies to the image in the lead, it's also too prominent. It also needs a caption.

Unless there's good justification for doing so, it's best to keep the images at their default size. Does the picture of Michelson's pneumatic animatron really need to be so large, for instance?

Images in general should be inside the sections they relate to, not above the section headings. See [2].

Text should not be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images, as it is in Third mission.

Citations are much better than when I commented before, but the Fourth mission section has only one, strangely positioned after one of the numbered bullet points. What is it meant to be supporting? That bullet point or everything that's gone before?

I think that more needs to be said about what the rules are governing the types of vehicle that can be entered. That the computational equipment need not be carried on the aircraft itself is quite significant, for instance.

Looking at a few of the citations, it seems that they do not support the material they appear to be in support of. Ref #11, in Venues, for instance, doesn't even mention the competition so far as I can see. The convention is that a citation supports all of the material preceding it.

Ref #14 is to a blog, which cannot be considered a reliable source. The link is in any event broken, which effectively means that the Prizes section is completely uncited.

"The competition creator, Prof. Robert Michelson is past President of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)." This statement, from the opening of the Spin Offs section is supported by a link to the AUVSI's home page. Where on that page does it confirm that Michelson is a past president?

Capitalisation like "fifth Mission" looks strange. If "Mission" is capitalised then "fourth" ought also to be capitalised.

"All of these competitions, land, sea, and air, have at their core, "full autonomy" as a distinctive." As a distinctive what? "Distinctive" is an adjective.

That's it for now. I've put this article on hold, to allow time for these issues to be addressed.

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSES TO ABOVE SUGGESTIONS/ACTIONS TAKEN

The GTMax image at 600px is really too big. See [1]. Images should not overwhelm the screen; 300px or so is a reasonable upper limit, but 600px is OTT. FIXED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OTHER BODY PICTS
The same applies to the image in the lead, it's also too prominent. It also needs a caption. CAPTION PROVIDED AND SIZE REDUCED
Unless there's good justification for doing so, it's best to keep the images at their default size. Does the picture of Michelson's pneumatic animatron really need to be so large, for instance? SIZE NOW CONSISTENT WITH ALL OTHER BODY PICTS
Images in general should be inside the sections they relate to, not above the section headings. See [2]. SOME PICTS REMOVED TO BETTER ALIGN REMAINING PICTS WITH SECTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE REFERENCED
Text should not be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images, as it is in Third mission. FIXED
Citations are much better than when I commented before, but the Fourth mission section has only one, strangely positioned after one of the numbered bullet points. What is it meant to be supporting? That bullet point or everything that's gone before? SUPPORTS THE ENTIRE LIST OF BEHAVIORS - MOVED TO INTRO STATEMENT
I think that more needs to be said about what the rules are governing the types of vehicle that can be entered. That the computational equipment need not be carried on the aircraft itself is quite significant, for instance. EXPANDED TO DESCRIBE AERIAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Looking at a few of the citations, it seems that they do not support the material they appear to be in support of. Ref #11, in Venues, for instance, doesn't even mention the competition so far as I can see. The convention is that a citation supports all of the material preceding it. ORIGINAL Ref #11 SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF THE HAMMER VENUE SINCE THERE IS NO WIKIPEDIA LINK AND SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS VENUE.
Ref #14 is to a blog, which cannot be considered a reliable source. The link is in any event broken, which effectively means that the Prizes section is completely uncited. REPLACED WITH A SOLID CURRENT REFERENCE SOURCE IN PRINT
"The competition creator, Prof. Robert Michelson is past President of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)." This statement, from the opening of the Spin Offs section is supported by a link to the AUVSI's home page. Where on that page does it confirm that Michelson is a past president? NEW REF. WITH EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO PRESIDENCY OF AUVSI
Capitalisation like "fifth Mission" looks strange. If "Mission" is capitalised then "fourth" ought also to be capitalised. FIXED TO LOWER CASE THROUGHOUT

Firewall (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

This claim in the lead "Each of them involved fully autonomous robotic behavior that was undemonstrated at the time and impossible for any robotic system fielded anywhere in the world, even by the most sophisticated military robots belonging to the super powers" is counterintuitive enough to require a citation in the lead.

"All of these competitions, land, sea, and air, have at their core, "full autonomy" as a distinctive." As a distinctive what? "Distinctive" is an adjective.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This claim in the lead "Each of them involved fully autonomous robotic behavior that was undemonstrated at the time and impossible for any robotic system fielded anywhere in the world, even by the most sophisticated military robots belonging to the super powers" is counterintuitive enough to require a citation in the lead. PROVIDED MORE REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION AS WELL AS ONE ADDRESSING THIS PARTICULAR CLAIM

"All of these competitions, land, sea, and air, have at their core, "full autonomy" as a distinctive." As a distinctive what? "Distinctive" is an adjective. PROVIDED A WORD FOR THE ADJECTIVE TO MODIFY

Firewall (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of final points

Thanks for the work that's been done so far. I have just two outstanding issues before listing this as a GA:

The lead says "As of 2006 four missions had been proposed", yet the article discusses five missions. The lead needs to be updated.

There are two external links in the final Spin offs section. External links should only appear in the External links section, so these need to be converted to inline citations.

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "As of 2006 four missions had been proposed", yet the article discusses five missions. The lead needs to be updated. REWORDED TO INCLUDE REF TO LATEST MISSION

There are two external links in the final Spin offs section. External links should only appear in the External links section, so these need to be converted to inline citations. DONE

Firewall (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to include publisher information for those two new inline citations, but I'll not deny the GA listing just for that. Thanks for the work you've done on this article, which I'm now going to list as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See comments at transcluded page Talk:International Aerial Robotics Competition/GA1Firewall (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

International Aerial Robotics Competition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, much of which may be excessive detail; thus, the article does not meet GA criteria 2b) and 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) article has maintained GA status for over 14 years without any challenges to its GA status. Every section contains at least one, and often several citations that are relevant to the material in that section. The IARC is the world's longest running aerial robotics event, now entering its 10 Mission. Each mission is described and the results for each mission summarized without excessive detail-- just enough to describe the mission and how it was technically demonstrated by the winning team in accordance with GA criteria 2b) and 3b). Complete details for each mission are given at the Official IARC Website (which is referenced in the External links section) for those wishing to see full details. If there are instances where material is thought to be uncited, or detail believed to be excessive, these should be identified so they can be addressed, however the tenor, substance, and validation of statements contained therein, have been consistent for the past decade and a half that the International Aerial Robotics Competition GA status has been in effect. ⁃ Firewall 04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall, please reply without irrelevant information (such as "The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) article has maintained GA status for over 14 years without any challenges to its GA status") which has no relevance to this discussion.

"Every section contains at least one, and often several citations that are relevant to the material in that section." So? The point of a citation is not just to "be relevant to" material, but to directly verify it. Take the section headed "Third mission", which cites this source. Only around half a sentence of the section is verified by this source. This is even more true for paragraphs which completely lack citations, such as most of the "Seventh mission" section.

"Each mission is described and the results for each mission summarized without excessive detail". This is categorically untrue. Many of the missions are sourced entirely to primary, non-independent sources, meaning that they fail WP:DUE. Take for example the "Eighth mission" section, which only contains citations by the event's founder, a clearly non-independent source. The same goes for the "Fifth mission" section, which only contains a citation from the event's website.

Finally, I must remind you that as the founder of the event, you have a clear conflict of interest. You are expected to disclose it on your userpage and to follow the steps outlined at WP:COIEDIT when editing said articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article does not meet the GA criteria for the lack of VERIFIED citations, and more citations are required. When the article was first elevated to GA status by some admin, I (as the main author) was led to believe that it adequately met GA criteria-- and it has held that status, unchallenged, for 14 years. In bringing out that point, the longevity of its GA status further (albeit erroneously) confirmed the article's acceptability as a GA to me. In looking at the article I see that you have added "citation needed" tags, and I appreciate this. It is helpful. I suggest that we provide those citations, edit some of the wording where detail is deemed excessive (without losing clarity), and bring the article into GA conformance. All I can say is that the admin who guided me through the GA process on this article was misleading. To that point, I would like your help in getting the article to GA status. Regarding COI, there are other editors who have knowledge of the IARC and could provide the same input that I have, but as the founder of the event and one of the most knowledgeable concerning rules/results/references, I have taken the initiative to do the work on this article. I don't consider that a "conflict" insomuch as simply being the "point of contact" with the will to edit and the knowledge of where references can be found. I will do the work to bring this article up to GA standards with your help/review, but that will no doubt be seen as more COI. ⁃ Firewall 05:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall, the GA criteria have not remained constant; standards have got tighter over time, and this level of uncited-ness is no longer acceptable for an article marked with the GA icon. If, notwithstanding your COI, you wish to retain the GA status of this article, I would start by compiling a list of sources which meet the criteria of WP:RS, writing neutral, and fully-sourced revised sections, and asking for them to be implemented via edit requests. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have begun to find additional references. Since the International Aerial Robotics Competition has been operating for 33 years, some of the corroborating written reference material that was never on the internet (and therefore potentially archived by the WaybackMachine) such as magazine articles (especially international publications), TV news reports, and video science series, will be hard to find today. I'll do my best. ⁃ Firewall 22:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall, Wikipedia users of good standing have access to paywalled resources through the Wikipedia Library; you can also make requests at WP:RX, if you know the name of the source you are looking for. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.