Template:Did you know nominations/CISBOT
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
CISBOT
[edit]- ... that the robot CISBOT once found a baseball under New York City? Source: "On another run, a Cisbot found a baseball." ([1])
Created by MB (talk). Self-nominated at 23:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC).
Article needs general wikifying and copyediting: in particular, the article needs to be split into at least two sections. The part about jute should probably be in the article body as opposed to being in the first paragraph. The external link mention needs to be modified per WP:MOS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I don't see what is wrong with the External link (unless you meant it should be a bullet list - which I just did and you could have done yourself). I don't agree that the article should be split - it is too short to have a summarizing lead section (adding one would repeat information the reader would find on the same screen). Neither of these concerns are part of DYK review either. MB 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MB: I meant "CISBOT in operation (youtube video)" might need to be rephrased somehow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- That seems to briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article to me. Do you have any DYK issues? MB 15:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- At the very least, "youtube" should be "YouTube". How about "YouTube demonstration of CISBOT"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- I fixed the capitalization in "YouTube". It don't know that the video is a "demonstration"; some shots appear to be taken in a test environment while other appear to be from the onboard cameras and may be from inside a pipeline under some city street. Saying "CISBOT in operation" is vague enough to be accurate. Again, this is a minor item that should be part of the normal editing process in the article and/or its talk page. Are there any DYK issues? MB 02:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- At the very least, "youtube" should be "YouTube". How about "YouTube demonstration of CISBOT"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- That seems to briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article to me. Do you have any DYK issues? MB 15:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MB: I meant "CISBOT in operation (youtube video)" might need to be rephrased somehow. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Many cast-iron pipes installed over a century ago have joints of jute sealed with lead which deteriorate over time and are often the causes of cast-iron pipe failure. Jute was an effective joint sealant when the pipes carried coal-based town gas, but natural gas, used since the 1950s in New York[2] and the 1970s in the UK, drys out the jute.
@MB: Considering the article is about CISBOT and not jute, these sentences should probably be moved elsewhere or rephrased, as it seems to give undue weight to jute. Also, most articles of the article's length that I have encountered do have sectioning, so while it's not exactly mandatory, it is encouraged. The lede doesn't have to be too long: in fact, merely separating the first sentence from the rest of the first paragraph should work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The entire purpose of this machine (CISBOT) is to repair jute sealed joints in pipelines. There are two sentences about jute which help explain why the machine was created. I don't agree this is undue. If other editors disagree with me, they are certainly able to edit the article and/or discuss on the article talk page. In the meantime, are you going to move forward with the DYK review? MB 03:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I will. Here are some preliminary checks: QPQ provided, newly created, meets length requirements, adequately sourced, free of plagiarism. I could approve this now, but I'll have to ask first for second opinions over at WT:DYK first regarding the content and possible sectioning. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Second opinions requested regarding the issues raised above, since no response was made at WT:DYK and the request has since been archived. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe this article meets the DYK criteria with regard to length, newness, hook sourcing and interest, neutrality and policy. The points above on having a lead and subdividing the article into sections are not DYK requirements, and I do not believe jute is too heavily featured. What a useful bot! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
