Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Devlin
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kate Devlin
[edit]
Dr. Kate Devlin
- ... that Kate Devlin (pictured) is a computer scientist working in the field of sex robots and human-computer interaction? Source: "She works in the fields of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), investigating how people interact with and react to technology, to understand how emerging and future technologies will affect us and the society in which we live. She is currently focusing on cognition, sex, gender and sexuality and how these might be incorporated into cognitive systems such as sexual companion robots." [1] "In her opening keynote speech, co-organiser Kate Devlin, senior lecturer in computing at Goldsmiths, noted that “sex tech” now represents “a $30 billion [£24 billion] global market”...Dr Devlin wanted to get away from the image of sex robots created essentially for men’s pleasure and asked: “Why do we gender robots at all?”"[2]
- Reviewed: Warkworth's chronicle
- Comment: I'd like to feature women scientists on dyk as part of the 'Wiki women in red' initiative
Created by Mramoeba (talk). Self-nominated at 09:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC).
The article is new enough, long enough, and neutral with no copyright violations. The image is free use and the hook is directly cited. However, the QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Warkworth's Chronicle appears to be Gerda Arendt's review. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concise review. The Warkworth's chronicle ended up being reviewed by both of us, Gerda had suggested an ALT hook and there was a time gap so I assumed a full review was outstanding at that point, so I did one (trying to clear the backlog a bit). I think I said there that I didn't want to step on anyone's toes so if my review there doesn't qualify I can happily do another one. Mramoeba (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think a new one would be best. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please be sure to also cite the Amorist magazine sentence. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Second review now done: Template:Did you know nominations/Mithuben Petit Mramoeba (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- That 'Amorist' one wasn't my edit :) Random IP address added it without a citation, i've politely removed it for the mean time and will have a look myself when I get a moment to see if it should go back in, thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concise review. The Warkworth's chronicle ended up being reviewed by both of us, Gerda had suggested an ALT hook and there was a time gap so I assumed a full review was outstanding at that point, so I did one (trying to clear the backlog a bit). I think I said there that I didn't want to step on anyone's toes so if my review there doesn't qualify I can happily do another one. Mramoeba (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
