Wikipedia:Featured article review/Three Laws of Robotics/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009 [1].

Three Laws of Robotics

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Three Laws of Robotics

Featured article review/Three Laws of Robotics/archive1

Notified:

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is poorly sourced and contains OR. _R_ (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notify the wikiprojects and author if they are still around? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 20:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified everyone who notified me of the original FAC - which is only fair, I think. _R_ (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:I Robot - Runaround.jpg: I agree that there is no profit-loss to the makers of this image by having it here, and images are abit thin, so I think it's OK. Perhaps we could also argue that it depicts a robot taking care of a human to boost the relevance argument of the rationale?
Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, original research. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Could the nominator give some examples of OR to inform other readers? Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the nominator never indicated if significant contributors and Projects were notified: I hope someone will check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh he didn't. I should have checked. His answer was as cryptic way of saying that nobody advertised the FAC to him so he didn't have to do anything. Let's see. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPs notified. Nom and main author hasn't edited for 18 months. Nobody else with 12 or more edits YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at the Isaac Asimov talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, unsourced bits, odd structure, overquoting. Missing: A subsection on secondary source commentary and critique, the article is mostly descriptive, with no secondary source analysis presented, and I am sure the topic has seen an extensive treatment of this. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. There is quite a bit of unsourced text that needs sourcing, including quotes and statements of what various people thought or felt. This is the main problem that needs to be fixed, and no work has been done on this since the FAR began. Other, more minor, issues include the lack of alt text, a lead that needs to be expanded, the (I think) improper use of curly quotes and improperly formatted refs (foreign language refs not specifying the language, book refs lacking page numbers). Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that notifications were delayed, I think additional time is appropriate; this should not be delisted till it's clear work is not proceeding. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, and as soon as possible : this article is a shame for Wikipedia. Freewol (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.