Talk:Air-Cobot/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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.
 * ✅--Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 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&mdash;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.
 * ✅ --Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * ✅ --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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.
 * ✅--Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.