User talk:Benjamindkilleen/sandbox

Provided below are some peer edits. I hope they are helpful.

INTRODUCTION:
 * This feels list heavy for an introduction: “It won the ACM North American Computer Chess Championships of 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1986, and was the first to do so with specialized chess hardware. Belle also won the 1980 World Computer Chess Championship.” Could you possibly add a section about awards/accolades/competitions in table format?
 * Good coverage in span of use in introduction.

ORIGINS:
 * Again, the last few sentences of origins pertain to competition. Is there a way to take that information and condense it in its own section?

DESIGN:
 * The format of the Design section is really nice.
 * Overall, a really great and comprehensive section.

CAREER:
 * Here you mention the Computer Chess Competitions. Is there a reason the information mentioned here is scattered throughout the rest of the page?
 * “Thompson learned that the reason for confiscation was the attached HP 2640 terminal which had internal VLSI memory and a microprocessor.” Can you add anymore information to this statement?

OVERALL:

Really great page. The way you discuss the topic is straightforward and comprehensive. The citations and links to relevant articles are appropriate. Things to improve could potentially include considering the organization of some pieces of information, but overall, very well done. Cmedvid (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's some more feedback: INTRODUCTION: Good break-up of the introduction with experience, make, and legacy of the chess machine

ORIGINS: The middle section of the introduction seems to be more appropriate for the origins section. Too much about competition

DESIGN: Very organized way of describing how the machine works and through multiple generations.

CAREER: This section can really focus on Belle in competition, maybe that can all be centralized here. The confiscation sub-section is an interesting fact, but not sure if is part of its "CAREER".

Vastly improved from the original Wikipedia article and an interesting read.

-David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidxyz (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Alec's Peer Review

Introduction: I'd recommend replacing "but legged locomotion also leads to increased complexity and power consumption," with something along the lines of "though this versatility tends to make legged robots be more complex and consume more power than their wheeled counterparts." This feels like a comma-splice as is.

Types: I would put the last sentence into the first sentence and say that robots can be categorized by the number of limbs they possess because this determines the gaits usable by the robot. This would then explain why multi-legged robots tend to be more stable while fewer-legged robots are less stable, as those traits are functions of the robots' gaits.

One-Legged: I'd suggest replacing "In the 1980s, Carnegie Mellon University developed a one-legged robot to study balance. Berkeley's SALTO is another example." with something along the lines of "Carnegie Mellon University developed a one-legged robot in the 1980s (or a specific date, if you have one!) in order to study robotic balancing mechanisms. (If that's what they were doing, anyways; in any case, just saying they studied "balance" seems too vague.) A similar project, SALTO, was developed by the University of California Berkeley to the same effect"

Two-Legged: fixed small grammatical issues; see revision history

Four-Legged: Something's off with the caption under big dog (what does "Bio-inspired Big Dog quadruped robot" mean?) but otherwise this section is fine.

Six-Legged: Everything is good here except for the first line. "Six-legged robots, or hexapods, are motivated by a desire for even greater stability than bipedal or quadrupedal robots" makes it sound like the robots are sentient and are self-motivated. If you're wanting to say that people are motivated to make these robots because they are exceptionally stable walkers, then say that more explicitly.

Eight-Legged: This is fine, though "They offer by far the greatest stability" is a bit of a strange claim; I'd recommend that you replace with something along the lines of "eight-legged robots are much more stable than two, four, or 6-legged robots," as I would imagine that a 10-legged robot (though largely impractical) would indeed be more stable than an 8-legged robot.

Hybrids: This seems okay, though I would imagine that there could be some significant downsides to this mode of locomotion; have any of your sources mentioned this?

Overall: This article's fine, if a little light on conceptual sources. I know you likely don't have much time, but I think it would be pretty cool to see the little section under "two-legged" about the approximation of wheeled motion with legged motion expanded upon and made into its own heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecWild (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Stein's Peer Review "Many-legged robots tend to be more stable, while *having* fewer legs lends itself to greater maneuverability" <- grammar For one-legged robots, maybe expand a bit on the use cases for this type. If you have time, it might be good to go a bit deeper into the uses for each type of robot rather than just describing their respective gaits / designs and giving examples of each. Overall, this is a really good article. It's very clear, and the style looks very nice with the bullet point lists. Jacob.stein (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)