Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Razer (robot)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 25 December 2010.

Razer (robot)

 * Nominator(s): The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after the previous FA and the fixtures made as a result of that, I think that the page may have a chance of passing this time. As my rationale was last time, I think it's a well written and informative article. As the majority contributor CountdownCrispy was unavaliable at the time of the nom, I have consulted with SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria and they've consented me to be WP:BOLD and nominate it The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. One external redirect, which I fixed. -- Pres N  20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The free images are OTRS'd, so that's fine, but I'm not really convinced about the use of any of the non-free images. The toy looks pretty much like the robot (obviously) and, if it's being kept, it would need to be reduced significantly. I don't see why we need an image of it attacking Mathilda; just because it's an event worth discussing, does not mean that a non-free image is needed. The image of it in series two could be justified, but I'm not convinced that it looks different enough- in any case, if you're in contact with one of the robot's makers, could you not just request a free image of it from that period? J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask CountdownCrispy about the photo issue, I'm not sure but I think the problem with the series 2 version photo was that there were no free photo's taken as back then it was just a debut robot who went out in the semi-final of it's heat as well as there are none of it in it's series 2 form on the Razer website. As for the series 2 photo itself I think does look different as it lacks the self righting "wings" as well as the fact it has less holes in the arm and that there's no Razer logo on the side and finally the back claw is a different shape to the later version. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it doesn't look different, I'm saying the differences do not warrant the use of a non-free image. I don't think any of the non-free images in this article are required. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, in my opinion it is best used to show the starting base of Razer and sets the scene for the future developments. But as for the removals, you'd best ask CountdownCrispy about the cutting down of the toy picture as he's the one who took and uploaded the photo and my computer lacks the correct programmes to do that. The rationale I have for keeping the Matilda is that it's showing the first time (and I believe, only time) a competitor robot caused that much damage on a Robot Wars house robot so it's a unique photo that can also show what damage Razer can do as well as how the weapon works. But If you still don't agree, I'll remove the matilda photo. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Mathilda photo should definitely go. You're arguing as to why the event's important- I'm not denying that the event should be talked about, I'm saying a non-free image is not needed. Again with the toy- ok, a toy exists, and the toy (unsurprisingly) looks like the real deal. I don't know why we need a non-free image for that. You say, concerning the first image, "it is best used to show the starting base of Razer and sets the scene for the future developments"- OK, but is that completely necessary? Non-free content should be used as a last resort, when it is absolutely necessary in terms of understanding the article. I'm not convinced that is. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the toy and Matilda images from the article, but am leaving the Series 2 screengrab for now. The reason is simply that no free image exists or can be created to show Razer in this state. Remember that the original iteration of the machine was completed late the night before the recording back in 1997 when digital photography had not taken off. -- Countdown Crispy 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (You took the word's out of my mouth, CountdownCrispy!) I think you can call it nessecary if you bear in mind that that was made in 1998 and back then there were no camera phones or small cameras and I doubt that the BBC and the roboteers back then would be very happy with someone taking photos of the robots so that line of free imagary is closed off. Also the team added the wings before entering the Battlebots competition so you can't get a free image of it in that form from a States based photographer. And finally as I said before, the team have no photos of it in that form on the website, which they admit so I feel that it could be nessecary as it has no free alternative. I do have the feeling that it is nessecary as it gives people the ability to see where the changes were added. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, there's a fairly major misunderstanding here. An image being irreplaceable does not make it necessary- to be necessary it has to add to the article in such a way that without it, the article would be severely lacking. Not necessarily related to the replaceability of the image at all. Please take a look at our non-free content criteria. I am not (now the reasons have been explained to me) arguing that this image is replaceable- I'm merely suggesting it may not be necessary (NFCC1 versus NFCC8). However, I accept that the other two images were more problematic, and I'm glad they've been removed. I still don't think the first should be there, but I'm not going to fight about it. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I can see your point. You're saying that although the original version of the machine is interesting, it is sufficiently comparable to the (freely licensed) later iterations that it's not strictly necessary to include the image? I'll retain the image for now but can absolutely understand what you're saying. Thanks for explaining it to me. -- Countdown Crispy 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, effectively. The question is, what is the image adding to the article, and is that addition so strongly needed that a non-free image is justified? Remember that there's no kind of "entitlement" for non-free content, so thinking "oh well, it's only one" doesn't really get around it, especially when we already have free depictions of the same subject. As I say, I'm not going to fight about it, but it's something to consider. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * BattleBots[3], ref after comma-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Driveby comment: Why are some robots' names (inconsistently) italicised? I can't see why you would italicise robot names at all, let alone why you'd do it so inconsistently. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That I can explain. We discussed it on the talkpage that any new robots mentioned would be italicied and thereafter be done in normal text. It was Ged UK and CC who came up with that, you'd have to ask him. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Why? There's nothing about that in the MOS. It's just confusing. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From memory, it was a suggestion raised at peer review to improve readability. (That's the reviewer's sentiment, and not necessarily mine!) -- Countdown Crispy 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it should go. I really can't see how it's helpful- it's just confusing. There's nothing like that in the MoS. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry, I've taken a look into the sourcing, and I'm barely convinced the subject is notable, let alone sourced with the kind of rigour you'd expect from a featured article. The use of italics in inappropriate places in the sourcing (no doubt due to that ridiculous "work" parametre) also really detracts.
 * Why is "Robots Rule" reliable?
 * Flickr?
 * http://members.toast.net/joerger/rules/RW3_rules.html ?
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20030728201455/www.tectonic.force9.co.uk/S2S4.htm ?
 * killerhurtz.co.uk?
 * Mutant Robots?
 * A YouTube video?
 * Other than this kind of thing, the sources all seem to be by the makers the robot, or sourced to Robot Wars episodes. There are a few reasonable sources (local papers and stuff) and one (primary) book, but none of these are explicitly about the subject anyways. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well allow me to try and explain the explainations of the sources. Robot's Rule is there as only to show rthe list of the RW title winners which shows Razer's as it is a fellow roboteers website what reason would they have to make it up? Flickr is only for the photos within not source content. the memberstoast thing is a copy of the Robot Wars offical rules for series 3 and is simply a direct copy of the thing all roboteers had at the time. Killerhurtz and Mutant Robots are also fellow roboteers and show Razer took part in Battlebots it would be reliable as again, what reason would they have to lie about Razer participating in Battlebots? That youtube video is showing the Razer toy and what it came with. under WP:ELNEVER it is not violating Mentorn or BBC etc. copyright by being a direct copy from any broadcast as it's from an individual who willingly made and posted that for free use. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A source is not considered reliable if we merely can't see "why they'd make it up". Being a "fellow roboteer" does not suddenly make what they say on their personal website reliable. Flickr is cited- are you citing the photo? The YouTube video is not reliable- what's to stop me posting a YouTube video and saying the opposite? (If Battlebots is the website for the competition you are talking about, then that's not so bad, but, again, it shows the almost complete reliance on primary sources, which is not a good thing.) J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, The Battlebots thing I can sort out as i've been able to find the archive of the Battlebots website which mentions Razer as the Rumble winner and so therefore proves its competing in the programme right here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Criterion 1c. According to the linked FA criteria, featured articles should have "high-quality reliable sources" to verify content. I can't say this article does that at the moment. It's fine to use a few primary sources for non-controversial content, but to base a large portion of content on them is a problem. Flickr isn't considered a reliable source, and YouTube generally isn't either (maybe it is if the video is from an official provider, but it's not something you want to make a habit of sourcing). Personal websites are also rarely reliable. I agree with J Milburn that better sourcing is needed for this to be a viable candidate.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 17:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Without wishing to pile on, sourcing is a big issue with this, and I think you'll find it hard to source a lot of the article reliably without stripping back the article. Primary sourcing of information is bad not only due to reliability issues, but also because it suggests the information is not really notable. Trebor (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed- I think there's too much to work on here for it to be solved quickly- might I tentatively suggest that this is withdrawn? J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


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