Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three laws of robotics

Three Laws of Robotics
Partial self-nomination; I've done a fair amount of work on this article, but much of it was several months ago and has since been worked over by many other people. I believe it is now fairly comprehensive, including references to the most germane reference material elsewhere. Besides, if we're really "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built", we might as well live up to the reputation, no? Anville 18:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) plattopustalk 18:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't read the whole article in-depth, but on first glance it could use a copyedit (for example, "Robots were created and destroyed their creator" - shouldn't that be "by their creator"? It's in a quote, so if it was in the actual book, (sic) should be used.) [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px]]
 * The phrase in question is a direct quote from The Rest of the Robots (as it turns out, Gunn quotes it in his article, too). Inserting "by" into the sentence would corrupt the meaning:  the essence of the "Frankenstein complex" is that creating any sort of artificial intelligence is an act of hubris&mdash;tampering in God's domain, as the old sci-fi flicks would say.  The act of creation dooms the creator.  Anville 23:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Robots were created and destroyed their creator" means that the creator makes the robots, and the robots inevitably destroy their creator. To insert "by" would change the meaning.-gadfium 08:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the quote is clearer if you imagine a pause between the words "created" and "and". --Arcadian 14:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. The lead is way too short, it should at least establish the notability of the "Three Laws" (that they later referenced by/inspired other authors). When and in which of his works did Asimov introduce them should be included in the lead. I also see a lot of unsourced/dubious/extremely broad statements (... "the majority of "artificial intelligences" in fiction followed the Frankenstein pattern"). These should be referenced using footnotes. The article should also be POV-checked ("Later events make Asimov's negative reaction both understandable and illuminating.") Certainly there are people who think Pollock's cut of Metropolis is good? Reading the article, it seems like it's self-evident that the original cut was better. Finally, the article needs copyediting and rewriting in some places; there are some confusing sentences ("He once wondered how he could create so many stories in the sixty-one words that made up these Laws.") and the frontier between Asimov's fiction and reality is not always made clear ("Several NS-2 robots (Nestor robots) were created with only part of the First Law. It read: 1. A robot may not harm a human being. " - Which book do the NS-2 appear in? or "Twice in his fiction-writing career, Asimov portrayed robots which disregard the Three-Law value system entirely, unlike Daneel and Giskard" - Are Daneel and Giskard authors or ficitional characters?, or even "Asimov stated that they were an inalienable part of the mathematical foundation underlying the positronic brain, and that it would therefore be very difficult to create intelligent robots without these laws." - Science fiction or AI research?). Otherwise, the article is not bad: the author(s) are obviously knowledgeable. Nice research work. Just needs some polishing and better referencing. Phils 18:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the page again; sorry for not doing so earlier. The article is great now. Support, under condition that Piotrus' comments below are addressed. Phils 14:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Minor object: split references and external links section. Also, add some picture, preferably a screenshot from I, Robot. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've split the references section (good idea, thanks!), and I found a reasonably appropriate fair use picture for the introduction. Anville 17:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, good stuff. A fine example of sci-fi cruft. Everyking 18:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)