Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Robot/1

Robot

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. There are no signs that the GA concerns raised will be addressed in the near future. Geometry guy 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Major problems of this article: And that's just after a cursory scan of the article. There is a general copyedit needed template at the top of the article as well. This is not a Good Article quality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * entire paras missing references
 * too long see also indicates the need of expansion
 * external links in main body
 * refs with nondated elinks


 * Rocketmagnet and I have been guiding the discussions in this article for a while, but both Rocket and I have been mostly reactive rather than proactive. Talk:Robot is a watering-hole, even sort of a wikiproject, and we didn't want to step on anyone's ideas.  But we've recently decided to start pushing robotics articles towards GAN and FAC.  I think we decided (at least I did) that Robot would logically be the last article to get a promotion, after we see which material can and should travel to other articles.  Still, I think we should be able to save the GA label for now.  I'll start by inviting a discussion on the talk page, I'll do some copyediting, and I'll move the history information to History of robots. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll just make some quick notes as I go. My edits are mostly a reflection of what I've seen at FAC.  FAC reviewers wouldn't like all the links, particularly when they're strung together, so I'm removing links that IMO the reader could do without. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from the history section, Robot seems to me to be 90% or 95% about robots in the public perception and imagination. I'm going to move some of the material that isn't focused on this theme to the talk page.  Obviously, anyone can move it back, or we could talk about how to organize the material into one of the other articles on robotics. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Back in a day or so; working on WT:UPDATES. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article has numerous problems. The prose often descends into chatty, non-encyclopedic banter. Here's an example:
 * Having a limb can make all the difference. Having eyes too gives people a sense that a machine is aware ("the eyes are the windows of the soul"). However, simply being anthropomorphic is not sufficient for something to be called a robot. A robot must do something, whether it is useful work or not. So, for example, a dog's rubber chew toy, shaped like ASIMO, would not be considered a robot.
 * In other spots the prose disintegrates into a tangle of rough-hewn embedded lists.
 * I'm also concerned with the article's focus and breadth. There's an embarrasing lack of material on the current state of industrial robotics. Unless the article's editors can address these issues quickly then we should move to delist. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you say that. As someone who subscribes to Industrial Robot Magazine (there are not many of us), I can tell you that the current state of industrial robots is well covered by the article. What in particular did you think the article missed in this area? Industrial robots haven't come very far since they were invented. They're basically like the car. It's gone about as far as it's going to. Changes are mostly superficial, and we're waiting for the next big thing (flying cars, cars that drive themselves). Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, bear in mind that there is a lot to cover in this article. Industrial robots make up only one sector of the field, and the article is already long. Industrial robots would be covered in depth in their own article. I imagine the Robot article as a kind of introductory hub to all the other articles. Rocketmagnet (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Majoreditor, I'll do the copyedit today. I'm not going to add information on the current state of industrial robotics, because the article is already over the limit given by WP:LENGTH, and because how robots work is not the focus of this article; the focus is robots in the public perception. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your efforts to improve the article. I'll give it another reading in a few days. Oh, one other point. I'm concerned with one of the statements in the lead: Despite the huge advances in technology of the last century, robots are still nowhere near as capable as the public imagination believes. Both mentally and physically, robots are still slow, dim-witted and clumsy. Does the article really reach those conclusions?
 * You're right, it doesn't. But wait ... don't remove it from the lead, let me add to the article so that it does reach those conclusions.  I think it's a critically important thing to say. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I deleted that, but I'll put the the second sentence back, with a small tweak, to the end of what I've got, and wait for supporting material in the text to see where we're going with that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Rocketmagnet is correct and I have been too extreme in my statements on industrial robotics. However, I still think there's room for improvement. For example, there's much emphasis on robots in automotiv emanufacturing, but scant mention of them for metal fabrication outside the automotive industry. I'd also suggest that more could be said about the production, sakles and marketing of robots. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, those kind of robots are used in various industries, and the article talks about robots working in factories in general, eg removing hot metal from die casting machines. I guess it could have a little more, but it would be a shame to make the article industry heavy. Rocketmagnet (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, kids are back in school. I can tell from the 8 vandal edits so far today.  I've got another couple hours of style updates to do; I can get to the copyediting in a few hours.  Thanks for the help, everyone. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rocket says it's okay with him for me to convert to American English, and I don't believe we have other British editors involved with this article. It's clear that material is going to need to move around among the various robotics articles, and all the others (that I'm aware of) are in American English, so this will reduce the chances of screwing up. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm finished with the lead for the moment; I tried to at least mention all the areas covered in the article (except for the more speculative robots). Most leads are slightly WEASELy because they try to cover things in a general way that will be dealt with specifically in the article; I think I may have gone overboard and bought the whole weasel.  If you think there are way too many "some do this" and "some think that" lines, tell me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the first three (short) sections section on characteristics and definitions to whoever wants to make suggestions. I've made some suggestions in the past on those that didn't get anywhere.  I'm not sure what the reviewers want, or what the other article editors want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. It's now one section with 2 subheadings. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Franamax and I would like to move the specifics from the robot competition stuff to Robot competition. I like avoiding duplication between articles, I'm ready to put some work into that article, and that's one of the sections that tends to draw troublesome edits. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got tied up, I'm back. Rocket, I'm working on doing enough copyediting to remove the maintenance tag ... not just for this review, but for Wikipedia 0.7, too; we're days away from the deadline.  I did what I could in the first 3 subsections section, but more needs to be done.  Read the lead section of WP:WEASEL for why it's not okay (in WP, anyway) to say "laymen would say X", unless you're talking about a specific set of layman whose opinions were recorded in a reliable source.  Also, is "service robot" a synonym for "domestic robot"?  It's not defined.  Also, I couldn't find in any of our sources the statement that something is more likely to be considered a robot if it has an arm and/or eyes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of a separate definition of "robot" used in Japan for copyediting purposes; it can go back in when we get a source. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I welcome feedback on the short history section. It's kind of damned-if-you-do: I think it reads like a recital of a few dry facts at the moment, but if I try to breathe life into it and give context and more interesting examples, then it would be way too long for this page; that belongs at History of robots.  If I remove what we've got now, it will feel like important stuff is missing.  Feel free to tinker with it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I'll finish today. I've removed some paragraphs from the article that might deserve articles of their own on Eastern and Western views of robotics and nanorobotics. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, finally. Theoretically, I should read through the whole thing one more time, but if I do, I'll go insane.  All these months, I thought I was making the right decision to keep my hands off and let the contributors slug it out, but now that I see what a mess it was, I really should have gotten to work earlier.  I've addressed all of Piotr's concerns, I think.  Peer-review style comments would be very, very welcome; now that I've done this much work, I'm headed to WP:PR after this.
 * P.S. See the first ref in Robot and the first ref after the lead section for a long list of off-the-cuff remarks from a variety of people, some experts and some just workers in the field, on their impressions of which machines are called "robots" and which aren't. Those two refs are the closest thing we have to avoiding WP:WEASEL (which some of us are rewriting, btw).  Rocketmagnet feels strongly, and I completely agree, that we don't want to gut the whole first section just because we're not aware of a large, careful, scientific study that pins down the popular conception of "robot".  Rocketmagnet, and many of the authors and subjects of the refs, have been working in the field for a long time and have a pretty good idea.  If you take the time to read all the refs, I think you'll see that we're entitled to say something in the first section about what constitutes a robot.  I'm open to deleting anything that you guys feel isn't justified by the refs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dank has done a lot of very good work improving the article, but I think its problems run somewhat deeper. This can be easily seen by perusing the 62 references. There one finds many websites of news agencies, magazines, corporations, and institutions, online dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other internet miscellanea, but only 2 journal articles, and 6 cites to books. Only two of the latter are books on robotics, specializing in Japanese and Westinghouse robots respectively. There's a general book on robotics in the further reading, but it isn't cited.
 * In the light of this, it seems to me that large chunks of the article are simply not reliably sourced. The whole listy first section on definitions makes many assertions about what may or may not be considered a robot, but apart from the "official defintions" subsection, it is sourced to a CBC News survey, a NASA programme, a record company, a gadget review site, a robots exhibition, "How stuff works", a dictionary and an encyclopedia (tertiary). Where are the RSS's?
 * In the history section, assertions about Al-Jazari and Leonardo da Vinci are unsourced, including "The design was probably based on anatomical research recorded in his Vitruvian Man." According to whom?
 * The section on "Increased productivity, accuracy, and endurance", which advocates the benefits of robots, is dominated by primary sources to the companies which make the products described. One click to the footnote, and another to the source, and the reader is greeted with "Electronic manufacturing solutions. Your path to the future just got clearer" or "TUG can do this. TUG can do that". The manufacturers must be loving this article! The section on swarm robots is just as bad.
 * "Dangers and fears". Whose analysis is this? Two facts are sourced, as is the "uncanny valley" and concerns about the use of robots in warfare. The rest of the section isn't. "Literature": "The first reference in Western literature to mechanical servants appears in Homer's Iliad." Sourced to an interview by a college journal with a playright?
 * "The most prolific and best known author of short stories about robots was Isaac Asimov (1920–1992), who placed robots and their interaction with society at the center of many of his works." According to whom? Geometry guy 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! After your warning on your talk page (WP:V you say? What's that?), I thought we were going to have a fight.  I completely agree.  I will attempt to pawn as much of the work off as I can (not that I've had any luck at Robot).  The Asimov, Al-Jazari and da Vinci sources are in those articles (hopefully someone will go get them); I don't like the automated guided vehicle (AGV) section myself; I would prefer to have more online books as sources; and I struggled to find a better source for the Homer quote and got nothing (but I don't want to yank it until I know we can't source it).  I thought we were going to have a more fundamental argument.  Robot has had over 1000 unique registered editors.  This is not an article where I get to read a few books and write what I want.  Rocket and I have watched this article for a very long time, and we know that it reflects a lot of community standards.  This is where you guys come in: if you want to say "no", say "no", and then I'll pull the source, unless there's some previous battle over that, in which case I'll try to determine consensus. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the first section: that's Rocketmagnet's baby, so get ready for a fight. The people who best know the answer to the question are academics. All 4 of the academics quoted in the CBC source are world-class experts, and they know what they're talking about.  I think what you're saying is that you want a paper from each of these guys, rather than 1 interview that quotes all 4 of them: sounds reasonable.  Anyone want to poke around? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Franamax worked up this table to replace one of the lists; which format do you guys prefer?

- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we have prose, based on reliable sources? Geometry guy 21:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. It seems to me that the problems with this article are not going to be fixed on a GAR timescale. I therefore recommend delisting it for now and encourage editors to rework the article to make better use of reliable sources before renominating it. Geometry guy 12:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to help, but I've already spent a lot of time on the article, more than I should given the 0.7 deadline. I'll come back to it after Oct 20. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)