Wikipedia:Peer review/Animatronics/archive1

Animatronics
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently the focus of major editing by Today%27s_articles_for_improvement and I believe it may be ready to be nominated as a good article.

Thanks, David Condrey (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points off the top:


 * Animatronics is the use of mechatronics to create machines which simulate animate life with lifelike characteristics[1

I'm not a fan of using one strange term to define another. I believe this could be simplified by removing "mechatronics", and introducing that elsewhere, likely here...


 * Animatronic figures are often powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means

Like... "Animatronic figures are mechatronic; powered by pneumatics, hydraulics, or by electrical means"


 * rather than artificial robotic.

Every animatronic device I've ever seen has dramatically unnatural movements. Is this really part of the definition? I ask, because neither of the linked cites make this claim.


 * Automated life in lifelike form is Animatronic. Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. The Slavic word robota (forced labour) was coined to describe the man-made workers central to Czech playwright Karel Čapek's 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots).[6] While robots, coined by Josef Čapek Karel's brother,[6] are used in industrial activity, "androids" (or female "gynoids") and animatronics play, entertain, teach, and amaze. With modern day labels for each, animatronic is typically reserved for non-humanoid lifelike characters; though humanoid characters can be considered animatronics, they can be labeled more precisely as robots or androids dependent on their function. All of these terms are a subset of the more general term “automaton”, coming from the Greek meaning “self-mover”.[7]

This doesn't really demonstrate the etymology of the term at all, it defines several similar terms but not this one.

I was under the impression that the term combined animated and mechatronic, while the wikionary defines it as animation and electronics.

That's a good start for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Query: What depth should I go here? GA quality, or right to FA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Maury, thanks for your feedback. I'll address the issues you pointed out later this week (probably this weekend) and post again, afterwards.  I think it would be reasonable to consider FA.. what do you suggest? David Condrey (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally, just be aware that I'll be extra picky as a result, and that it will take a while also. But no reason not to, it's a perfect article for FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and don't forget to ping me if I don't respond. I have about 20000 pages on my watch list (really) so it's easy to miss things... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have rewritten and simplified the definition. Etymology is going to take me a bit more time to figure out.  Currently it's written more towards explaining how animatronic is different than robot.  But I will be looking for better sources and elaborating more on the animatronic term itself.  Please let me know what else you've got..  thanks!  Let me know what you think of the new definition. :) David Condrey (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, WP:FACR 3. calls for non-free images to be marked in their description pages (here on WP; non-free images aren't allowed on Commons) as being used in this article and a rational to be give for their use. The images here are File:Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.jpg and File:StanWinstonTRex.jpg. I'm confident the T-Rex one will pass as there is a verbal description of its size and lifelike nature that really needs that image to be comprehensible. The Lincoln one is a bit trickier.Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln has an article of its own, and Animatronics only says that this android was built and toured and its "[b]ody language and facial motions were matched to perfection with the recorded speech" - something which the image can't even illustrate since it's not animated (therefore can't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCCP 8: Context) ). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I replaced the images in question with similar images of similar quality if not potentially better quality since the originally used images were debatable.
 * Regarding the etymology of the word; I made some edits to the text recommended by and separated the text to make it more clear but I think that the statement The word animatronic is a subset of the more general term automaton, coming from the Greek meaning self-mover is adequate.  Please let me know if you have any further thoughts on it.  I just haven't been able to find anything better yet. At this point I believe all of the comments you've mentioned have been addressed and I'm going to move on to 's comments.  If you have anything further please let me know.  Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts: Sigeng (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Early modern animatronics were often referred to as robots because the word animatronic was not yet popularized. I think we're trying to say that "robot" was once a generic word that became specialized over time. People didn't use the word "animatronic" because it wasn't popularized, they didn't use it because there wasn't a need to be that specific.
 * 2) Early implementations: Clocks: consider adding an introductory sentence to the effect of "While functional, early clocks were also designed as novelties and spectacles." - To make it clear that we're not picking up clocks as being mechanical automatons, but the "amusement factor" of them.
 * 3) The construction begins by building the structure, by using internal structures that are often made of steel. Awkward wording especially repetition of "struct". Maybe: An animatronics character is built around an internal supporting frame, usually made of steel.
 * 4) Disney has an entire research team.... Omit "entire" or maybe find out a little more about the team to demonstrate its importance.
 * 5) Design section
 * 6) Put analogous comparisons in quotes, e.g. "bones", "muscles", not bones as they are not literal bones.
 * 7) While there are similarities to robotics engineering and biological systems, I wonder if the comparison is necessary. It may invite a nontechnical reader to carry the analogy too far, and also seems to suggest that these are the only designs. Animatronics with a very limited range of motion could be made out of styrofoam blocks with actuators rather than a skeleton frame, for example.
 * 8) I think the Design section would benefit from a diagram or animation that shows an animatronic skeleton/frame, some equipment on the inside, and flexible material on the outside, showing how the mechanical motion of the frame is made to appear lifelike through the flexible covering material.
 * 9) Caption for the image in this section should be updated to describe the animatronic as incomplete, or a demonstration of internals.
 * 10) I suggest finding a review from a prominent film critic rather than Rotten Tomatoes. (I checked Ebert, but he pans the overexposure of the dinosaurs, so you'll need someone else.)
 * 11) Rather than Students achieving a bachelors in robotics.... I don't know of bachelors in robotics as a degree; probably would be bachelor in robotics engineering or just mechanical engineering. Consider "Engineering courses relating to animatronics include:" A citation would be helpful here too. Also "foundational theory of robotics", "robotics engineering", "introduction to robotics" are fairly redundant.


 * thank you for the very thorough feedback. I've already implemented several of the points you layed out.. namely points 1 through 5.  #6 regarding the usage of analogues I'm not sure of but I do think that the overall design section needs some work and think that this will likely come about in the improvement of the section as a whole.
 * I do very much agree that the section is in dire need of illustration but have been unable to find any adequate images currently on Wikimedia or on the internet. Though I did find numerous images I would like to use which are owned by a specialist in the industry.  I actually just finished composing an email to him requesting permission to use his images. I've never emailed anyone before to ask if I could use their images.. hopefully I did ok. :)


 * If he authorizes permission I will add some of the images from his gallery to the section as well as any other details if he would like to offer any additions to the article as an expert in the field.
 * The rest of the points you've mentioned I'll address later. If you have anything further please let me know and thanks again for the very thorough and great feedback.

Pending closing
I'd like to ask if anyone else would like to provide feedback on this article before I close the review process. Unless anyone else has any feedback regarding this article I will be closing the peer review once I've finished addressing the points which have been mentioned thus far. Thank you very much. David Condrey (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually just got into a rather severe motorcycle accident yesterday and only have the use of 1 arm at the moment so whereas I had planned to get this finished up this week, I may have to postpone for a couple weeks while my arm heals. Just wanrted to let it be known so you don't think I've disappeared.  Its just difficult to do anything efficiently when typing 1 handed. I'll be back! David Condrey (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Geez, feel better! I intended to get back here sooner but got caught up in my own FA (are you SURE you want to go to FA?!) and only returned here now. I'll do some more reading/tweakjng this week.

Ok, I've done a bit of re-arrangement in the LEDE to gather related items together. I'd like one more paragraph there - after long experience I find that 3 or 4 paras is almost always the right number. But for now I'd like to concentrate on this:


 * Animatronics is the use of electronics and robotics in the creation of puppets which simulate life.[1] Animatronic creations include animals (including dinosaurs), plants and even mythical creatures.

I'm not sure what, if anything is bothering me about this. But I was thinking...


 * Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life.

What say you all? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My major qualm with this is the lack of substantial reference with regard to any straight forward laymans definition of the term. All seemingly suitable references I'm able to find end up contradicting each other.  My best would be something like "Animatronics is a branch of robotics that involves the creation of puppets which simulate life, though the specific boundaries as to what makes a robot classifiable as animatronic is disputed."


 * I hate to leave it up in the air but leaning in any one direction I think opens up a big door for conflict. I still feel confident I can get this to FA.  What do you think? (ps: please ping me whenever we chat so I see your msg) David Condrey   log talk  09:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)