Talk:Air-Cobot/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Some of the prose is awkwardly phrased; it would benefit from a copy-edit. An example is "This should allow for example to assess the propogation of a crack." This is a comma splice: "These are obstacle detection bumpers, they stop the platform if they are compressed." The copy-edit should be done after all the content issues are resolved.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The section "Communications" contains mainly extraneous material and lists. Optimally, the noted papers would be references; it is not necessary to list every single exhibition and presentation related to this technology. Further, the section is merely a translation of content at https://aircobot.akka.eu/?q=page/communications.

Y--Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
The references section does not comply with the MoS. Footnotes should come before references, and references need not be broken into three categories. General references are appropriate.

Y --Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On review, I think this complies enough with the MoS to pass. FalconK (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
One reference is to youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VwkQFIo7fc). This is generally not accepted as a WP:RS; see WP:NOYT. Other sources are reliable; reliance on primary sources is not undue.

Y It is a video from Airbus Group on their youtube channel. --Crazy runner (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source http://lci.tf1.fr/economie/entreprise/air-cobot-le-robot-dont-dependra-votre-securite-8622912.html is gone. If possible, cite through archive.org or find a replacement reference.

Y --Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
C. It contains no original research:
The research is original, but it is all published in WP:RS. No trouble here.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The lists in "Communications" are identical to those at the project's website, but this is normalized text and it is almost certainly not a copyright violation. However, the list is extraneous; many of its contents should be cited as references instead.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The article contains many forward-looking statements, mainly unreferenced, such as "If the project continues, in prospect is the coupling with a drone to inspect an aircraft's upper parts." This seems to run a little against the thrust of WP:CRYSTALBALL; it would be better to avoid making predictions without citing and attributing them.

For the coupling with a drone, I add "The CEO also revealed that". The reference is given for this statement. --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Yes, I see that. FalconK (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Akka pull quotes should be removed.

Y --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article text from the beginning of "Robot equipment" through the end of "Project continuation" is written from a neutral point of view. The remainder of the article is fairly laden.

I feel like this article is a little too breathless in its praise of the project. While it is clearly a very innovative invention, the article includes phrasing that seems more the province of a prospectus; an example of such language is "Led by Akka Technologies, this multi-partner project involves research laboratories and industry."

It's still a little tiny bit more "in favour of" the project than I hoped, but reading it now, even as minor as the changes are, I don't feel like it's quite an advertisement anymore. FalconK (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The article is very well-illustrated! The given captions are suitable. The included pictures are relevant to the topic, except the picture of poster presentations being given in the "Communications" section; that should be removed, since it is not strictly about the project.

Y--Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am glad we have an article on this innovative and revolutionary research! However, at the moment, the article copy reads more like a presentation, prospectus, or research proposal than summary information about the project and research. Avoiding praise for the project, commercial detail, and laden language would go a long way to making this a great article. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to inform; it cannot be to persuade or promote, even if the position taken or thing being promoted is not directly commercial in kind.