Talk:International Aerial Robotics Competition/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi, I'll be doing this review, and I'll be posting my comments here shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GTMax image at 600px is really too big. See [1]. Images should not overwhelm the screen; 300px or so is a reasonable upper limit, but 600px is OTT.

The same applies to the image in the lead, it's also too prominent. It also needs a caption.

Unless there's good justification for doing so, it's best to keep the images at their default size. Does the picture of Michelson's pneumatic animatron really need to be so large, for instance?

Images in general should be inside the sections they relate to, not above the section headings. See [2].

Text should not be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images, as it is in Third mission.

Citations are much better than when I commented before, but the Fourth mission section has only one, strangely positioned after one of the numbered bullet points. What is it meant to be supporting? That bullet point or everything that's gone before?

I think that more needs to be said about what the rules are governing the types of vehicle that can be entered. That the computational equipment need not be carried on the aircraft itself is quite significant, for instance.

Looking at a few of the citations, it seems that they do not support the material they appear to be in support of. Ref #11, in Venues, for instance, doesn't even mention the competition so far as I can see. The convention is that a citation supports all of the material preceding it.

Ref #14 is to a blog, which cannot be considered a reliable source. The link is in any event broken, which effectively means that the Prizes section is completely uncited.

"The competition creator, Prof. Robert Michelson is past President of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)." This statement, from the opening of the Spin Offs section is supported by a link to the AUVSI's home page. Where on that page does it confirm that Michelson is a past president?

Capitalisation like "fifth Mission" looks strange. If "Mission" is capitalised then "fourth" ought also to be capitalised.

"All of these competitions, land, sea, and air, have at their core, "full autonomy" as a distinctive." As a distinctive what? "Distinctive" is an adjective.

That's it for now. I've put this article on hold, to allow time for these issues to be addressed.

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSES TO ABOVE SUGGESTIONS/ACTIONS TAKEN[edit]

The GTMax image at 600px is really too big. See [1]. Images should not overwhelm the screen; 300px or so is a reasonable upper limit, but 600px is OTT. FIXED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OTHER BODY PICTS
The same applies to the image in the lead, it's also too prominent. It also needs a caption. CAPTION PROVIDED AND SIZE REDUCED
Unless there's good justification for doing so, it's best to keep the images at their default size. Does the picture of Michelson's pneumatic animatron really need to be so large, for instance? SIZE NOW CONSISTENT WITH ALL OTHER BODY PICTS
Images in general should be inside the sections they relate to, not above the section headings. See [2]. SOME PICTS REMOVED TO BETTER ALIGN REMAINING PICTS WITH SECTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE REFERENCED
Text should not be squeezed between left- and right-aligned images, as it is in Third mission. FIXED
Citations are much better than when I commented before, but the Fourth mission section has only one, strangely positioned after one of the numbered bullet points. What is it meant to be supporting? That bullet point or everything that's gone before? SUPPORTS THE ENTIRE LIST OF BEHAVIORS - MOVED TO INTRO STATEMENT
I think that more needs to be said about what the rules are governing the types of vehicle that can be entered. That the computational equipment need not be carried on the aircraft itself is quite significant, for instance. EXPANDED TO DESCRIBE AERIAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Looking at a few of the citations, it seems that they do not support the material they appear to be in support of. Ref #11, in Venues, for instance, doesn't even mention the competition so far as I can see. The convention is that a citation supports all of the material preceding it. ORIGINAL Ref #11 SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF THE HAMMER VENUE SINCE THERE IS NO WIKIPEDIA LINK AND SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS VENUE.
Ref #14 is to a blog, which cannot be considered a reliable source. The link is in any event broken, which effectively means that the Prizes section is completely uncited. REPLACED WITH A SOLID CURRENT REFERENCE SOURCE IN PRINT
"The competition creator, Prof. Robert Michelson is past President of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)." This statement, from the opening of the Spin Offs section is supported by a link to the AUVSI's home page. Where on that page does it confirm that Michelson is a past president? NEW REF. WITH EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO PRESIDENCY OF AUVSI
Capitalisation like "fifth Mission" looks strange. If "Mission" is capitalised then "fourth" ought also to be capitalised. FIXED TO LOWER CASE THROUGHOUT

Firewall (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues[edit]

This claim in the lead "Each of them involved fully autonomous robotic behavior that was undemonstrated at the time and impossible for any robotic system fielded anywhere in the world, even by the most sophisticated military robots belonging to the super powers" is counterintuitive enough to require a citation in the lead.

"All of these competitions, land, sea, and air, have at their core, "full autonomy" as a distinctive." As a distinctive what? "Distinctive" is an adjective.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This claim in the lead "Each of them involved fully autonomous robotic behavior that was undemonstrated at the time and impossible for any robotic system fielded anywhere in the world, even by the most sophisticated military robots belonging to the super powers" is counterintuitive enough to require a citation in the lead. PROVIDED MORE REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION AS WELL AS ONE ADDRESSING THIS PARTICULAR CLAIM

"All of these competitions, land, sea, and air, have at their core, "full autonomy" as a distinctive." As a distinctive what? "Distinctive" is an adjective. PROVIDED A WORD FOR THE ADJECTIVE TO MODIFY

Firewall (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of final points[edit]

Thanks for the work that's been done so far. I have just two outstanding issues before listing this as a GA:

The lead says "As of 2006 four missions had been proposed", yet the article discusses five missions. The lead needs to be updated.

There are two external links in the final Spin offs section. External links should only appear in the External links section, so these need to be converted to inline citations.

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "As of 2006 four missions had been proposed", yet the article discusses five missions. The lead needs to be updated. REWORDED TO INCLUDE REF TO LATEST MISSION

There are two external links in the final Spin offs section. External links should only appear in the External links section, so these need to be converted to inline citations. DONE

Firewall (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to include publisher information for those two new inline citations, but I'll not deny the GA listing just for that. Thanks for the work you've done on this article, which I'm now going to list as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.