Template:Did you know nominations/Air-Cobot
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Air-Cobot
[edit]
Air-Cobot under the belly of an Airbus A320 in a hangar.
- ... that Air-Cobot (pictured) is a French research and development project for a wheeled collaborative mobile robot able to inspect aircraft during maintenance operations?
Improved to Good Article status by Crazy runner (talk). Self-nominated at 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
- Promoted to GA on 22 Oct
- Long enough
- Within policy
- Hook format good
- Hook content good
- QPQ - uncertain
- Image good
- Promoted to GA on 22 Oct
Subject to knowing whether Crazy runner needs a QPQ, this DYK is good to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tagishsimon, this is Crazy runner's first QPQ nomination, and therefore a quid pro quo review is not required this time. Can I please ask you to be more specific in your reviews? Even though this is a GA, we have had GAs that did not meet the DYK criteria; we cannot assume that a GA automatically will. Reviews should specifically mention that the hook is in the article and sourced by the end of the relevant sentence(s) (especially when the sources aren't included in the nomination), that hook and article are neutral, that checks have been made for close paraphrasing/copyvio, etc. Thanks. Incidentally, I did fix an issue with the hook format: the "(pictured)" italics should include the parenthesis; the parenthesis had been roman. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks BlueMoonset. This is the problem I have with DYK; I'm so far from an expert on DYK expectations as to be near useless. In my review I explicitly checked that the hook was in the article and referenced (yes - ref 2 & 4) before putting a tick against the Hook content header; I used the copyright checker and over-ruled its 61.8% confidence that there was a vio - it listed a page listing citations to academic papers. I got zero results when checking for QPQ, but out of an abundance of caution and per a DYK recommendation, thought to ask the OP. Whilst on the one hand I somewhat understand that you want more detail, on the other hand there's arguably an AGF failure if you think I have not done the checks merely because I choose to reflect the passing of the checks by citing the 2nd level of the list displayed when editing a template, rather than the 3rd level. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tagishsimon, we're all new at some point, and learn the DYK process by doing. The advice at WP:DYKN#How to review a nomination shows the level of detail that reviewers should use and that prep set builders are expecting to see. I don't believe there's a failure of AGF here on my part or of the other people who make similar requests; giving such review details is something we expect from all DYK reviewers, and it makes life easier when making the eventual promotion to prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks BlueMoonset. This is the problem I have with DYK; I'm so far from an expert on DYK expectations as to be near useless. In my review I explicitly checked that the hook was in the article and referenced (yes - ref 2 & 4) before putting a tick against the Hook content header; I used the copyright checker and over-ruled its 61.8% confidence that there was a vio - it listed a page listing citations to academic papers. I got zero results when checking for QPQ, but out of an abundance of caution and per a DYK recommendation, thought to ask the OP. Whilst on the one hand I somewhat understand that you want more detail, on the other hand there's arguably an AGF failure if you think I have not done the checks merely because I choose to reflect the passing of the checks by citing the 2nd level of the list displayed when editing a template, rather than the 3rd level. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I've confirmed that a QPQ is not needed for this article, since it appears to be the article creator's first DYK. Regarding the ALT hook fact, as given, the information about it being a wheeled robot is given in the lead without a citation, and is not cited later. The word "wheeled" could be added later in the article, if relevant citations contain such a description (A French speaker could check the French-language sources.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is writen in Section Robot equipment.Crazy runner (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)