Template:Did you know nominations/Eugene Goostman

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Eugene Goostman

(

)

... that critics questioned Kevin Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first chatbot to pass a Turing test?

ALT1:... that the fictitious father of chatbot Eugene Goostman is a gynaecologist?
Reviewed: Paul W. Tibbets IV
Comment: Originally went for ITN before we discovered the big picture on what happened.

5x expanded by ViperSnake151 (talk). Self nominated at 00:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Comment: "ever" trimmed from hook. Edwardx (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 is better than the original as "critics questioned" is close to tautological. Belle (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ViperSnake151, for this article; worthwhile and fascinating. This review is on the assumption that the ITN nom is now redundant. QPQ done. Both hooks are acceptable and short enough. The original hook checks out with online citations #3, #4 and #5 (you need at least 2 of these citations to confirm plural critics). New enough (for 10 June) and long enough. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links. ALT1 is quirky and hooky, and checks out with online citation #1. The article is fully referenced. At first sight the text is objectively written and the style is neutral. Its content is mainly an elaboration of the fact that (a) there is no real Turin test to be passed, (b) that if there were such a test then trials have shown that Goostman would have passed it or come close to doing so, and that (c) robot Goostman's interactions make "him" appear human by means of distraction rather than by demonstrating Artificial Intelligence features. Regarding neutrality it could be argued that because the content omits any AI features that Goostman might possess, and the fooling-by-distraction is presented by some critics as if it were a cheat (although it may be appropriate for the cited trials) that the overall picture presented by the article is not as balanced as it could be. However it could also be argued that this article is about Goostman being a bot developed for the Turin test so that AI is not necessarily relevant. So I conclude that for DYK purposes we have to accept this article as neutral in its present form. I have written this neutrality bit out in full in the hope of covering the issue upfront. Spot checks did not find any copyvio or close paraphrasing. Issues: (1) I agree with Belle that "critics questioned" is near-tautological, but I think it's the more interesting hook (about substance not trivia) which could be re-phrased if anyone wants to do so. (2) ~~The long quote in the 2014 pass section ought to be a blockquote.~~ ~~When issues 1 and 2 are resolved,~~ this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Storye book, it appears that ViperSnake151 made some edits to the article to address your issues (the blockquote has been introduced), although no mention was made here of these edits, and should have been so the review could continue. Can you please recheck to see if you're satisfied with the changes? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BlueMoonset and ViperSnake151. Issue 2 (the blockquote) is now resolved. Issue 1 is a matter of opinion, and I'm happy to let that pass.--Storye book (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
All issues resolved. Good to go with original hook or ALT1. --Storye book (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)