Wikipedia:Peer review/Razer (robot)/archive1

Razer (robot)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently rewritten the vast majority of the article for Razer, a combat robot that was twice world champion on the British television series 'Robot Wars'. You might be interested to see the diff between my version as it stands now and the most up-to-date previous version. Working alongside other editors interested in this robot and series, I'm hoping that this can become the first 'Robot Wars'-related article to attain a good article stamp. It is, in my opinion, mostly well sourced for a topic whose online presence has been all but completely lost following the cancellation of the television series. There are admittedly a few small gaps in the referencing, but I am finding more and more in the archives each day.

Image-wise, I have taken a photograph of an item of merchandise produced in the image of the robot, and am in contact with one of the 'roboteers' who constructed Razer to request images for the article. (He has replied and sent me several images; they will be uploaded as soon as he confirms under which licence they should be released.) I've also messaged a Flickr user to seek permission to use his photographs. If you can suggest any free illustrations or graphics which might enhance the article, I would certainly be interested to hear your ideas.

My main question is regarding the text of the article and, in particular, the section currently headed Combat history. In your opinion, is this the best way to display such information? Is it too detailed? If so, would a format more akin to Chaos 2#Battle summary be more appropriate? Perhaps something tabular? Again, any and all comments and suggestions would be richly appreciated.

Thank you very much for your time. Best regards, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Thank you for your desire to push this article to GA standing. It is a commendable goal. My comments will therefore be in reflection of the GA criteria, and will address the specific questions you raise as well as give some general comments you may want to consider prior to nominating at GA.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of all the points in the article. See WP:LEAD. I think the design portion of the article is not fully represented in the lead (save a mention of the arm and the use of hydrolics). I recommend you read through the article and make sure that the lead is a skeletal version of the article.

 Done I've written a much longer summary of the arm as a weapon and self-righting mechanism. I personally feel the allusion to "subsequent modifications" suffices for the new wheels and thicker bodywork. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• No need to link toy, watch for unnecessary linking per WP:LINK. Any words in common English usage don't need to be linked. Check throughout.

 Doing...

• What is an "antweight"?

 Done Replaced with "miniature" in the lead, with a short summary of antweight robots at the appropriate place in the body of the article. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Usually links in the lead are not necessary given the assumption that they will appear in the body of the article. Not a huge deal but something to consider.

 Doing...

Construction

• Normally in-line citations are placed at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle. Also I see a template in this section, this should be addressed.

✗ Not done

Combat history

• The wording on this sentence is a bit awkward:

Immediately after filming series 3, and keen to shed its 'unreliable' status through a victorious run in battle, Razer participated in the International Championship.

The subject is "Razer", which is an inanimate robot, how then could it be "keen" to shed its unreliable status? Instead the developers were "keen" rather than Razer. I suggest rewording.

 Done CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• This quote needs a source, "Ian Lewis likened this attack to 'some horrible little kid out in the garden, pulling the legs off a spider'."

 Done Dug the tape out, and it turns out that it was Blood that said it. Have sourced and added context. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• No need to link to generic country names.

 Done CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• House robots in linked late in the article, earlier uses of the term are not linked, please link an earlier use and unlink the later term.

 Done CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Razer's response was to attach a hook to the front of the arm, allowing Razer to lift the framework.

Again, Razer is an inanimate object, it could not "attach" something correct, or is it capable of switching weapons remotely during the battle?

✗ Not done A very fair point - will improve this once my copy-editing reaches Series 6/Extreme II.

• Comments to your questions about this section:

1. I feel the information is too detailed, especially in the early rounds of the tournaments. I feel this could be summarized by simply saying Razer defeated X, Y, and Z robots to advance to the semi finals or finals. Describing the significant battles that garnered Razer titles and tournament victories are fine. Does that make sense?

 Doing... An excellent suggestion, thank you! I am in the process of simmering down the prose as you suggest. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think a table or list would be better.
2. I think the prose is a bit cluttered. Here's an example:

"Equipped with the lower front wedge introduced at the start of this series, Razer was able to get underneath Spawn Again, negating the flipper, and crush their adversary until they broke down and were dropped into the pit, an open hole in the arena floor."

Remove "introduced at the start of the series" as unnecessary information, and add "a new" in stead of "the" so it would look like this, "Equipped with a new lower front wedge..."

This is just an example to help tighten the prose and make the section cleaner.

 Doing...

1. Try to expand or combine one-sentence paragraphs.
2. Your sourcing in this section is a bit light. A good rule of thumb is at least one source per paragraph. I count six possibly seven (depending on how you view in note referencing the victory streak) unreferenced paragraphs, all of which are ripe of templates.

 Doing... The victory streak note is in itself sourced, which I hope is an acceptable style for such additional information.

• Also the Extreme II section is completely unreferenced, this should be remedied.

1. The retirement section is one sentence and unreferenced. This should be expanded and cited. To that end why did it retire? What were the causes of its retirement?

References

• Take care when sourcing to Razer's website. See WP:Verify for thoughts on reliable sources. Not saying the site can't be used but be careful with it. Third party sources are far more credible.

 Doing... I'll endeavour to supplement the more widely published information (i.e., results and information which was on the programme) with third party sources.

• Otherwise the reference formatting and use of reliable sourcing is fine.

Images

• Before taking this to WP:GAC be sure to get the image license question ironed out.
• Use of non-free images is ok when necessary, I see two non-free images, which is fine but I wouldn't add any more.
• Finding images are not my strong suit. See WP:COMMONS for possible images already uploaded. Sorry I don't have many more suggestions. Generic suggestions for searching for images can be found at WP:IMAGE.

I think that does it for my review, I wish you the best in your run to GA. Please consider reviewing other articles here or at GAC in order to reduce the backlog. I don't traditionally watch review pages so if you have a question or comment please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from CountdownCrispy

Thank you for your superb and detailed response. I genuinely appreciate the time and effort that went into this, and also that you have made it so clear how to improve the article. I will work towards achieving the above targets and let you know if I have any questions. Thanks once again, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)