Talk:Razer (robot)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GedUK  08:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to review this, I thoroughly enjoyed reading about one of my favourite Robot Wars competitors!

Overall, I think this is just about there:

1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar. Also look for proper formatting and general organization of the article, with appropriate use of wikilinks and sections as described in those parts of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria.

   I think overall it's well written; I've made some suggestions below on how to improve some of it. Italicising robot names will improve readability. There's quite a few redirects need fixing (popups is a great tool for spotting them), and there's a couple of possible overlinks, but not serious.

2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, preferably with inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references. Ideally, a reviewer should have access to the sources cited, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources. At a bare minimum, reviewers should check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources), that they support the statements, and that the article contains no plagiarism: any text copied from sources should be contained within quotation marks, or a quotation template.

   All looks good to me. Good sources avoiding primary sources where possible.

3. Without original research.

   None that I could see.

4. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.

   Bar one issue highlighted below (the mini robot), fine

5. Written from a neutral point of view.

   A couple of changes need to be made where the writer's enthusiasm has leaked out slightly!

6. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars (constructive routine editing is fine).

   Yup

7. Compliant with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. If images are used, they should have free licenses, or have appropriate fair use rationales.

   As far as I can see, all images are licensed properly.

So for now this is On-hold pending the changes listed below, which hopefully won't take long.

I have now promoted this to Good article! Well done everyone :o) I realise the picture question below is outstanding, but that isn't enough to stop promotion as the current picture is compliant. GedUK  08:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Firstly, I wonder whether that's the best picture for the infobox. Whilst it's undoubtedly a good picture, it's hard to actually get a sense of what Razer looks like. Its design is so distinctive that a side on, or 3/4 angle shot may be better, similar to the one used further down (File:Razer series 2.jpg). http://www.infolizer.com/?title=Razer+Robot has some, but I can't work out where they came from. Not a big deal

• I have found a Flickr user with an excellent photo of Razer from a 3/4 perspective, and he's agreed to license it under CC-BY-SA. I'm in the final stages of sorting this out, but need to ensure I respect everyone's copyrights (including the roboteers - legally a photo is a 2D representation of their 3D 'artwork', so I gather). I'll try to finish this process as soon as possible. CountdownCrispy 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Copyright and images are something of aclosed book to me. I think a 3/4 picture will be better, but it's not enough to delay the GA, just an improvement that can be made anyway. GedUK  08:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done CountdownCrispy 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• The weight of the robot changed throughout the show. It may be helpful to clarify which weight is referred to in the infobox (ie its final weight(?))

• I've made this clearer - it's in the notes section of the infobox. Should this be larger/more prominent in your view? CountdownCrispy 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, I think that's fine. GedUK  08:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• was a combat robot should be is; it still exists and is still a combat robot, even if it doesn't fight anymore.
• Combat robot is a redirect. Needs a piped link
• The third para of the lead is slightly confusing. It starts with one sentence on the US version, before switching back into an analysis of its record on the UK show. Perhaps start with the bit about the UK stats, then before you go on to legacy, mention that it was in the US version (with stats for consistency if you've got them, or just a summary of whether it was as successful).
• immortalised is a very POV word. Not sure if something non-living can be immortal anyway, but certainly is a POV. Try something like it featured on DVD and had a toy created or similar.
• Today, Razer appears in non-combat demonstrations as part of Robo Challenge educational robotics displays and events. Get rid of today and replace with After retirement or similar, as it will eventually stop doing this. This sentence is unsourced, and isn't mentioned in the retirement section, so it needs to go in there and add a source.

Construction

• Combat robot is linked again, and a redirect. At least the redirect needs fixing, and you could argue that a second link is unnecessary so soon after the first.
• brake press is a redirect.
• Pounds sterling doesn't need a wikilink I think, the usual £ will do.
• Furthermore, as the Robot Wars television series evolved and grew, the design of Razer was revised and refined to counter weaknesses and take advantage of rule changes. By series 4, Lewis estimated that Razer had taken 1,500 hours to build, at a cost of 1,600 pounds sterling Probably doesn't need the furthermore (It's a cumbersome word that implies an afterthought, and is unnecessary in a written article) at the start, and you could merge into one sentence with a semi colon. the design of Razer is rather clunky, Razer's design reads better.
  • As the Robot Wars television series evolved and grew, Razer's design was revised and refined to counter weaknesses and take advantage of rule changes; by series 4, Lewis estimated that Razer had taken 1,500 hours to build, at a cost of £1,600.(plus the source, obviously)
• skid-steering is a redirect.
• rubber is, surprisingly, a redirect
• Furthermore, for the series Robot Wars Extreme II, Razer's rubber front wheels were replaced with metal ones bearing small spiked protrusions. Again, lose the furthermore

Combat History

• The section headings are a little POVvy and weasel wordy; unreliable, glory. Probably better to stick with years
• I think the robot names should probably all be italicised.

• Including Razer? I have italicised all the first instance of the others in each battle. CountdownCrispy 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, I don't think Razer needs it, being the subject. GedUK  08:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

unreliable years

• radio interference is a redirect
• cush drive is a second link, probably unnecessary
• Team Razer were keen to shed the 'unreliable' status of their robot by enjoying a victorious run in battle. Source? It also doesn't fit the style of the rest of the writing. If you can't source it, dump the sentence; it doesn't add much (no designer wants to be known as building unreliable things).

• Whilst The C of E found a source for this sentence, I agree that it is unnecessary and doesn't fit in with the otherwise factual and pithy prose. If there's any objection to my removing the sentence, I'm happy to discuss this further to reach a broader consensus. (Sorry for undoing a little of your good work, C of E! :-) ) CountdownCrispy 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

rise to glory

• Christmas special is a redirect
• Therein is a bit unnecessary; it's clear you're talking about the fight with Onslaught as you mention the robot's name in the same sentence.
• Therein, an attack by Razer's arm on one of Onslaught's rear wheels saw its adversary shed a tyre, lose grip, and end up in the midst of Matilda. The house robot flipped Onslaught onto its side, rendering it immobile can easily become one sentence
  • An attack by Razer's arm on one of Onslaught's rear wheels saw its adversary shed a tyre, lose grip, and end up in the midst of Matilda, which flipped Onslaught onto its side, rendering it immobile.
• Ian Lewis of Team Razer competed in an six-way melee featuring antweight robots – miniature machines that weighed less than 150 grams and fitted into a four inch cube. Lewis' robot for this battle was Razzler, a modified Razer toy. Meh, not really about Razer, though I can see the link. Not critical to fix.

• I see your point, but I quite like it as a little bit of trivia. Maybe I'm just too attached to the article? I've left it for now, as it is at least sourced. CountdownCrispy 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Extreme II

• The second para could do with some tightening up; it rambles somewhat, though I'm struggling to see how to improve it.

• I've given it a going over - is it better now, or is there still work to be done? CountdownCrispy 14:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, I think that's OK! GedUK  08:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Retirement

• In the lead you talk about what Razer's doing now. This needs to go in here, with a source.

Merchandise

• It was also immortalised on the Robot Wars video games as per lead; POVvy and unsourced. Included or similar is better than immortalised.
• Lose the furthermore.