Talk:RoboBee: Difference between revisions
→Reads like an advertisement?: expand comment |
No edit summary |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Even 5-6 years ago in some high tech studying documentaries were briefly telling that Pentagon related labs were working on bee sized nano flying robots. But this news with Harvard was surprising thing to see. [[User:Orgio89|Orgio89]] ([[User talk:Orgio89|talk]]) 07:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) |
Even 5-6 years ago in some high tech studying documentaries were briefly telling that Pentagon related labs were working on bee sized nano flying robots. But this news with Harvard was surprising thing to see. [[User:Orgio89|Orgio89]] ([[User talk:Orgio89|talk]]) 07:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Military use== |
|||
Search and rescue? Surely it should be search and destroy. You can be sure this is going to be used for military purposes.Especially when you search and see which term is more common. |
Revision as of 12:35, 5 May 2013
Robotics Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
A news item involving RoboBee was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 May 2013. |
Reads like an advertisement?
Just starting a thread to discuss the "reads like an advertisement" tag that another editor added recently. My take: Maybe there's a "slightly promotional tone" (per the ES), but I don't think it's an NPOV problem. The prose conveys the excitement of the achievement but doesn't promote anything else. Maybe a tweak needed but that's it. Great article and fascinating topic. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I marked two sections with {{news release}} template because they are really news-like. --PICAWN (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the tagger - the excessive use of a personal tone, and the lack of simple factual information, makes it sound like this has been transcribed from a PR release. Simple information is lacking, such as: when did the research start? who else does this kind of research? What other discoveries led to the device? What is the maximum flight duration? Are there limitations due to fatigue for cycling of the mtaerial that makes up the wing? Can they, in theory, fly outdoors? There is far too much of a personal tone e.g. " "This is what I have been trying to do for literally the last 12 years," remarked wood", which adds little other than an emotive response to the article. 46.115.43.77 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Other sources
Even 5-6 years ago in some high tech studying documentaries were briefly telling that Pentagon related labs were working on bee sized nano flying robots. But this news with Harvard was surprising thing to see. Orgio89 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Military use
Search and rescue? Surely it should be search and destroy. You can be sure this is going to be used for military purposes.Especially when you search and see which term is more common.