Talk:CURV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:CURV-III)
Jump to: navigation, search

Assessment[edit]

Hi

Why does this article warrant a B class? I did originally assess the same as the ships project but, after reading it in more depth, it has a few flaws - the most striking or which are:

  • No "see also" or "external links"
  • "CURV was a prototype" - surely this is talking about the series of CURV's vehicles, or CURV vehicles in general, not just one of them? - also the "CURV was developed" - then, finally, lo and behold it is explained halfway through! "CURV-III is the fourth generation of CURV" (or at least I think it is?)

* Various prose issues: "were stranded 76 hours", "The CURV-21 is the next generation following CURV-III" (what happened to CURV-IV to CURV-20?), "allowed to float to 60 feet (18 m)" (in the air?).

  • Lacks any real content, apart from the missions.

I cannot really warrant giving this a B class for Robotics. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Above prose issues corrected, external link section added.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That was quick :¬) I was wondering if anyone could add some further info on the workings/mechanics of it and its add on manipulators etc.? Chaosdruid (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've assessed it as a good C-Class for WPSCUBA against Wikipedia:WikiProject_SCUBA/Assessment. No article is required to have "See also" or ELs (in fact they are discouraged at higher levels). Although the references and MOS-compliance are good, I agree that more content would be required to reach B-Class. Here are some suggestions: I was left wondering where the home base was (6,000 miles from Ireland)? as well as what CURV-III did in between the operations mentioned. How did it get transported from place to place? When did CURV-III come into service and did it replace CURV-II? Is it still in service, or has it been retired – if so, when? It's quite possible that a lot of that information isn't available immediately, but it's the sort of thing that adds to the encyclopedic value of an article. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)