Talk:Three Laws of Robotics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic. I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to leave comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm a little unsure of the authorial voice in History of the Three Laws; the opening of that section appears to be a theoretical essay on the development of robot stories in SciFi. I'd like to see that referenced more closely to the source(s) because as it stands a reader might mistake it for original research. SilkTork *^YES! 18:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sense of an authorial presence in other places in the article, and it does feel like an essay. The Applications to future technology section is particularly problematic. There is a value in recording where notable writers and scientists have speculated on the application of these fictional laws to real work in AI, and where the media have referred to the laws when discussing the ethics of AI - though such a recording has to be done in an encyclopedic and scholarly manner. Presently the section is set up as an authorial investigation. I have tagged where I have concerns in the first paragraph of that section - though it may be easier to scrap that first paragraph. Indeed, it might be easier to go through the article and remove all instances where there may be a concern about authorial voice or original research, and work with what remains to build this up into a somewhat more convincing and reliable article. At present it feels too much like a 6th form essay and lacks credibility. SilkTork *^YES! 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked back at the history of the article. Concerns have been previously raised about the OR, but nothing has been done. The article needs to be rewritten to restore confidence in it. That is a high priority. As the OR is embedded in the article, it may be difficult to extract it bit by bit, and it may be quicker and easier to totally rewrite each section one by one, using the sources that are already here, and finding new ones as appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs building up per WP:Lead. And there is a vague blurring of the line between fiction and fact - WP:WAF gives some guidance on this matter. SilkTork *^YES! 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very detailed, and appears to cover enough ground to meet GA requirements for broad coverage. Some sections may, however, be a little too detailed. Selection of appropriate information is important so as not to overwhelm readers to the point where people stop reading or taking in information. Some trimming of the By other authors section would be worthwhile - the plot examples could be summarised, which would make it clearer for the general reader. Example:

"Mark W. Tiedemann's three novels Mirage (2000), Chimera (2001) and Aurora (2002) also revolve around the Three Laws.[citation needed] Like the Asimov stories discussed above, Tiedemann's work explores the implications of how the Three Laws define a "human being".[says who?] The climax of Aurora involves a cyborg threatening a group of "Spacers", forcing the robotic characters to decide whether the Laws forbid them to harm cyborgs. The issue is further complicated by the cumulative genetic abnormalities that have accumulated in the Spacer population, which may imply that the Spacers are becoming a separate species.[34] (The concluding scenes of Asimov's Nemesis contain similar speculations, although that novel is only weakly connected to the Foundation series.)"

could be presented as:

"Mark W. Tiedemann's 2002 Aurora novel has robotic characters debating the moral implications of harming cyborg lifeforms who are part artificial and part biological."

And such trimming could take place in other parts of the article. SilkTork *^YES! 22:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

There is a lot of information contained within this article, and it initially presents as a well researched piece. However, the more one reads, the more one grows unsettled. There is unsourced material, and what appears to be authorial speculation. The article is presented as argument putting forward a view, rather than reporting what informed sources have said.

I note that the article was delisted from FA status for referencing and OR concerns, and this matter was again brought up in the recent Peer Review, yet these concerns are still in place. I think that is due to the difficulty of untangling the OR from the article. Much of it is embedded OR; that is, not just commentary, but also selection of information, and organisation of the article. I see the difficulty of doing the work, so I appreciate why it hasn't been fully dealt with yet. I feel that each section may need to be re-examined and rewritten; and perhaps a new structure considered. This is an unusual topic, so I don't know which articles to point to as examples of how to proceed. However, this is a significant topic - and there are plenty of sources - [1] - so I'd like to see someone really tackle it and do a proper job. Anyway, that is personal opinion. As for the GA review:

Build lead per WP:Lead
Source more closely where statements may be questioned. Some examples have been tagged in the article.
Remove statements which appear to be editorial speculation per WP:OR. Some examples have been tagged in the article.
Trim back on the detail so the information is presented as a useful summary of the main points.
Be aware of WP:WAF, and rewrite to remove in-universe perspective.

I'll inform significant contributors and WikiProjects and put the review on hold for seven days to see what developments take place. SilkTork *^YES! 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

There has been no reponse to this review by any of the people or projects contacted, and no work has been done on the article. I am closing this now as a fail. The work required to remove the potential OR is fairly significant, and not something I am prepared to tackle alone at this time. When the OR issues have been dealt with the article can be submitted again for GA listing. SilkTork *^YES! 12:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]