Talk:Razer (robot)

NPOV dispute

A while ago this article, which at the time was rather woeful, was hit by a NPOV dispute and a cleanup. I've done some work on it, but I don't know if its satisfactory yet. Someone please take a look.

I was the one who put the tags in. It's looking much better, but I'll hold off on a closer look until I'm done with some other stuff. Could be a couple days. Of course, this being Wikipedia, anyone else is free to decide if the tags are no longer needed.--Drat (Talk) 09:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag--it's no longer needed.

Sumo Basho

Razer did not win the Sumo Basho tournament. I saw the filming myself, and I did see Razer knock Shunt off the ring, but for some reason this did not make the final cut. Consequently, Panic Attack won it, as they, in the final cut, did knock Shunt off the ring. Lenin & McCarthy 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi folks. user:Lucy-marie has requested some help resolving the dispute over the content of this article. I've now looked through the edit history and would like to offer a few comments and suggestions to get a discussion started.

As a preliminary comment, please try and keep your edit summaries civil and a plain summary of the edit - there is no need to try and conduct an argument via the summaries. If you think you need to do so, the edit is probably not right and it would be better to discuss the matter via the talk page. Please locate all discussion on the talk page of the article to which the comment relates - that way it is near the relevant material and people can read the course of the discussion easily. I note that User:Lenin & McCarthy has attempted to discuss this on [[user_talk:Lucy-marie

It seems to me there are two issues here - firstly, a disagreement over the style of the page, and secondly, over the presence of certain succession boxes.

The second one seems simple to resolve - which party is correct in their assertion as to who won the contest? Please post references to back-up what you think is correct.

The first one is more difficult as it is personal taste. User:Lenin & McCarthy prefers a shorter style, while user:Lucy-marie prefers a longer style. For my personal preference as a total outsider to the subject (well, other than doing some of the electronics work on SMIDSY), the shorter version is far more readable. I open the floor here for the parties to explain why their version is preferable and hopefully a conclusion can be reached.

In the meantime, can I request that both parties refrain from editing the article - OK, so its not in the style everyone would want, but stopping editing will hopefully prevent an edit war and allow a discussion to ensue. Kcordina ^Talk 08:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of common ground and personal veiws by Lucy-Marie

For my personal taste of the edits being longer there should be as much information avaliable to new users who do not know much if anything about the subject. as i advocate more inforamtion is a better page then there should be a way of making the pages easy to read but also to contain the maximum amount of information possible. I think that the pages on wikipedia should be of a liquid nature. by that i mean that each page should have a form of its own indivduality and not one of that of a 'standadised' page generic form advocated by L&M. I understand that the pages my be easier to read but it is not necessary to remove absolutly everthing about all the battles, and the have note-worthy battles. If this was to be the case what constitutes a note-worthy battle. Some people will argue like myself all battles are notworthy as thay show how that robot progressed thorugh history. Others will say that only a grand final will be noteworthy, and some will say no battle is noteworthy. My opinion is that the more information avaliable the better it can then be seen as to the precise nature of the history the robot had. Also for people who view these as too hard to read there should be a section such as in the tonado page of a summary aswell. I think there should be a merging of both ideas rather than all down one road.Lucy-marie 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Save This page

This page should be saved from delletion as the robot Is the most successfull robot In robot wars history there was also an edit war over this page so that proves that is page should be saved as It Is cared abbout by some people. This page also has mediation verdicts binding to It so deletion would beiniapropriate as time has been spent sorting this page out. There was almost an arbitration verdict on this page so the wikipeida arbitrators obviously thought this page was important enough for there considerarion. If this page get deleted then every other robot from robot wars may as well get deleted as well as this is the most successfull robot of them all deleting this page would leave no reason for any other page of robots to besaved so I think we should keep robot wars on wikipedia and not delete it.--Lucy-marie 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Not sure how you would want to reference it, but Razer is mentioned in the book "Build Your Own Combat Robot" by Pete Miles and Tom Carroll (ISBN-10: 0072194642). As it has mention in third-party publications, it is going to pass Wikipedia's general notability requirements. Adding that as a reference should support the official 1st-party references.144.92.206.92 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Hello. I've re-written the article to address the issue of the unsuitable tone or style. Shall I remove the "unsuitable tone or style" tag on the article now? Is it fixed now? Tell me as soon a possible. Thanks. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Here is a sample, "Chaos 2 was eliminated horribly... immobilised as a result of a number of merciless attacks from Razer and 13 Black". These are biased against Chaos 2.EdGilmour (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's still a lot of 'fan fic' style writing in this article that would be more appropriate on a separate wiki (e.g., Robot Wars Wiki) than here. I fully intend to reduce down these unnecessarily "blow-by-blow" accounts over the next few days, with a single section titled "Combat history" or similar. This can be sub-divided into sections containing verifiable factual accounts for each series/event.

Should anyone feel this would be a negative change, perhaps you could respond to this message. This being Wikipedia you'd be well able to alter/correct my additions, but let's not start an edit war! ;-)

Best wishes, CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... sounds good to me! 86.28.171.246 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now completely rewritten the match descriptions, but still reckon there's just too much there. Any suggestions as to how to 'simmer it down' a bit? My feeling is that it needs to be a lot more pithy. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits Countdown.EdGilmour (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By way of comparison, have a look at a partially complete combat history in table form. Any comments or criticisms? -- CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being late! Yeah, it looks a bit better! But still, how would we be able to document Matilda's destruction if we implement this table? :) 86.28.171.246 (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Moved as uncontroversial capitalisation fix by another editor. Station1 (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Razer (Robot) → Razer (robot) — The bracketed disambiguation descriptions in article titles are usually in lower case. Making the small change from "Robot" to "robot" for this article would bring it in line with the rest of Wikipedia. CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 14:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Village Pump - Pointless semantic suggestion better discussed at the village pump. Not worth wasting time over discussing here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy move as it's pretty uncontroversial; forgive me not seeing before that this was the done thing. I certainly don't think putting this article in line with the rest of Wikipedia is "pointless". -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 20:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Its to small to warrent this whole section and it is better discussed where more people will care and that is at the Village pump.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. What is the purpose of an article talk page other than to talk about an article? To quote WP:TPG, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." No need to consult the pump - yet! -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the content of the article and not semantics over that standardisation of Wikipedia policy and the standardised implementation of Wikipedia policy. This is not content which relates to the article directly it is not even proposing changing the article name. It is only proposing that Wikipedia policy is implemented in a standardised interpretation. Discussions on Wikipedia policy and its implementation do not belong on article talk pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking cross-purposes here. I had no idea I was being controversial! At any rate, the alteration has been made. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images

I've just removed the supposedly fair use image of Razer from the article. Firstly, its fair use rationale is rather flawed - if needs be I will improve it in due course. However, I am going to contact Ian Lewis of Team Razer and politely ask if he has an image we could use under CC-BY-SA or a similar free licence. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality-scale

Ok, since CountdownCrispy is re-writing the WHOLE article, shouldn't the quality-scale be re-assessed? I think it could even go for a "Good Article"! 86.28.171.246 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but after it's done. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was certainly considering putting it in for WP:FEED, as I'd like advice from other editors less directly interested in Robot Wars regarding how long the "Combat history" section should be. To my eyes, it just looks and feels too long and drawn out. Other obstacles to cross if we want to make Razer a good article will be the lack of images (as mentioned elsewhere, I have contacted Ian Lewis to ask if any of the photos from the old website could be released as WP:CC-BY-SA), and the need for references for Series 6 and Extreme II. What other suggestions/criticisms do you guys have? Remember to be bold! :-) -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have images of Razer over the years. For example, for Extreme 1 the scoop was re-designed; where's the image? And in Series 2 it didn't have the "wings"; again, where's the image? Razer changed over the years, and some images will help the reader see the "evolution" of Razer. The Robot Wars Wiki has a few images of it; does it help? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the evolution idea, and acknowledge that there are plenty of photos of Razer floating around the web - the issue is that they are all someone's copyright. That's why I've contacted Ian - if he took the photos of Razer in question, he holds the copyright. (As a rule of thumb, copyright belongs to the person behind the camera, and not who or whatever is in front of it.)

Whilst you can use 'non-replaceable' copyrighted images on Wikipedia under 'fair use', photos of Razer will by their nature be replaceable - i.e., a screengrab of Razer from Robot Wars is not appropriate to illustrate its front end from Series 5, as this would be shown just as well in a snapshot from the pits. The only exception I can see in Razer's case is a screengrab of its appearance in Series 2, given that the archived Razer website states that no photos of this evolution of Razer exist. If anyone has the Razer DVD (shockingly, I don't possess it!) then perhaps they could see if there is a shot of this wingless version of Razer which could be captured.

For more information on Wikipedia's policy on image use, check out Wikipedia:Image use policy. Meanwhile, I intend to take a photo of the Razer toy at some point soon. The more pressing issue is that lack of referencing on Series 6/Extreme II. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 14:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Let's hope Ian is generous with us! Hang on, "Razer toy"? You have Razer merchandise? Wow... 86.28.171.246 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've added a photo of the toy, made several minor alterations whilst trying to push the article towards GA-quality, and I'm waiting for a second reply from Ian. He very quickly got back to my original email and attached a load of excellent photos that I am very keen to upload and use, but I have asked him to clarify if he is happy to release the images under a free licence.

Whilst I would personally not want to submit this article for GA evaluation in its current condition, it is certainly on the way and so I will shortly submit it to WP:FEED to see what changes other editors suggest. -- CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 12:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination

As you might well have spotted at the top of this talk page, The C of E has nominated this article for the title of 'Good article'. It's something I know we were keen to achieve, so fingers crossed it goes well. I thought I should explain where I am with the article, and indeed my reasons for not previously nominating it myself:

• I now have quite a bit of work to do IRL—my degree resumes in precisely one week—and this is why I have been less active on Wikipedia in the last two or three days. (That, and this article needs a lot less work than when I started! I would still like to work on other Robot Wars articles, time permitting.)

My reasons for not nominating the article stemmed from having two further improvements to perform:

• I have found a Flickr user who has agreed to licence an excellent image of Razer under CC-BY-SA. Whilst the article now has many more images than previously (and, indeed, under preferable licences and/or with full fair use rationales), I felt it was a sufficiently encyclopaedic angle of Razer to be worth following up. The delay in uploading it stems from wanting to make sure we have the correct permissions to use the image - i.e., not just from the photographer, but also from the team who own the likeness of Razer.
• The other reason for delaying is due to issues with sources for the retirement section. It appears that the Razer team announced that they would not be appearing in series 7 on the now defunct Robot Wars forum. Therefore, the problems with sourcing this are two-fold: the forums are no longer there and, even if they were (or could be found on an archival website), a forum is not really considered a reliable source. Asking a Razer team member to confirm details of why they retired is strictly forbidden as it constitutes original research.

This said, I am still confident that the article has come on in leaps and bounds and has a good chance of passing. I will of course still follow up these two improvements as and when I can. H1nkles, who conducted the recent peer review on this article, offered some excellent insight and it might well be worth contacting him to ask for any advice he might have now that the article has matured further. Meanwhile, I will be watching (and hopefully contributing) to this process as it kicks off, and have my fingers crossed that this can become a first for Robot Wars articles on Wikipedia.

Best wishes, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 09:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now of course the problem is that you now have to wait a rediculous amount of time before someone takes a look at it. Although I don't know you can ask someone who isn't involved to have a look, I know a couple of editors who are quite amicable if we so wish to go down that path and it's not a violation to ask someone else to review rather than waiting for random passover reviewers. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've placed the review on-hold pending some changes I've suggested at Talk:Razer (robot)/GA1 which, whilst a long looking list, shouldn't take too long to fix! Let me know when you've made the changes, and I'll be happy to promote this to GA. GedUK  08:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned below, I've now promoted it. Well done! GedUK  08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Razer (robot)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Improvement wish list

As this page was recently nominated for Featured article status and declined for a number of reasons and I want to focus on other things I'm throwing the issues out to the community to see if they would like to help improve this article and bring it up to a possible Featured article level of precision. Once you've fixed an item on the list (or noticed if it's already been fixed then please strike it out. The list is as follows:

• Too many one-paragraph subsections, which break up the flow of text

We're now down to one. Can anyone find a reliable source on why the team broke up? CountdownCrispy 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "up to nine tonnes of pressure per square inch" (and other measurements) - provide conversions to other measurement systems

Almost there with these - just working on finding a sensible conversion for the aforementioned tonnes per square inch.  Done CountdownCrispy 10:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Spell out numbers under 10
• "2.5 millimetre thickness armour panels versus 1 millimetre before" - grammar
• "healthy spell of reliability" - what does this mean? Source?
• "saw this evolution of Razer win" - do you mean this iteration?
• What's a cush drive?
• Best Design Award or award?
• When did Blood join the team, and why?
• Is the side tournament called Pinball or Pinball Warrior?

I can't see a problem here, unless someone else fixed it without me noticing? CountdownCrispy 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "end up in the midst of Matilda" - what does this mean? Was it on Matilda? Near Matilda? Does Matilda have a large gap in its middle?
• "10 milimetre" - spelling and grammar
• Check out WP:HYPHEN in addition to WP:DASH
• "to reach a first series semi-final" - what does this mean?
• "Against Wild Thing, Razer damaged an exposed drive wheel" - its own or its opponent's?
• "In the last eight" - the last eight what?
• Be sure to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times
• What's a pull-back topy?
• Source for the stats in the infobox not mentioned in article text?
• Combine identical refs - see WP:NAMEDREFS
• Publisher for ref 12?
• Ref 14: what is "w/e"?
• Need consistent formatting for references

I've gone through them all and improved the consistency of parameter use, etc., but would appreciate any second opinions. CountdownCrispy 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you're going to include publisher location, make it more specific than "USA"

Dropped "USA" for now as I don't have copy of the book to look up the publisher's location. (Can anyone help here?) CountdownCrispy 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Battlebots is mentioned only in the lead

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The C of E (talk • contribs)

Brilliant idea, mate - thanks for all your help, and as much as I wish you well with your other projects (be they on- or off-wiki) I really hope you'll keep popping back to this one. You've done a lot to get this article into the condition it's in today. In particular, if you were upset by the premature closing of your FA nomination, don't be: there's so much great advice that's given us a really detailed to-do list. I'm not sure doing the above will be sufficient alone will be enough to get it to FA status; however, it will help us all to remove the pedantic manual of style based flaws so that we can get really good criticism of the prose itself.

Meanwhile, I received an email from Ian Lewis this morning. I wasn't performing original research (honest guv'nor!) - it was in response to the 3/4 perspective image request. I will personally sort this out later on this evening when time is a little more on my side, as dealing with image copyrights is tricky to get right. However, on top of his go-ahead to use such a photo he also offered us some praise and constructive criticism:

"The article is very, very good.........I'm well impressed with the level of detail, more detail than I can remember ! ... Feedback, well I would get the detail about the arm making 3 tonnes at the tip in on that first instance, an engineer would take one look at the arm and decide it would bend with a force of 9 tonnes (prob then switch off). We could generate 6 tonnes in under the arm, reason - we could not get the machines in any closer to the lever pivot. It makes about 9 tonnes at the output of the ram. 3 to 1 lever ratio gives the 3 tonnes at the tip."

Again, per WP:NOR we cannot update the article to this effect citing this email as a source! However, this is exactly how Simon Scott explains it on the Razer DVD; I've simply got a little muddled with my sources. Perhaps the best thing to do is to say three tonnes at the tip throughout, citing the DVD, with a note in the body of the article (but not the lead) to explain the reason for the common nine tonnes misconception, which again we can reliably source.

Ian also suggested we change the term "crushing arm" to "crushing piercing arm" - I personally feel this is a little long-winded, but we could certainly use that term in the infobox and when the arm weapon is introduced, before simply referring to it as an "arm" for the rest of the article. These entirely constructive criticisms aside, he is chuffed:

"Absolutely, yeah, it's real nice to have this article done, love it."

High praise indeed. :-) Thanks to everyone involved for their help so far, and let's see how much further we can go. Best regards, CountdownCrispy 18:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...or we can simply call it a "piercing arm". It doesn't actually "crush", it "pierces". Can we use this term? It seems far more accurate... "Crushing" means "to squeeze or press", while "pierce" means "to make a hole through (something)", and, as most of you know, Razer transformed quite a few robots into sieves! :) 86.28.171.246 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done CountdownCrispy 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)