![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Passive dynamics received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
All three external links direct to sites that have not updated in over 2 years.
I've never really been tempted to revise an article before, but this one just begs for it. I made some minor language revisions, but this is obviously a very preliminary article. The language is non-neutral and sloppy, and the word "valuable" sticks out like a sore thumb on wikipedia.
However, it's the cited examples annoy me the most. I could forgive an article for just giving a brief definition of a topic and general context, but it gives citations which are extremely uneven. It is almost exclusively focuses on Andy Ruina's group. While that work is highly respected and served to popularize the concept among roboticists, it isn't really a fair representation of the field, past or present. RHex and the Raibert hoppers are almost iconic examples of the use of passive dynamics in legged robots (even though Raibert didn't coin the term).
The prosthetics blurb is similarly uneven. Wouldn't the flex-foot cheetah, a staple of athletic prosthetics, be considered a passive-dynamic device? My quick search indicates they were invented in the 80's.
I may give this a closer look later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.8.16 ( talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This page will be subject to update and expansion over the next couple months. (February 28, 2008) This page needs to be broken down into sections, expanded on, and needs its links updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSpeakers ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Reduced to a Start - should not have been assessed as B and especially when the author assessed it themselves.
Start - "Useful to some, provides more than a little information, but many readers will need more."
Needs more explanation of the mechanics, why it is more efficient and the benefits. The basic reader is being told servo is worse than gravity. Only one real example cited, topic needs expanding and additional material found. Stating Passive dynamics are used does not go in any way shape or form towards explaining waht they are, and that is what the article is about. "based on utilising the momentum of swinging limbs for greater efficiency." greater efficiency of what ?
Peer review was carried out 18 April 2008. and recommendations were not followed, recommendation 1 move pic, 2 expand lead, 3 Refs !
None of these three were done - there are 12 recommendations on there and I think maybe only 4 were followed...and one of those was by the peer reviewer.
Lastly - the creator of the article, and only contributor, gave it a B assessment BEFORE the peer review results, and once in did NOT remove it, nor fix the article.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
How the heck do you get "stub has 1-2 sentences"? WP:Stub "Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written – their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long."
Well, this is one of those articles that a lot could be written about. That would mean that a couple of paragraphs would still be a stub. This was never a conversation. You refuse to admit that this has been incorrectly assessed and just keep flatly refusing to listen. The article has prose issues, contains sentences such as "this sounds silly but", peacocking, and is very much an advert for Cornell.
I suggest you correct these to bring it up to a B-class standard. If you want to know what that is, try this: Wikipedia:Assessment#Quality_scale and click on "show" next to "More detailed criteria" Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Passive dynamics received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
All three external links direct to sites that have not updated in over 2 years.
I've never really been tempted to revise an article before, but this one just begs for it. I made some minor language revisions, but this is obviously a very preliminary article. The language is non-neutral and sloppy, and the word "valuable" sticks out like a sore thumb on wikipedia.
However, it's the cited examples annoy me the most. I could forgive an article for just giving a brief definition of a topic and general context, but it gives citations which are extremely uneven. It is almost exclusively focuses on Andy Ruina's group. While that work is highly respected and served to popularize the concept among roboticists, it isn't really a fair representation of the field, past or present. RHex and the Raibert hoppers are almost iconic examples of the use of passive dynamics in legged robots (even though Raibert didn't coin the term).
The prosthetics blurb is similarly uneven. Wouldn't the flex-foot cheetah, a staple of athletic prosthetics, be considered a passive-dynamic device? My quick search indicates they were invented in the 80's.
I may give this a closer look later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.8.16 ( talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This page will be subject to update and expansion over the next couple months. (February 28, 2008) This page needs to be broken down into sections, expanded on, and needs its links updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSpeakers ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Reduced to a Start - should not have been assessed as B and especially when the author assessed it themselves.
Start - "Useful to some, provides more than a little information, but many readers will need more."
Needs more explanation of the mechanics, why it is more efficient and the benefits. The basic reader is being told servo is worse than gravity. Only one real example cited, topic needs expanding and additional material found. Stating Passive dynamics are used does not go in any way shape or form towards explaining waht they are, and that is what the article is about. "based on utilising the momentum of swinging limbs for greater efficiency." greater efficiency of what ?
Peer review was carried out 18 April 2008. and recommendations were not followed, recommendation 1 move pic, 2 expand lead, 3 Refs !
None of these three were done - there are 12 recommendations on there and I think maybe only 4 were followed...and one of those was by the peer reviewer.
Lastly - the creator of the article, and only contributor, gave it a B assessment BEFORE the peer review results, and once in did NOT remove it, nor fix the article.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
How the heck do you get "stub has 1-2 sentences"? WP:Stub "Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written – their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long."
Well, this is one of those articles that a lot could be written about. That would mean that a couple of paragraphs would still be a stub. This was never a conversation. You refuse to admit that this has been incorrectly assessed and just keep flatly refusing to listen. The article has prose issues, contains sentences such as "this sounds silly but", peacocking, and is very much an advert for Cornell.
I suggest you correct these to bring it up to a B-class standard. If you want to know what that is, try this: Wikipedia:Assessment#Quality_scale and click on "show" next to "More detailed criteria" Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)