Talk:ASIMO/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
''Call for Approval: ''[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | ''Call for Approval: ''[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
''Approval Notice: '' | ''Approval Notice: '' Revision [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=ASIMO&oldid=100796964 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=ASIMO&oldid=100796964 00:16 27 February 2012] | ||
''Certification of Approval: '' | ''Certification of Approval: '' |
Revision as of 21:33, 28 February 2012
Reference to Isaac Asimov
Honda officially claims that "ASIMO" is not a reference to Isaac Asimov. So is the name merely a coincidence? Anyone with a high school diploma should be able to figure out that this is not the case; I think it's more appropriate to write in the introduction that ASIMO is named after Isaac Asimov than to echo the "contrary to popular belief...." (Chunbum Park 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
What does a gyroscope do?
Is this correct?
gyroscope [ used to determine ] the overall orientation relative to the ground horizon
(Chunbum Park 23:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
Approval Process: Review period
Call for review: Chunbum Park 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Call for Approval: Peter Schmitt 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Approval Notice: Revision http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=ASIMO&oldid=100796964 00:16 27 February 2012
Certification of Approval:
Please discuss the article below, ASIMO/Approval is for brief official referee's only!
Comments
This article is certainly worth to be examined for Approval. --Peter Schmitt 01:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I moved 'development history' section to my sandbox. I think it does not necessarily need to be included for the article to be approved, so it could be completed by Approved version 2.0. (Chunbum Park 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC))
- Is there something that I am not doing to get the approval process moving, such as providing reasons why the article is fit for approval? Approval could wait until I finish writing the development history section as well. (Chunbum Park 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC))
Comment
Having read the entire article, it is my opinion that it is exceedingly well written and I would recommend that it be approved. I am an Engineering editor, but I am no expert on robotics. However, I found this article to be very interesting, well detailed, easy to understand and well written.
The only point that should be corrected is that some of the references provide only the authors' names and dates but do not include the the title of their publication or the book (or journal) in which the publication appeared. For example: (a) the four references to Masato, Hirose and Ogawa Kenchi, (b) the two references to Sakagami et al, (c) the reference to Kim et al and (d) the reference to Pfeiffer, Friedrich, and Hirochika Inoue. Milton Beychok 18:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those are now fixed. Thank you for the comment. (Chunbum Park 05:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC))