Talk:HUBO/Draft

The status or A editor fields in the metadata template are either incorrect or absent. If the article has been approved please add the approving editor to the A editor field. Otherwise, please change the status from 0"" to an appropriate value between 1 and 4 in the metadata template. Please update the metadata template here

International Collaboration on HUBO 2

{{#ev:youtube|ame730JIDds}}

http://www.drexel.edu/news/headlines/introducing-jaemi-hubo-the-humanoid.aspx

What would be the appropriate way to list the developers of HUBO in the introduction, now that multiple universities and more than one models are involved? Should HUBO be described as "humanoid robot technology demonstrators" (not all HUBO's are humanoid robots) ?

(Chunbum Park 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Nice video. I don't think we want any kind of list in the introduction, maybe later or in a footnote. And, yes, keep the 'humanoid' at the beginning, as that's how he started. Ro Thorpe 20:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

On approval

With regard to the question asked in the forum: In my view this is a well-written article that deserves approval if -- as I do not doubt -- facts are correct and no major aspect is missing.
On the historical section: What about dates (years) in the subsection headings? And perhaps a subsection heading for HUBO-2? --Peter Schmitt 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Would you or an editor trio (math, computer science, and physics) be able to approve the article? (Chunbum Park 21:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

A few of the references need to provide more information

This is a well-written article but some of the references are somewhat incomplete.

For example, reference 15 is listed as merely "Cho and Oh, 2007" and reference 25 is listed as merely "Cho and Oh, 2009, pp.7".

Are those references to a book by Cho and Oh? Or a journal article? or what? If a book, then what is the book title, who published it and what is the ISBN? If a journal article, what was the article title, what was the name of the journal, and what was the issue and volume of the journal? If an online website, what is the url of the website and what is the title of the url page? Also, Cho and Oh should be identified by their full names ... or at least initials and a surname.

A number of the other reference also list Cho as the author. Again, what is Cho's full name or at least initials and a surname?

Also, very few readers will know what is meant by KAIST. It would help if it were spelled out (Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) at least once in the main article and also in reference 5.

Basically, the idea is to provide enough information so readers can find the referenced sources. Milton Beychok 04:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a serious look at the article. I meant for more specific details of the references to be included in the bibliography subpage. Cho and Oh 2007 would refer to the only Cho and Oh from 2007, which would be

•Cho, Baek-kyu and Jun-ho Oh, "Controller Design and Experimental Approach on the Dynamic Walking on the Spot in Planar Biped Robot", IEEE-RAS International Conference of Humanoid Robots, Serial. 1, Pittsburgh, USA, 2007, 11 57

I didn't cite the pages if the statement was taken as a summary of various points made throughout the article.

Should I make the the notes more details, regardless? (Chunbum Park 05:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Yes, if that is the complete referenced source that was used in the main article, then it belongs in the "Notes" section of the main article instead of the Bibliography subpage. Most readers are not going to look at the subpages. The Bibliography subpage is for sources which are not used in the main article (that is, they augment the main article sources). As an aside, the Notes are created by the {{reflist}} template, meaning "reference list" ... therefore I personally prefer to name that section as "References" rather than "Notes", but that is only my personal preference. Milton Beychok 06:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of style, I would say. Personally, I prefer Chumbum's approach: All detailed bibliographical data in the Bibliography, references only where it is important to relate a speceific statement with a specific source. --Peter Schmitt 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)