Difference between revisions of "Talk:Humanoid Robots"
(Created page with "Your article is approximately ~920 words, which is within the accepted draft length. You successfully include a sectioned body and references in your article, but it is unclea...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Your article is approximately ~920 words, which is within the accepted draft length. You successfully include a sectioned body and references in your article, but it is unclear if the first section is your introduction or the opening of the body. To my understanding, the introduction should be at the very beginning of the article prior to any sections, and only cover a very broad introduction of the topic. As it stands, the first paragraph is already a closer look at one of the humanoid robot prototypes you're examining for your article. If you plan on focusing primarily on the Tesla robot, perhaps you could change your title to reflect this as the title "Humanoid Robots" can be slightly misleading. If you are covering humanoid robots as a general topic instead, I would recommend giving each prototype company its own standalone section rather than having the second two under a "Competitors" header. You do well to introduce a lot of information about the various robots, and your neutral point of view is consistent in my opinion. In addition, there may be some merit to ensuring consistency in measuring system used for your information about the robot's weights and capacities, but I would check with an instructor first to see if you should convert them. The comparison section is a good touch to provide some relation between the three robots you discuss. For your references, you will need to place your | + | Your article is approximately ~920 words, which is within the accepted draft length. You successfully include a sectioned body and references in your article, but it is unclear if the first section is your introduction or the opening of the body. To my understanding, the introduction should be at the very beginning of the article prior to any sections, and only cover a very broad introduction of the topic. As it stands, the first paragraph is already a closer look at one of the humanoid robot prototypes you're examining for your article. If you plan on focusing primarily on the Tesla robot, perhaps you could change your title to reflect this as the title "Humanoid Robots" can be slightly misleading. If you are covering humanoid robots as a general topic instead, I would recommend giving each prototype company its own standalone section rather than having the second two under a "Competitors" header. You do well to introduce a lot of information about the various robots, and your neutral point of view is consistent in my opinion. In addition, there may be some merit to ensuring consistency in measuring system used for your information about the robot's weights and capacities, but I would check with an instructor first to see if you should convert them. The comparison section is a good touch to provide some relation between the three robots you discuss. For your references, you will need to place your ref tags throughout the article so that they are positioned near the statement you make that is backed up by them, rather than just all of them at the end. As it stands, it is difficult to determine exactly which statement is backed up by which reference. The issue at stake is made clear in your "Concerns" section, as you list off various areas for debate and controversy. However, you could go more into depth about them. You could take a look at the various sides of each debate or controversy, such as the workers' response to their jobs being threatened vs the support for menial tasks being automated from bigger corporations. You could also further express the importance of these controversies/stakes. Your description of the ethical concerns is from the neutral point of view, but the references would need to be properly placed before one could judge whether they're backed up. |
Latest revision as of 19:09, 3 February 2023
Your article is approximately ~920 words, which is within the accepted draft length. You successfully include a sectioned body and references in your article, but it is unclear if the first section is your introduction or the opening of the body. To my understanding, the introduction should be at the very beginning of the article prior to any sections, and only cover a very broad introduction of the topic. As it stands, the first paragraph is already a closer look at one of the humanoid robot prototypes you're examining for your article. If you plan on focusing primarily on the Tesla robot, perhaps you could change your title to reflect this as the title "Humanoid Robots" can be slightly misleading. If you are covering humanoid robots as a general topic instead, I would recommend giving each prototype company its own standalone section rather than having the second two under a "Competitors" header. You do well to introduce a lot of information about the various robots, and your neutral point of view is consistent in my opinion. In addition, there may be some merit to ensuring consistency in measuring system used for your information about the robot's weights and capacities, but I would check with an instructor first to see if you should convert them. The comparison section is a good touch to provide some relation between the three robots you discuss. For your references, you will need to place your ref tags throughout the article so that they are positioned near the statement you make that is backed up by them, rather than just all of them at the end. As it stands, it is difficult to determine exactly which statement is backed up by which reference. The issue at stake is made clear in your "Concerns" section, as you list off various areas for debate and controversy. However, you could go more into depth about them. You could take a look at the various sides of each debate or controversy, such as the workers' response to their jobs being threatened vs the support for menial tasks being automated from bigger corporations. You could also further express the importance of these controversies/stakes. Your description of the ethical concerns is from the neutral point of view, but the references would need to be properly placed before one could judge whether they're backed up.
