Talk:RoboBee
 | A news item involving RoboBee was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 May 2013. |  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Reads like an advertisement?[edit]
Just starting a thread to discuss the "reads like an advertisement" tag that another editor added recently. My take: Maybe there's a "slightly promotional tone" (per the ES), but I don't think it's an NPOV problem. The prose conveys the excitement of the achievement but doesn't promote anything else. Maybe a tweak needed but that's it. Great article and fascinating topic. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I marked two sections with {{news release}} template because they are really news-like. --PICAWN (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the tagger - the excessive use of a personal tone, and the lack of simple factual information, makes it sound like this has been transcribed from a PR release. Simple information is lacking, such as: when did the research start? who else does this kind of research? What other discoveries led to the device? What is the maximum flight duration? Are there limitations due to fatigue for cycling of the mtaerial that makes up the wing? Can they, in theory, fly outdoors? There is far too much of a personal tone e.g. " "This is what I have been trying to do for literally the last 12 years," remarked wood", which adds little other than an emotive response to the article. 46.115.43.77 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- The history section has been fixed by removing the unnecessary quotes - good suggestion. As to the lack of technical information, one can only report what is out there. We might want other info, but if it isn't publicly available we are kind of stuck. The tone, however, should be fixable without such information - what specifically can be done to improve the technical challenges section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's greatly improved! However, I can't access the paper, as I don't have a valid login. There is some information on previous vehicles, notably the DelFly (page 3) which is 2.3 grams, cant fly outdoors, works by flapping, and is capable of the forward motion that is described by the author as a difficult advance. 46.115.75.159 (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- The history section has been fixed by removing the unnecessary quotes - good suggestion. As to the lack of technical information, one can only report what is out there. We might want other info, but if it isn't publicly available we are kind of stuck. The tone, however, should be fixable without such information - what specifically can be done to improve the technical challenges section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Other sources[edit]
Even 5-6 years ago in some high tech studying documentaries were briefly telling that Pentagon related labs were working on bee sized nano flying robots. But this news with Harvard was surprising thing to see. Orgio89 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"In 5 B.C. A guy got a gold in hoping of a fence in a cow race to see the fastest pig." appears to be irreverent to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.91.182.208 (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Military use[edit]
Search and rescue? Surely it should be search and destroy. You can be sure this is going to be used for military purposes.Especially when you search and see which term is more common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.104.94 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hardly, they aren't autonomous having tethered power, no sensors, and no onboard control. 220.248.55.13 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- What could you even destroy with this thing? If you have a weapon compact enough to be carried by a bee, you're probably better off just dispersing a big cloud of it in the air. 62.44.246.109 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)