Talk:Passive dynamics

Unsigned

All three external links direct to sites that have not updated in over 2 years.

Generally biased tone to article

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)

Aims

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)

Robotics assessment

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)

I have requested the WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics to re-assess on their talkpage. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, our quality assessment is rather on the low end, due in part to the rather sad state of many articles. Seriously, I started this project in large part because so many of the articles were best rated as "F***ing terrible"; some where just flat-out completely wrong. I rated this as B because it's not in dire need of major revisions and actually contains a pretty decent overview of the topic. Mokele (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the standard "this is what a B looks like" - do you really think this one warrants a B? Seriously, just because your project's articles are in need of work does not mean that you should lower the standards like this. It is definitely not a B class..

I appreciate that it may well be in the scope of your project, but I am trying to nicely say "please reduce it to a C". Chaosdruid (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter to you how we rate things? Go look at any other article under the scope of multiple Wikiprojects and you'll see they have different ratings. What matters is that the system is useful to our project for differentiating which articles are most in need of help. Mokele (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the article appears as a "B" class due to your rating, as the system show the highest rating off the talk page. B class means that it is only slightly below "GA" standard. This article is well below GA and B standards, it is misrepresented as a well written, informative and complete article.

Ratings systems are different throughout projects, but consider this. Wiki has Stub, Start and C. What would a stub look like compared to this article, a Start or a C? A stub would have a couple of paragraphs and one link or a biblio entry. A start would have more links and more paragraphs and a start would have even more paragraphs and links. A C class would have many links, a reasonable amount of sections and maybe a picture/diagram or two. This really is a start or C. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a problem with the script more than anything else. A stub has 1-2 sentences, possibly flatly incorrect. Start has only minor errors and 4-5 sentences. C is still fairly useless, but at least isn't in desperate need of a total re-write. B is actually useful, with references, no errors, etc. We have one, and only one, A class article, and our only GA article is only vaguely related to the project as a whole.

If you want our rating system to conform to your standards, then join the project and improve some pages. Otherwise, I'm done with this conversation. Mokele (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2011 (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)

Either fix it yourself of quit your whining. What little time I have for WP editing is devoted to articles in FAR worse shape than this one. Our scale is calibrated to be useful to our project - what good is a scale when all the articles wind up at the same level? - and our need for useful ranking outweighs your bizarre fixation on a single, arbitrary metric. Mokele (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whining? ... bizarre fixation? ... arbitrary metric? Yes - turning a valid complaint about your assessment practices into "whining", and the other comments is really not going to carry any weight.

Marking this as a B class article shows how little your project values the quality of articles under your scope. Perhaps in time you will make the realisation that incomplete articles like this, needing a lot of expansion, are not worthy of a B class - I hope sooner than later, as I can see that there are others which have been over classed. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)