Talk:Donecle

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donecle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160103234912/http://lci.tf1.fr/economie/entreprise/air-cobot-le-robot-dont-dependra-votre-securite-8622912.html to http://lci.tf1.fr/economie/entreprise/air-cobot-le-robot-dont-dependra-votre-securite-8622912.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplication

The "Technologies" and "Products" sections have far too much duplication and need merging or one of them deleting. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. I delete sentences and change others. Only one paragraph resumes the system with some key points indoor/outdoor, autonomous laser/image and human in the loop. To go further, the technical information is provided in technologies. --Bonita Juarez (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Donecle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 11:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll start with what I consider to be issues and put it under criteria names.

Well-written

• offers single UAVs and swarms of UAVs I have hard time processing this, "single UAVs"? And the word "swarm" is only used on groups of insects, try to use a "group" or "crowd". And it isn't a common word that somebody would know.
• Please write what is a "laser positioning technology" as a broad audience won't get this, like... what positioning a laser do? It points out to something important? Or is a laser that is similar to a camera flash and that how it take pictures?
• Please write what is "certification bodies" because broad audience such as me don't know what is this term and it isn't a common term.
• Please also let the viewers know what is a "aircraft fuselages".
• on the A400M and A350 aircraft considering it refers both of the aircrafts, let's add letter "s" after aircraft.
• What is "control theory"?
• June of That same year... is there a particular reason with "That" is capitalized like is the start of a sentence?
• Your decision to change "autonomous" to "independent" or "automatically" as I consider many people don't know what that type of latin word means.
• typical airliner with drones takes about twenty minutes versus six to ten hours and requires one person versus ten to twenty., I didn't understand the "versus" thing, the drone take twenty minutes to six to ten hours or instead of six to ten hours performed by many inspectors?
• Say what "patents" are in case the broad audience doesn't understand what does this mean (like me).
• And again "inception" in sense of "starting point" isn't also commonly used.
• Also try to tell what is a "capital injection" as it isn't a common word used. Remember you can replace the words with appropriate phrases that tell without phrase complexity being used.
• The Donecle UAV is a coaxial push-pull octocopter., "coaxial push-pull octocopter"?? This explains it the next sentence? I'm pretty sure not even airplane fanatics won't know those terms.
• In awards and recognision don't forget to add punctuation at the end of all the sentences.

Verifiability

• On the first paragraph remember that it doesn't excuse itself from any references, try to reference the whole top page.
• [2] doesn't have links.
• [3][4] requires me to sign up and sci-hub doesn't really help me here.
• [6], despite the book not being accessible for reading it, it is in French like the rest of the references here I will use Google Translate correct me if I do something wrong in correcting those.

I'm not done yet, I will put this page onhold to be corrected and after it's done I'll put it on 2ndopinion due to my inexperience, you can comment some changes from here if you like now I'm going to take a break from here and I assure you the review will be done until tomorrow. Success to you. Editoneer (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Resuming...

• [1] not only that is a book, is it in French and I can't copy the content, help.
• [9] doesn't mention that Matt was working on UAVs at Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace.
• A graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique, Claybrough has a specialization in innovation management, aeronautics and control theory. it doesn't say anything about those in ref [12] and [13]..
• [14] CE CONTENU N'EST PLUS DISPONIBLE.
• [10] [16] doesn't mention them going to that Paris show.
• [24] doesn't mention IoT sensors.
• [26] video isn't avaliable.
• [31] only says Paris Air Lab not Show.
• [33] Twitter isn't really the reliable of sites.
• [34] has no links.
• [36] BUY SUBSCRIPTION FOR 49$!
• [36] BUY SUBSCRIPTION FOR 49$!

And now onhold. Editoneer (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Editoneer, I have moved the above part of the review which you posted on the talk page instead of the review page. I have a couple of comments on this review: first of all, the editor has a possible COI/paid editing status and the article should be reviewed with that in mind for possible issues. Secondly, I am concerned by some of your comments on referencing. It is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to have references that are offline, print, behind paywalls, or in foreign languages (but the private Youtube video is definitely not acceptable). We usually assume good faith for such material and accept it without reading on review. In cases where there is some reason for particular concern, you can ask the editor to provide an exact quote from the source, or else you can request the document at the resource exchange who can help in most cases.

On a minor point, list items don't have to end in punctuation because they are sentence fragments, see MOS:PERIOD. In any case, such trivia does not form part of the GA requirements and should generally be kept out of GA reviews. See also Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. SpinningSpark 11:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, if you detect any more issues with my reviewing please let me know. I apologize now I already know that books are acceptable and made it look like it isn't good.

Anyways, Sci-hub doesn't help me with most of the references, I can't throughly review [36]. And I still can't find the "Paris Air Show" being mentioned. Editoneer (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Some issues

• Two years (2019 and 2020) are not covered by the article. If someone wanna translate or find some ideas, it seems to be done on the Spanish version.
• The swarm has never been shown in the demonstrations, shows, videos or whatever. In my opinion, just a statement and not commercially done.

--Layanka (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Layanka for trying to help me.... anyways, nobody done any progress whatsoever since I started this, any clues what to do? I'm very close to deny this article. Editoneer (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Editoneer, Bonita Juarez nominated the article back in September, but has not edited on Wikipedia for about seven weeks (March 9 was the last date). I have just posted a note on their web page indicating that the review needs a response right away; looking at their edit history, they can sometimes be away for months at a time. If you haven't heard back in the next several days, and if no one else shows up to address the issues you've raised, I don't see that you'll have any choice but to fail the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moonset, I suppose they can fix the page with what I left in their review. and then put the 2019-2020 information into the page. Editoneer (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)