The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Workplace robotics safety[edit]

Drawing of a 1984 industrial robot accident

• ... that injuries from workplace robots include impact, collision, crushing (pictured), trapping, and mechanical part injuries? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: For first nomination, no review required.

Created by JC429618c (talk). Self-nominated at 19:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

• @JC429618c: I had begun a review for this hook, however... Before completing it, I consider it fair to note that the current hook may face quite a bit of trouble getting over the "interesting to a broad audience" aspect of the elegibility criteria. It seems, at least to me, that these injury types are fairly common in industry and happen even when there is no automated system involved.

I still think that there is potential in this topic. For example, take the case of the failsafe protocols that are applied to military robots and how the role of humans has decreased as the technology advanced (a piece about that can be seen here, but there are many others in relation to the purportedly probable "singularity"). Of course, this is just a suggestion; there might be other applications of these measures that could also serve to create an ALT hook, that don't involve the military or "killer robots". Once an adequate alternative is presented, I will review it accordingly. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Also of note is the broad definition of "workplace", the current revision emphasizes an industrial setting, but the title implies that the scope of the topic can include anything from that to the International Space Station. If the piece is only meant to discuss the risks of employing industrial robots, the article is in need of a new title. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Old School WWC Fan: Hi, I mentored User:JC429618c in writing this article. This article is about robots in the workplace, not military robots. It includes both traditional industrial robots and emerging technologies, as discussed in the background section, and most of the information is applicable to both; I've moved some text around a bit to make this clearer. At DYK, nominations are never failed for not being interesting enough; it's more important to make sure the hook fact is verified by the source. But here's another hook that night be more interesting. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that workplace robotics safety applies to both traditional industrial robots (pictured) and emerging technologies such as robotic exoskeletons and drone aircraft?

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Thanks for the clarification. I will be providing a more complete review during the upcoming days. I also consider the ALT hook adequate. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Review:

• New: The article was moved from userspace on March 13 and nominated for DYK on March 15. There are several articles with similar scope within Category:Occupational hazards, but they don't deal with robotics and there is nothing suggesting that a similar piece existed prior to this one, nor any indication of being splintered from another entry. The candidate meets this aspect of the criteria thoroughly.

• Long enough: According to the prosesize tool, the article has 8,947 characters, which is way above the threshold of 1,500 characters.

• Cited hook: ALT1 is a composite, but each aspect is properly cited (one of the references comes from NIOSH and the nominators are associated with that agency, but it should still be considered a reliable source and I'm AGF). There is one small issue left... ALT1 has 217 characters, while the recommended limit is 200. This can be easily solved by removing the link piping from the UAV and exoskeleton links (cutting it down to 183 characters):

ALT2 ... that workplace robotics safety applies to both traditional industrial robots (pictured) and emerging technologies such as powered exoskeletons and unmanned aerial vehicles?

I don't think that the context is affected by removing "robotic exoskeletons", but it's up to the nominator (or his tutor) to decided if they accept this change or propose another ALT.

• Within policy: The article uses several common words, but the Duplication Detector does not find a copyvio here. An independent search using the prose and Google only brought back pieces about workplace death and "killer robots".

• QPQ: Excluded (nominator lacks five DYK credits)

• Overall: Everything related to the article per se is ready, the only issue remaining is the length of the hook.

Old School WWC Fan (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Old School WWC Fan: The 200 character limit only counts visible text, not markup. ALT1 has 151 characters. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that the script was depurated to only count characters outside templates; relying on the tool was my mistake. ALT1 is good to go. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I pulled this from prep because I was unable to confirm the hook. "Drone aircraft" appears only in the lead and is uncited. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC

@Gatoclass: Drone aircraft is a synonym for unmanned aerial vehicle. If that's a problem to verify, it's okay to just unpipe that link in the hook. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• for ALT1. DYKs need to be concise and need not appear precisely as written in the article. Wiktionary gives a definition of drone as "a remotely controlled aircraft, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)", and similarly OED defines drone as "a pilotless aircraft or missile directed by remote control". The substitution is thus just a matter of simple English. With this in mind, ref #5 verifies the fact and all other previous review points remain valid. I don't think that the picture is appropriate for ALT1, but it was for the original hook and, by the way, I disagree with the comment that the original is uninteresting. I think a lot of people will be very interested in how dangerous workplace robots can be to humans. SpinningSpark 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)