The article still sounds *very* positive, and more seems like promoting Warwick than being of a critical evaluation of him. I am an AI researcher myself, closely familiar with much of leading AI research world-wide, and I had never heard about Warwick or his work before (and having recently read about, I can now certainly understand why.) The article paints a completely inappropriate picture of Warwick that has nothing to do with the reality of his accomplishments. He seems to have lots of acceptance from UK academic and non-academic circles, but this is disproportional to his actual achievements in AI or in computer science. The article desperately needs to be fixed to clear this up.