Talk:PackBot

message: 5 of the 6 references are dead links (404 error)
Houseofwealth (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

message: Sources to consider in adding information to this page are:
Dunbar, Brian. "NASA Technology Looks Inside Japan's Nuclear Reactor." NASA. NASA, 26 Apr. 2011.
Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
 
Liptak, Andrew, Rae Johnston, and James Whitbrook. "IRobot Is Selling Its Military Robotics
Division To Focus On Cute House Cleaners." Gizmodo Australia. N.p., 08 Feb. 2016. Web.
24 Oct. 2016.
 
"IRobot 510 PackBot Multi-Mission Robot." Army Technology. Kable Intelligence Limited, 2016.
Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
AS0909 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential New Sources for more Information 

message: Added in information about NASA and their working with iRobot. Also added in a short history of the iRobot company. Still need to work on linking parks of the new information with existing Wikipedia articles, and such.AS0909 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edit

message: Peer Review Suggestions and Feedback: 
- The article does a good job setting the background information a person needs to understand what packbots are. The examples all have reliable references which allows a person to them. A picture of the robot also set the foundation of what it might look like which the article did well. What impressed me was how the article explained went in-depth to explain the history, model variances, and details of its features. 
- The contents of the article are set up in an orderly fashion. The subheadings are all appropriate, important topics, and I like how the “commercial presence” section is split up into three smaller “variant” groups.
- The section titled “NASA and PackBots” does not contain correct information. The article refers to NASA as the “National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration,” which is not even the correct name of the actual organization it is referring to (NOAA). However, NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This section is very poorly written with many grammar errors. 
- Possibly try to expand more on information that is categorized into lists. Lists are nice way to display information, however, I feel as though the information could go more in depth. 
- Look for more pictures to display the action of PackBots. I think the article describes the uses of PackBots well, but I have a hard time visualizing how these PackBots actually work, and I think better pictures would help portray this. Also, I want to know who invented each of the different type of PackBots, and how they were invented. I think their origin is an important aspect to include in the article.
- Since there is a “Commercial Presence” within the article, it should be introduced in the first introductory paragraph. It distracted me because it started out as a military robot then talked about commercial use.
- This article consists of many lists. The information in the lists are important and relevant, however, it could be better to incorporate more information in paragraph form. 
- This article is not biased toward a particular position and all viewpoints are represented equally. 
- Since there are so many different type of models and robots listed, it might be useful to include more images of the devices to grasp a better understand of what they are.
- Are there any new robots made in 2016, or any potential robots currently being worked on? If so, could they be included in the article?
- 3 most important things to improve: (1)Work on a better introduction. It is very choppy, does not flow well, and does not provide enough information. (2) Make sure all the information is accurate (NASA and Packbots section) and written in a grammatically correct manner with full sentences. (3) Include the origin of the different robot types, which serves as a way to validate and check the article information. 
Ozogjess (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAH206 peer review proposed suggestions  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on PackBot. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roboticstrends.com/security_defense_robotics/article/irobot_delivers_3000th_packbot/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228172221/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/November/RDcommand.htm to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/November/RDcommand.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915093809/http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=314 to http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=314
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the history of the PackBot accurate? I compiled tech-news related entries +10 years ago
and I just stumbled over PackBot. But then I read ... it started in 1998? Or so wikipedia
claims ... which confuses me a bit. Is the history accurate? Could someone double-check
on this and make the history of the PackBot as accurate as possible please? That would
help solo-hobbyists like me a LOT since I can not verify all technical articles and
verify their validity. Thanks. (To clarify this: I think I must have made this local
note some time in 2005 to 2008 or so since that was the time when I was most actively
storing information locally. This is why the 1998 comment confused me ... I thought
PackBot was not that old.) 2A02:8388:1641:8380:F57D:59AE:A2AE:B491 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of the history