Talk:Gemini (chatbot)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gemini (chatbot) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Bard Mistake
Is there any possible use of this image in this draft? Basilio (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, for two reasons: one, it is widely known that Bard and other AI chatbots make a lot of mistakes; two, this image is a copyright violation and will be deleted momentarily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Very low readability
Under the Flesch reading ease scale, this article gets a score of 38, and is harder to read than 75% of Wikipedia articles. That reading scale is computed purely based on syllable length and sentence length, no other factors. DFlhb (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- These measurements aren't accurate, and there are plenty of GAs and even FAs that have low "readibility scores". If you have specific issues you believe this article has, you are welcome to raise them here, not tag the lead with a {{Copyedit}} template. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I only checked the readability score after noticing that the Launch section was unappealing and looked like a wall of text. A more specific complain is that the article seems very dense, and likely goes into excessive detail in places. That's not an opinion I have on most FA articles, and it's why I added the copyedit tag. DFlhb (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- The length of each paragraph is about the same as other well-written articles that go into similar levels of detail and comprehensiveness. What details do you find
excessive
? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)- I guess that's subjective, and might be better left along for now.
- But I'd at least separate the competitive aspects into a separate paragraph, that mentions the competition to launch before Microsoft, the increased costs, and the long-term fears of search engines losing their dominance due to chatbots, which I don't think we mention right now.
- I'd also rename "Launch" to "Announcement" and just keep key details, and move the play-by-play of the launch into a "Launch" subsection under "Reception". DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's all reception to the launch/announcement, not Bard itself. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- The length of each paragraph is about the same as other well-written articles that go into similar levels of detail and comprehensiveness. What details do you find
- I only checked the readability score after noticing that the Launch section was unappealing and looked like a wall of text. A more specific complain is that the article seems very dense, and likely goes into excessive detail in places. That's not an opinion I have on most FA articles, and it's why I added the copyedit tag. DFlhb (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Removal of info posted by Gizmo2121
Recently, a newly created account @Gizmo2121 added a lengthy block of text to the article. It was reverted by ClueBot and restored by @Kabecinha11. I've removed it again.
The text has two big problems. First, it's a general purpose essay about large language models, not information about Bard. Second it has no citations. That's enough to justify the revert, but I'd add that the text is generic and repetitive, and thus has hallmarks of AI generated text. It at least partially failed some free AI text detection tools (I'm not going to list them as I don't know whether to have faith in them, just reporting that I tried and they came up positive). Oblivy (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION IN IMO STATE UNIVERSITY
Assessment 102.90.43.138 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class Google articles
- Mid-importance Google articles
- WikiProject Google articles
- WikiProject Artificial Intelligence articles
- B-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- B-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- B-Class Linguistics articles
- Low-importance Linguistics articles
- B-Class applied linguistics articles
- Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles