Talk:Atari video game burial/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs • count) 10:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	You may wish to consider adding an infobox for this article, the closest I can think of is template:Infobox event, which although for a news event could fit this situation. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). I'd change The Burial to Burial.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The specific numbers listed in the Financial Difficulties section should have inline references.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	You mention in the lead, but not in the body why the ET game didn't do very well. You say "but this was later contradicted by a worker who claimed that this was not the case" in the Burial section, did he (or anyone else) say what was the case? You don't really explain why it's become an urban legend. I mean, it seems to be fairly well referenced the way you've written it. The information about alleged insider trading and the stuff about Atari's poor numbers subsequent to the burial should probably be part of the Legacy section. There's also some good (and well referenced) stuff in this section E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)#Effect on the industry that might help flesh this section out some more.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	You say in the caption of the Atari 2600 image that they were junked, but didn't the refuse worker say that this wasn't the case? There are a few appropriate images you could add, e.g. File:Etvideogamecover.jpg
	7. Overall assessment.	The geek inside me really liked reviewing this article, I'm glad I picked it up. I think it's really close to GA status, I'd pass it even with most of my comments except for the unreferenced figures in the financial difficulties section. So I'll put it on hold, and look forward to looking at the finished article (so to speak).

Regarding number 6b (the caption), I think you're a bit confused. The author of the game says he doesn't think there was a mass burial of ET's there. The caption is confirming this, stating (via the literal coverage of the dumping at Alamagordo of the time) that the dump was actually a mix of hardware and some games (several titles were listed as being pulled out by local kids which is what lead to the crushing of everything and pouring of concrete). There's other newspaper coverage of the dumping also confirming this, including a statement from Atari execs that it was malfunctioning equipment (which I believe was also included in this article). Here's the premise of the burial (and this article): There was a burial of stock that consisted of computer hardware, console hardware, and games. It was covered at the time by the local press and explained away by Atari execs in the coverage. Sometime afterwords (nobody know when it first started or how), there was an urban legend that sprung up and has been quoted for years about a mass burial of ET's. The legend directly conflicts with the actual coverage of the time, yet still persists.

With regards to references that discuss in the context of an urban legend, I did find this and this, and this. Further actual reliable references regarding discussion of the urban legend aspect of this seems to be hard to come by. There's plenty of material on the urban legend itself, but not on discussing it in regards to an urban legend. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1B: Heading fixed. Had a look at the infobox template, and very few fields could be reliably filled with the information here - would it be better to have a pretty Spartan infobox or go without?
2B: I've added inline citations to the numbers, but it leaves several consecutive occurrences of the same citations. I usually avoid this but if you feel it's better then I'll stick with it.
3B: Added some info about the ET game, nabbed some from the ET article. The source didn't seem to say why, but I can't access the source to check (it was added to the article before I revamped it). Have incorporated some of the above sources for the 'urban legend' status. I'm not sure if the Kassar information should move to the "Legacy" heading, as it's not a result of the burial, but both were different results arising from the same events.
6B: I've amended the caption to be clearer. I'm also wary of adding non-free content that isn't vital, as the article isn't a critical commentary on ET, but only mentions it as one element of a wider event - I don't think that would really be covered under fair use. GRAPPLE X 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1b. Infoboxes are optional, I had another look at the one I suggested and you're right that most of the fields aren't relevant. I had a go at filling out what I could, from my POV it looks better, but I'm happy if you want to revert the edit. Either way, I think this one is Done.
2b. The MOS is pretty clear that specific numbers should be inline referenced so that they can be verified. I don't really have a problem with consecutive reference numbers, but understand it's a matter of personal approach. You could also reword the sentence so that they are together, but personally I think the way you've written it flows really well. If you're happy with the way it is, I think that one is Done
3b. Now that I look at it again, you're right about moving the Kassar information down. Done The references don't really address why it became an urban legend given that it's pretty clear it happened. Nice job on finding those references Marty. I had another look too and couldn't find anything to describe the why, so I'll need to be happy that we've just referenced that it has been considered an urban legend. I wonder if there's a chance to rewrite the sentences along the lines of what Marty has outlined: "Sometime afterwords (nobody know when it first started or how), there was an urban legend that sprung up and has been quoted for years about a mass burial of ET's. The legend directly conflicts with the actual coverage of the time, yet still persists." What do you think?
8b. Fair enough, I'm happy Done

Let me know what you decide about the infobox and the suggestion above I'll take the GA off hold. Nice job on this article, as I mentioned it was fun to read and review. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the sentence in question, hopefully that's phrased it a bit better. GRAPPLE X 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that wording is a bit clearer.

Done Nice job. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]