Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)

Renomination: Barely failed last time and I feel that the concerns brought up then have been addressed. --SeizureDog 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Any statement in quotation marks need to be properly sourced. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The prose doesn't seem brilliant to me - it's too conversational. Try to adopt a more scholarly tone. I found a spelling error at a quick glance ("sentimentallity") so there may be more. At least one quotation isn't cited. Some of the sources are questionable at first glance. For example, Moby Games didn't look like a quality source to me but it has a Wikipedia article so I'd suggest wikilinking it's name in the reference (same goes for any other sources which have Wikipedia articles; those that don't and whose pedigree is not obvious to the casual reader ought to have a note saying why this source can be considered authoratative - see e.g. Fuck the Millennium and in particular footnote #31). You do have a good range of sources, and the makings of a good layout but the "Endnotes" section looks messy and needs cleaning. --kingboyk 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Putting Mobygames in the references would be like putting imdb into movie references, which we generally don't do. What's the uncited quote? As far as your dislike for the endnotes is concerned, I'm do understand exactly what you want. --SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you people are misunderstanding my use of Scare quotes. --SeizureDog 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Worst game ever, worst nomination ever :P Try adding more informations. Was it released only in America? What year was released in Europe? ( if was released ), etc... KYMYK 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I know it was never released outside of the US. What other informations do you want?--SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To KYMYK: Are you sure of your assertions: Worst game ever, worst nomination ever. Based on your claim I presume that you are not new to wikipedia and must surely have read Wikipedia:Civility. --Bhadani 12:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading the lead, I noted no less than 3 weasel words:
"It is widely considered..."
"is seen by many as..."
"is widely regarded as..."
  • If they were sourced, then they wouldn't be so bad. Additionally, the quotes in "Endnotes" fail to cite from where they are derived, making their usefulness as references questionable at best. The gameplay section is almost entirely uncited (I know this is a pain, but it is becoming standard procedure), on top of being somewhat bloated. Finally, the "In popular culture" section is written in trivia section style. I recommend finding more people interested in the subject matter to help out with the article—collaboration on a strange and somewhat obscure subject such as this can go a long way. JimmyBlackwing 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • They are sourced, but in the "Critical response" section (btw, those are actually WP:Peacock words). The entire gameplay section is referenced by the instruction manual. There's no point in adding the same cite to the end of every sentence. And what are you talking about? The quotes very directly state what they are quoting from. The popular culture comment seems like a mere stylistic concern. --SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I apologize. I missed the sourcing on the quotes. However, the things I listed are indeed weasel words (compare the examples in "WP:AWW" to those of "WP:PCK"), even if the article has a peacock term problem, as well. Bulleted lists are normally frowned upon - I've seen objections based on "listiness" alone. JimmyBlackwing 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor Support the article looks good to me. igordebraga ≠ 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, based on the poor grammar, prose and general writing quality. — Wackymacs 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Wackymacs and Jimmy. Tony 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To lick the text problem, try printing out a hard copy and manually editing it. You might also just paste it into Word. It helps put things in perspective, and the fat just melts away. --Zeality 01:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)