Talk:Crash (magazine)/GA1

RESULT

Promoted to GA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking... SpinningSpark 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a subscriber to Crash around 1986-1989 and it was via the Tech Tips and Playing Tips columns that I learned Z80 machine code, which led to learning C, UNIX, and kick starting my professional career. So it is really fondly remembered by me. I have scoured everywhere for sources, but really can't find anything beyond what's listed here, so aside from citing the magazine itself, this is about as comprehensive as it's going to get. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns over the quality of the referencing. Letters to the editor cannot, in general, be used as RS. We can quote a letter, with attribution, but we cannot derive a Wikipedia opinion or statement from them. The only exception is if the author falls into the "established expert" category per WP:SPS. Other than that, there is nothing hugely wrong with the page.

It seems to have been a struggle to source this - I didn't want to cite it all off the single Eurogamer source, and the other genuinely independent and reliable sources only give a cursory coverage of the magazine. It seems to be one of those topics that while obvious notable, doesn't really get covered in typical reliable sources such as books or news retrospectives. In terms of specifics, citing a bunch of opinions to say that the video reviews drew a mixed reception, or that the Barbarian cover was controversial (and subsequently defended) is not particularly onerous. I'll have a look around and see what else I can find in the magazine archives - unfortunately this won't be secondary source coverage but at least if it comes from the editorial staff it can assumed to be factually correct. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my detailed comments. You may insert comments after each point if you wish, but please do not use strikethrough or add tickmarks or other graphics.

History

Who is Alan Purnell? Without some context, the name is meaningless.
"...asked about whether he could get hold of video games." By whom?
"...Crash boasted..." WP:PUFFERY
It would be helpful if the word covertape was actually in the lead of the target article, or else the link was a redirect or pipe to a section with the word.
"...fondly remembered..." WP:WTW again (also in lead), and I'm not convinced you can extract that from the cited source anyway. The existence of the kickstarter campaign by itself is enough to make the point without WP needing to advance an opinion.

Editorial content

"Hermes Typewriter". Wordsearch did not return the word typewriter in the cited page, and in any case, it is the letters page which would not normally be considered RS. Is the page number faulty?

That'll be a reference to "my Hermes" or "my trusty Hermes" - it's definitely a typewriter. (See search on Crash online for Lloyd Mangram hermes and "Lloyd Managram" "Hermes typewriter"). The Hermes 3000 is name checked in articles such as Larry McMurtry, Novation (Fringe) and List of Desert Island Discs episodes (2011–present) (where it was Tom Hanks' choice of item to take with him), but I don't think we actually have an article on the company itself. Let me run off and write that, then I can address this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning the existence of Hermes typewriters, that's not the issue. I may be going blind, but I'm still not seeing where it is on the cited page. Please indicate exactly which is the relevant letter(s). If the reference is to a reader's letter, then that is not acceptable as a source at all. If it is to one of LM's replies, then you still cannot use it as a reference to verify the fact that he frequently used this meme unless he (or another journalist) explicitly states that he frequently uses it. It would be acceptable to precede the ref with "For example..." or some such construction – anything that makes it clear that you are citing one example only, not evidence that it was used regularly. SpinningSpark 14:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped in some other citations and reduced it to simply saying "On one occasion". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A popular section..." The cited source (ref#20) does not verify the column was popular. In fact it seems to be a primary source and does not verify any of the text other than existence of the "Playing Tips" column.
Same comment on the "Tech Tape" section (ref#23)
"Mixed opinions from readers" seems to be an OR assessment of a letters page (ref#26) rather than something a reliable source actually said.

SpinningSpark 10:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the prose down to just the basics of saying what was printed, without any attempt to give opinion on it. I've added some additional sources that back up the facts; unfortunately there's not much to go on. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review - I was concerned I was approaching this article too much from a fan's point of view and wanted another angle on it. I'll hopefully sort out the other issues in the next day or so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the other issues. I think the main concern is double-checking that the sources confirm that what remains is suitable content for a general purpose encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose still contains "fondly remembered". SpinningSpark 14:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the source is talking about the computer magazine industry generally, rather than Crash. In any case, I don't think it's of vital importance to include it here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.