Talk:Automonopoli/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A good start, especially considering how hard it is to find offline sources (unless you have the stockpile). However on points of completeness, there is no coverage of the gameplay or more than a sentence of reception. Those sections are going to need to be beefed up to meet that GA criteria. On hold for a week. czar ♔  03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because it replicates Monopoly so closely, there's little to say about gameplay, which is basically "roll dice, advance, do you want to buy this?, repeat" - I assume the reviewers (reasonably) assumed that anyone interested in a Monopoly computer game would already be familiar with the game, so none bother to explain what the game entails. I've added a bit about gameplay based on the only review I can find that actually describes it - I assume describing it myself would be original research.


 * There's little to say about reception. Unlike the genuinely influential games Mel Croucher wrote for Automata (Pimania, My Name Is Uncle Groucho, iD, and above all Deus Ex Machina), Automonopoli made no particular impression, and what coverage there was focused primarily on the court case. Aside from one full-length review in ZX Computing, every other review I'm aware of was just a basic "I recommend it if you want to play Monopoly against a computer" review along these lines, while because he didn't write it himself, it doesn't feature in Mel Croucher's autobiography. As it was sold mail-order rather than through shops, we don't even have sales figures. (Automata still exists, but I assume asking them direct for more information would constitute original research; the only Automonopoli/GtJ related content in their public archive is a few adverts.) Mogism (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You understand what I mean for completeness, though, right? Like you'd want to source an article saying that it is completely identical to Monopoly (and things are rarely exactly identical and are then noted for their differences, but whatever), and then to source a brief description of the gameplay. As for Reception, I'd pile everything you can find into one section, even if it is a single sentence with multiple citations (that the game is recommended for all who like Monopoly) and a few extra sentences from the one extensive review. I don't care as much about the sales figures since I'm going for completeness of the article, but re: your point, aren't most sales figures self-reported anyway? It's not like that would be a problem—it's more getting that figure published somewhere reliable that ostensibly checks its sources. As it stands, this article would clock in as one of the shortest GAs in the encyclopedia. It can use some beef in the aforementioned areas as well as some overall bulking from the available literature (not for the sake of bulking, but if this is really all that's available, let's try to be exhaustive about it). czar ♔  01:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I get entirely what you're saying, but there's so little material that "completeness" is relative. This was the period when "gaming" meant consoles, and home computer games were a rarity - Jetpac, Manic Miner and Elite hadn't yet been released to make people take notice of home computers' potential as a viable alternative to a games console. Crash, the first Spectrum gaming magazine, didn't start publication until 1984; aside from Computer & Video Games (which doesn't appear ever to have noticed Automonopoli) the magazines were aimed primarily at programmers, and gaming reviews were just a couple of pages in each issue of Popular Computing Weekly, ZX Computing etc.
 * Automonopoli really is identical to the UK edition of Monopoly in every detail (as Waddingtons' lawyers weren't slow to point out), right down to the wording on the Community Chest cards and the design of the playing counters; consequently, there are no differences to point out, other than ultra-superficial things (no picture of a car of "Free Parking", and so forth).
 * I'll try to pad out a "reception" section, but it will be tough going. Thanks to User:23W who's dug up archive.org links to the original magazines in the reference section, you can see for yourself just how sparse and "This is a version of Monopoly. Buy it if you like Monopoly." the reviews from the time were - this one really is fairly typical - and unlike the famous Automata games, this doesn't have any legacy to speak of. (As far as I can ascertain, the writer never released another game, so it didn't even serve as a springboard.) This is the one long review, and even that's a seam that can't really be mined any deeper in terms of reception than I already have.
 * I'm not sure I agree with your point about shortness. As of now this has 3864B readable prose - that's on a par with a short Featured Article, and considerably longer than some existing Good Articles. Certainly it's shorter than the majority of video game FAs, but that's a reflection of the fact that most of those games are either from the period when everything was covered at length in multiple sources, or influential games that continue to be referenced in books on the history of the industry. Mogism (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Shortness wouldn't be a reason for opposing—was just pointing out that it'd be among the shortest. The article should not written from the perspective of those steeped in the time period. It would apropos to include a two sentence review and note that it's in its entirety so that readers know that this is all the reception that exists—you know, throw the readers a bone. Looking forward to the edits, czar ♔  17:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Give me a couple of days as I'll be busy - I'll try to rewrite a reception section. I assume 99% of people who'll come looking for this are people interested in the history of early game software who'll be familiar with the background, but I entirely understand that it needs to also cater for people who've stumbled across it, and that can be a tricky balance to strike. Mogism (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the review section as per your suggestion, and added a footnote to explain why Crash was reviewing the game almost a year after its release (and after the court case that led to it being withdrawn from sale). I'm leery about quoting reviews in full, as I think that strays into a grey area copyright-wise. Thanks to 23K's digging in archive.org, all the reviews I could find are now linked in the reference section should anyone want to read them. Mogism (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. – 23W (talk &middot; contribs) 23:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see your update in my watchlist. Well, it's a short one, but it's also the most complete source for information on the game on the Internet, and it meets all six criteria to be a good article. One last thing—I'd recommend adding more about the Reception to the lede (just a sentence) czar ♔  15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)