Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)
Has failed twice before: Here and here.

I'm giving it another go because I really can't see how this article can be improved any more than it already is. I am considering doing away with the "In popular culture" section, but I thought I'd better get some input on that first. Anyways, hopefully the third time's the charm.--SeizureDog 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, please get rid of the "In popular culture"...it's basically trivia. Gzkn 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done--SeizureDog 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This looks really good on first glance, and I'll give it a more thorough look in the next couple of days. But can you make sure to list everything that was used as a reference under "References" rather than splitting things between "End notes" and "References" as the article currently does? Either that or get rid of the "References" section altogether and just rely on the End notes. I'd prefer the former, as was done with (for example) Donkey Kong (video game). Secondly, titles of newspaper and magazine articles should be in quotation marks but not italicized. — BrianSmithson 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had them together before, but somebody changed it. I'll put it back together again. Though I'm not sure what you mean with Donkey Kong (video game), it's split up as two sections as well (just ordered the opposite way). I don't know what's going on with the italics thing, that's a problem with the template itself. Might want to bring it up at Template talk:Cite journal. It's protected btw, so I can't do anything about it.--SeizureDog 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I commented the first time around that message boards shouldn't be referenced, and that Production and sales aren't related and that the sales and critical reception info should be joined under a "Reception" section; both problems persist. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Refs in question were removed and additional sales section was added. I didn't put 'Sales' and 'Critical reception' under one section because I don't like creating sub-sub-sections (the '"The worst video game of all time"' and 'Other views' sections).--SeizureDog 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm uncomfortable with the removal of the popular culture section. All items there should be referenced, but it looked to me like at least most of them were notable. Everyking 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem like a good reason to oppose though. I think the article is FA class with or without that section. And in reality, they weren't all that notable. Sure, it was kinda interesting, but not must know information. --SeizureDog 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I've had a chance to look at the article more closely now, and here are my concerns:
 * The article needs a copy edit. I've got a red-marked copy, and I'll happily do the copy editing, but first some other problems need taking care of.
 * Please do. It's really impossible for me to copyedit something I've read so many times. You get that mental block in your head.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of weasely language in the article: "is seen by many", "is thought by some" in the lead, for example. Later, we have "It is an often stated bit of misinformation that . . . " Say who reports this misinformation: "According to sources X and Y, more copies of E. T. . . . ." Another weasel term: "It is often seen as onen of two. . . ." The first paragraph of "Critical response" is almost completely weaselfied prose. It should be rewritten with sources cited. "It is widely speculated that . . . " Ditto. "has led some people to believe that . . . " Ditto.
 * It may seem weasely in the lead, but those "many" and "some" are later defined in 'Critical response' section. Do I really need to double cite these? The information that is often misstated is mostly by unnotable people. Forum users and the like, which I'll get slapped for if I cite. How is "It is often seen as onen of two. . . ." a weasel statement? Actually, now that I look at most of these "weasel statements", they're really just using the same reference that is cited directly before of after it. This one for example is covered in the Snopes article used in the sentence directly before it (not to mention at least half of the articles on the subject). "It is widely speculated that..." IS cited. "Has led some people" is supported in the next sentence by the fact that Warshaw doubts it. Also, since Snopes wrote an article on it, that also shows that many people doubted it. I seriously don't understand how the hell these weasel words are supposed to be rephrased though. Someone else needs to do it. --SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "double citing" would be good. The phrases "thought by some" and "considered by many" and the like should be removed from the article. One solution for the lead might be, "Critics claim that" or "Reviewers called it" or similar language. Since it's the lead, I can tolerate the vagueness there. The body should do away with even this degree of weaseliness. And if forum posters are misstating stuff, so what? They're non-notable as far as we're concerned. If the weasel words are using the references cited before or after, then change it to say that "Critic X says that blah blah blah". There's no need to be vague or try to sum up what "most critics" think. Give the reader names and let them decide for themselves. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the caption about the title screen being described as the "best part of the game" should be rewritten to mention the source in the prose itself: "Joe Blow describes the title screen . . . "
 * I don't think sources should be worked into the prose unless it's someone/something people would know. Especially in this case. Even though Fragmaster is a reviewer for a notable site, saying "Fragmaster describes the title screen..." is going to sound very unreliable.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then ditch the caption altogether. The source is the source no matter how we may try to hide it. Rather than using this guy's screen name (Fragmaster), mention the site instead: "A reviewer for X describes the title screen . . . " — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead should include some information on the gameplay so that it fully summarizes the article.
 * The first sentence of the very next section sums it up though. I'm not sure how to describe it in the lead without making the gameplay section starting off with a completely redundant statement mentioned just a few sentences back.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the lead is a summary of the whole article. Currently, it's not. I'm not asking for a lot of summarized information, just a brief sentenc or two that describes the goal of the game or the general set up. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to mix up the player, who pushes buttons and works a console, and the on-screen character, who wanders about and looks for phone pieces. The article is mostly good about this, but there are a few places where these are mixed up.
 * Examples?--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "If the scientist catches E.T., the player is carried to the Washington D.C. screen . . ." is the only example I could find on a quick glance. I'll try to clean this up when I do the copy edit. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We're told that choosing a higher difficulty level will "change . . . the conditions needed to call the spaceship." In what way? Is it possible to elaborate a bit without getting into GameFAQs territory?
 * From the manual: The RIGHT DIFFICULTY switch controls the speed of the humans. In the A position, the humans move faster than in the B position. The LEFT DIFFICULTY switch determines the landing conditions for the rescue ship. If the switch is in position A, Elliott cannot be present on the landing field when the rescue ship arrives.  If the switch is in the B position, Elliott can be present when E.T. calls the ship and when it lands. Really minor stuff that I don't think needs to be mentioned.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd find a synonym for "Easter egg". That term is jargon used by DVD afficianados and gamers and sounds inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. In that section, I'd remove the editorializing about how Scott Warshaw's name being hidden is less notable than the graphic designer's name. It's not our place to make judgements; if the intials are there, say so, full stop.
 * It's jargon specific to the type of article it's in. Video game articles are allowed to use video game jargon.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. We have to make our articles accessible to a general readership. We should also use the professional-standard language expected in an encyclopedia, and a jargonny usage of "Easter egg" isn't. Further, what additional information is added by saying "the initials of E.Ts artist, Jerome Domurat, being hidden as an Easter egg" that isn't conveyed by "the initials of E.T.s artist, Jerome Domurat, being hidden on one of the screens"? — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement that E.T. was "one of two major video game releases . . . that sparked the video game crash of 1983" needs a source citation.
 * Man, these sort of things are a pain to cite. They're basically undebated, general knowledge stuff that's mentioned in at least half of the references, but I still have to find specific statements for them. Does every single sentence in this article need to be cited? Also see above, this is the same statement you mentioned with "It is often seen as onen of two. . . ."--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get upset about it. If it's mentioned in several sources, just pick one and use it for the citation. But in this case, if it really is mentioned in most of the sources, you're right that it's probably okay to not source it. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fans are not notable. Particularly, anonymous fans on forums have no place in an encyclopedia article. Remove all references to fans or gamers in general thinking this or that unless they can be backed up by reliable sources (i.e., not forum posts).
 * Didn't I do that already? What did I miss?--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was working from a printout when I wrote my comments. Must've been from before your purged that information. However, there are still a few places where various opinions are attributed to "gamers". These should be removed or replaced by "gaming magazines" or the like if that's what you mean. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Official Bruce Enten" . . . do we have a more specific title for him? "Official" is pretty vague.
 * Just some guy from Atari. Newspaper article really doesn't say.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe reword to "Bruce Enten, an Atari representative" or something. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ". . . but subsequent reports have generally linked . . . " Subsequent reports by whom? Name the sources.
 * Well, the next sentence for one. Also almost every single report on the subject.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding sources still: "subsequent reports by newspapers X, Y, and Z have . . . . " — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the pop culture section, I agree that it was redundant and is better done away with. A video game about E.T. is by its very nature popular culture, so it's an odd section title to boot. That said, I think some of the items could conceivably be weaved into the main flow of the prose. The more notable ones anyway. For example, when discussing the dumping, you could say, "This situation was parodied by So-and-So in his music video for such-and-such song."
 * See if you can't eliminate the "See also" section. The video game crash is already linked above, so doesn't need to be see-alsoed. The other two could be worked into the prose as piped links.
 * I think it's good for the extra emphasis though. And having no see also section seems unnatural for an article to me.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still think it's redundant with the links in the article itself. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the seperation of sources into "References" and "End notes" that I mentioned above, I meant that if something is mentioned in an end note, the full-form reference should be listed under "References". Currently, for example, Note 18 refers to an article that is not mentioned under "References". There are many more examples of this.
 * The format currently is that printed sources get full details in references and shorten in endnotes, while websites are just in endnotes. Since print sources are generally considered 'better' than those that are purely online, the extra attention is given to them.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are sources despite whether they are in print or on the web. We need to treat them consistently. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do away with the direct quotes from sources if you're not going to use them in the main article (Notes 1, 13, 22, 23, and 24). It should be enough to just do a regular-old-plain-vanilla footnote that gives the source and page number. I like the quotes from the creators etc., but those are appropriately placed in the main prose.
 * As the main editor of this article, I'm going to argue that's my preference and that it shouldn't be done away with without good reason. I feel that including quotes helps people who want to verify the article. Instead of having to scan the entire link for what is aplicable, they can read just what's actually being cited.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still think it looks weird and is a potential fair use violation. I mean, why directly quote when you're paraphrasing anyway? There's no need to do both. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, there it is. I think this article has a chance at FA status if some TLC is put into it while it's at FAC. Good luck! — BrianSmithson 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly seems like stuff I don't know how to fix. Fun. I hate trying to figure out how to cite common knowledge.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I've clarified some of the points. I don't see why this article can't pass its candidacy if it's just fixed up a bit more. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.