Talk:Crash (magazine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Oscarthecat, thx for reverting the wiki on Europress - my mistake, I hadn't noticed the earlier mention! Barnabypage 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which issue had the much-criticised bondage cover art? -- GWO

http://www.crashonline.org.uk/ has all the covers, I think. Barnabypage 13:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be confusing Crash with Your Sinclair's issue 21 poster of Game Over (computer game).--Frodet 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were actually a few controversial covers. Not just the "bondage" one (now featured in the article) but also the cover featuring a particularly bloody scene inspired by the Barbarian game. --Zagrebo 15:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

The magazine should be typeset as Crash and not CRASH.

--SeizureDog (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Should somebody upload the Crash Smash logo? We could use it in multiple places http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showmag.cgi?mag=Crash/Issue52/Pages/Crash5200023.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.100 (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crash (magazine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Some sources:[edit]

@Ritchie333: Here's some sources:--Coin945 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes any of those reliable or third party? I've dropped in something from Retro Computing News, but ntnu.no is self-published (though an excellent source IMHO and one I have known about for about 20+ years), a wordpress.com obviously doesn't have any editorial standard, I've already added numerous citations to crashonline, what makes wizwords.net and nonowt.com reliable sources? Unless, of course you're arguing that our reliable sources policies are dumb, idiotic and counter-productive against experts, in which case bring it on - I just don't think enough people will agree with you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ritchie333:, thank you for your reply. As someone who was in good faith trying to help you out, I deem your words unnecessarily hurtful and with a flair of ad homenem. Good luck with the article :)--Coin945 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever have one of those days where nothing seems to go right? :-/ The point I was trying to make is I've tried most of those sources, but I just don't have the confidence that any of them will "stick" and not make people complain about them for spurious reasons. That was what I meant by "bring it on" ie: if we can get more people to inject some common sense into some of the sourcing guidelines instead of treating them like dogma, the project will be improved. I did keep your additions, I just copyedited them a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I also don't understand why you deleted one of the few decent sources (unaffiliated, secondary) as being a "dead link" when it is clearly available offline and through academic databases. The produced documentary is also a higher quality source than citing user-generated archives on the Internet and other pages with no editorial vetting. It is not some random YouTube video, but that should have been transparent from the comments I left below the citation. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 11:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few more bits and piece through my local state library database that you might find useful: --Coin945 (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Helped popularise famed pop parody Frank Sidebottom) "It's telling that the computer press, particularly the Spectrum magazine Crash, adored Frank. Home microcomputing, and the tools surrounding it, helped bring about one of the best-loved pop parodists of the past 30 years."European Union News
  • (This speaks to the company's editorial credentials) The Assistant Editor position got 12,000 pounds plus company penison contributions. Crash wanted someone with a year's experience and an excellent written communication in English. The Guardian
  • Academic Will Brooker. "I used to be good at games. I was good at the only Space Invaders machine in South London, in 1 979. I was the first kid to have a ZX Spectrum in my school, in 1982. 1 published in the national games magazine Crash when I was seventeen. But since the age of eighteen and my first degree, I've concentrated on cinema. " Cinema Journal
  • "Last November [in 2014], Retro Gamer's publisher, Imagine Publishing, snapped up the rights to the 1980s computer magazine, Crash, which billed itself as "the monthly Spectrum software review". The editor of Retro Gamer, Darran Jones, says articles about the Spectrum "always go down well"." The Independent

I am the author of the Crash article cited from Eurogamer and also the Match Day article cited above. I am also the owner of wizwords.net and can confirm all material there genuine. Graeme Jdanddiet (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crash_(magazine)&oldid=1201219695"