Talk:Atari 2600 homebrew/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage issues

It seems that you could explain a bit more about the types of homebrews out there and reception behind their notable games. When I read the article, it seems like I felt there was something more to be desired. For example, you write that several homebrews received attention in the media; try and go into a little more detail in that. It feels like there should be more stuff in the article what is in there right now.
There was also this article from Gamasutra that I found which may provide some more reliable information on Atari 2600 homebrew games.
CNET has an official video review on Atari 2600 homebrews here, which you could also use. There's also another one by Simon Carless here.
There is an academic paper from MIT, which includes a few mentions of Atari 2600 homebrews, here. Also, doing a quick skim of that paper, it may fill in a few "reliability holes" that I noted in the "reliability issues" section below.
The Screen Savers ran a segment on Atari 2600 homebrews (I may have remembered watching a part of it) here
Game console hacking: have fun while voiding your warranty by Joe Grand, Frank Thornton, Albert Yarusso (which IIRC the latter is in charge of AtariAge) → [1]
Game Design Foundations by Roger E. Pedersen → [2]
There are many more books and magazines out there that can be used, according to a simple Google Books search here

Layout issues

The article is too overwhelmed by gameplay images. Quite a few of the images are borking up the article's layout and distracts readers. To take directly from that MoS guideline:

You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.

I recommend removing about half the images from the article, only leaving in those images which most relevant to the article as well as whose absence would most take away from the readers' understanding of Atari 2600 homebrew games. Keep in mind that I'm not disputing the free content claims (they seem to check out), but they all don't need to be lumped into that article in its current size.

The five subsections you have under the "Types of homebrews" section seem to act as an inhibition against layout than anything else; you already have the content logically separated by paragraphs. I would remove the subsection heading and just have the one section.

Grammar/prose issues

The lead overall has a few (relatively) minor grammar issues, such as the usage of "and" in the 2nd paragraph
The last new Atari 2600 game title to be commercially released that year was Acid Drop, ... → I think of the Nintendo Entertainment System and similar consoles, but I would think something like The last Atari 2600 game made during its production ... sounds a bit better. To say the least, that part of the sentence needs a re-wording.
Among the recently released homebrew game cartridges are... → This, along with similarly-constructed sentences, employ quite a bit of passive voice. Try to replace that with active voice; for example, that sentence portion could be rewritten as Recently-released homebrew game cartridges include....
You have quite a few instances of noun plus -ing throughout the article, which is a substandard, albeit common, grammar/usage. Try and correct those instances over the entire article.
There seems to be some weasel-wording, especially in the lead, which, at least when I read it, seems more editorialize and detract from NPOV. There are specific words that set off flags, which I will bold below. Examples include the following:
- With severe resource limitations including a mere 128 bytes of RAM and no video frame buffer,...
- However, several tools, such as emulators, a high-level programming language, and a wealth of documentation,...
- The entire "Creating homebrews" section reads more like an editorialized how-to and has many issues as far as staying NPOV is concerned. Most of that section needs to be rewritten to a version that editorializes less and describes more. For instance, the phrase it will happily run should never be used in an encyclopedia article.

There is some redundancy in your prose. Here are some examples:
- There currently exists an active community of Atari 2600 homebrew developers. → currently/active

Duck Attack! allows the player to battle giant,... → "Allows" doesn't fit well in that sentence. Isn't that the object of the game?
Go over the article again with proper usage of coordinating conjunctions (and/but/or): some examples of improper usage include the following:
- Modifications typically include new graphics and game colors, but may also include ...
- Several homebrew games have taken the basic concepts of earlier games, and expanded them ...

The very last two sentences in the article: An integrated development environment (IDE), Visual batari Basic,... – That can probably be reduced to one sentence.

Verifiability issues

I have to question the reliability of the website AtariAge. I mean, who is responsible for fact-checking and accuracy? Is it like MobyGames, in which anybody is allowed to contribute to the site with minimal editorial oversight? Who approves the ratings in the rarity guide?
- To say the least, the game descriptions from AtariAge are unreliable, as, like MobyGames, anybody can submit changes to it. If there is information from the homebrew publishers' sites themselves, those would be fine.

Other things to watch for in the future

SoundX was a cartridge which demonstrated ... → classic which vs. that error.
Names of paper magazines, such as Business Week, are always italicized.
Web-only sites, such as AtariAge are not italicized.

Image issues

I argue that File:Juno1.png is an invalid PD claim; it is virtually the same as File:JunoFirst.png which is copyrighted by Konami. As a result, I have nominated that image for deletion as a possibly unfree image; it is identical to the actual Juno First logo, which is copyrighted by Konami.
All those images could be moved to Wikimedia Commons (with the exception of the one I nominated for deletion), as they all seem to be either valid PD or CC-BY-SA. This allows other wikis to easily use them if need be; just as we cull many images from Commons ourselves.

Conclusions

failed – I'm sorry, but there are too many issues listed above for me to even place this nomination on hold. This needs significantly more work in order to make it to GA; the biggest issue has to be the coverage, especially when I started finding many, many more sources that have not been used in the article that can be. Here's what you need to do:

Research more into Atari 2600 homebrews, including more information from the sources that are listed and from what I discovered.
Double-check the verifiability behind some of the sources. I mean, make sure the references you have are backed reliably (I could very well be wrong on AtariAge, as Albert Yarusso does run the site; but information cannot be freely added or edited by Joe Schmoe, which is my MobyGames is not considered reliable).
Do a good copyedit on grammar and prose. Request a peer review on it and make sure the prose is fairly tight. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which you can also get somebody to review the prose for you. Ideally, when you bring an article up for a GA nomination, everything should already be checked, well-written, accurate and good to go overall.

Correct the above issues and follow the three suggestions directly above, and then renominate the article for GA. I mean, it's getting there, but it still has quite a ways to do. –MuZemike 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]