Talk:Atari Calculator/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Appsoft4 (talk · contribs) 21:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jlwoodwa (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is often unclear and ungrammatical; see § Prose
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Many short sections, and the features list should have prose; see § Style
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The features section is insufficiently cited; see § Citations
	2c. it contains no original research.	A few issues; see § Original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The features list borders on plagiarism; see § Copyright
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Excessive detail on tangentially relevant topics; see § Focus
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	External image might be copyright violation; see § Image copyright
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article's pretty far from meeting the GA requirements, so I'm closing it as fail.

Prose

The article has frequent grammatical errors. In particular, there are several instances of missing or incorrect articles. For example:

In 1979, the screenshot should be a screenshot.
program got product ID number CX-8102 should be the program.
in the form of boxed diskette should be either a boxed diskette or boxed diskettes.

Examples of more general grammatical errors:

After 1982, there was little news about the Atari Calculator, its development, and it was excluded from the listing in the next official catalogs by Atari.
Cover design and fan art illustrations assisting the article authored by Oliver Rapp.

Some sentences have too many errors for me to figure out what they're meant to say:

In addition, two source printiouts, which included code for floating-point arithmetic handling, were scanned and uploaded the Atari Calculator cartridge specification, handwritten by Shaw, and the official prited user manual for the Atari Calculator. Savetz uploaded it all with a permission from Shaw, and the original printouts Shaw had donated to and now are storing at the Strong Museum, as well as all of the materials related to Atari, she collected during her employment period at the Atari (1978–1980).

Beyond the outright errors, many sentences are too long and roundabout to easily follow. For example:

In 1979, the screenshot of the Atari Calculator, with the title ATARI CALCULATOR COPYRIGHT 1979 in the main window, was printed in the "Touch the future." brochure on the screenshots gallery page, featuring the upcoming Atari 800 computer. The UI was colored in light bluish text on a dark blue background.

I would phrase this instead as:

In 1979, Atari printed a brochure titled "Touch the future", which featured the upcoming Atari 800 computer. The brochure had a gallery of screenshots, including one of the Atari Calculator's main window. In this screenshot, the program had the title "ATARI CALCULATOR COPYRIGHT 1979", and its UI had light bluish text on a dark blue background.

This groups related information together, and gives necessary context before going into the details. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Style

I think Atari Calculator § Features should have prose – the features should be described with full sentences, and grouped into paragraphs by topic. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Atari Calculator §§ Ports and Atari hardware calculators are very short and I don't think they should have their own sections. See MOS:OVERSECTION. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Atari Calculator § Features does not have any inline citations. It begins with:

Data sources: the official Atari manuals and catalogs, Carol Shaw's papers, the Atari Connection magazine, the AtariWiki

Beyond the issue of these not being full citations, you need to identify which of those sources supports each line in the features list. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the citations after "Benj Edwards" and "Peter Dell" are not actually sources that support the article – they're links to those people's personal websites or profiles. That is not what citations are for. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for Peter Dell's quotation in Atari Calculator § Legacy should be a proper citation, rather than an external link in the body of the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

After 1982, there was little news about the Atari Calculator is not directly supported by the sources you cite. You cite three individual publications that do not mention a product, but that is not a reliable source that there wasn't news about that product. Similarly, none of them had programming support and an RPN input requires a source that states that. You list examples of calculators without those features, but that is not a reliable source that nothing Atari produced had those features. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Atari Calculator § Features is mostly copied from the 1981 Personal Computer Product Catalog, modified by combining some lines. This requires a citation to that particular source, rather than the official Atari manuals and catalogs in general. It also requires clearer in-text attribution. Alternatively, and preferably, it could be rewritten to not have this copying/close paraphrasing. This could happen in the process of converting it to prose, as described in § Style. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

In my opinion, Atari Calculator §§ Legacy, Ports, and Alternatives go into excessive detail about topics that are only tangentially relevant to the Atari Calculator. Many of these details are cited to blogs, forums, wikis, and personal websites. Self-published sources are sometimes suitable for citations, but they shouldn't determine the article's focus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright

The only image used in the article is File:Atari Calculator screenshot.png, which has a valid fair use rationale (although it's tagged as a video game screenshot for some reason). However, several images are linked using {{external image}}, and one of them, the box art, does not have any indication that it is being distributed with the permission of the copyright holder. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Jlwoodwa and Appsoft4: Any updates on this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacant0: I forgot about this review, sorry. Thanks for the ping – I'm finishing it now. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2024 (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.