Talk:Gran Trak 10/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 23:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And so I take this on, as is tradition. Indrian (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have to ask... The article relies very heavily on Business Is Fun—what kind of hallmarks of editorial credibility does it have? I couldn't find any info on "Syzygy Press", which leads me to believe it's self-edited and -published. Did the book mention its editorial process? The author mentioned this website several years ago but it doesn't imply that there was an outside editor. Part of the purpose of a reliable source is having independent editorial vetting, as even experts make typos and get facts wrong. Thoughts? czar 14:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marty Goldberg is an expert on Atari history who has been published in numerous professional magazines with editorial oversight and had a paper he co-authored accepted at an academic conference and therefore passes muster as a self-published source. While not perfect, this book represents the most definitive account of Atari's early history written to date and contains far fewer inaccuracies than any of the non-self-published sources on the topic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with relying on it heavily. Indrian (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor it but without links, that sounds like a puffy author bio. My understanding is that he did some freelance for Retro Gamer and has been used for interviews about the New Mexico dig but otherwise doesn't have a pedigree. Nothing wrong with that—where would history be without amatore?—but authors are put through a professional publisher's editorial process to make sure their product is sound. I'd tread carefully and would treat the book the same as if it were published on the author's personal webpage unless there is evidence of external oversight.  czar 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no professional video game history scholarship of any note. Its not puffery to call him an Atari expert; he is one by default because there is no one else. I fully believe that someday there will be a better treatment of the subject, but right now there simply is not one. I don't agree with all the conclusions the book draws, but the factual basis is generally sound. And being published is immaterial in a field like this with few good sources. Steven Kent is published, and if you use his book as your primary source on most video game subjects you are in trouble. I know the sources, both primary and secondary, extremely well, and right now this is the best we have. Indrian (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So on to the main event:

Lead

• "it caused a total loss of $500,000 for the company" - This is not quite accurate. The company did experience a loss of $500,000 for the fiscal year ending in June 1974, and Gran Trak was a significant factor in that loss, but it did not create the entire loss all by itself. I would say something like "significantly contributed to" rather than "caused."

• Ah, you're right, I'm misreading it- I thought it was that Gran Trak lost $500,000, which was part of a larger loss for the company, not that Gran Trak lost "a lot" and Atari was 500,000 in the red at the end of the fiscal year.

Gameplay

• "as in a real car. The gear shifting works similar to a real car" - Vary the language a bit.

• Cut the duplicate.

• "but the pedals function as buttons rather than variable pedals" - I get the concept here, but using the term "buttons" does not really convey the true meaning, which is that the pedals are digital controls rather than analog.

• Tried to fix, though I'm not sure I succeeded 100%

Legacy

• "Gran Trak 10 lost Atari $500,000, roughly as much as the previous year's profits" - As above, it was a significant factor in the loss, but not the only one.

• Fixed as above

• "leaving it considered as the game that nearly put Atari out of business" - Awkwardly worded.

• Reworded, and properly quoted the fragment I was pulling from Atari, Inc.

And that's it. Not really much to tweak here, so I will go ahead and place the review  On hold. Indrian (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Addressed everything, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Right, forgot to ping, so I have no idea if you saw this or not. --PresN 02:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine. I'll promote. Indrian (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)