Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)/1

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist; no one's responding since I took over this GAR review, meaning the plethora of issues wasn't removed because of a lack of attention to the article. Should someone return E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) to GA status, then the issues should be removed before such nomination. -ias postb□x+ 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not been reassessed for GA status since 2009. In the decade since, there's been a lot of unsourced information added. Some if it may be true, but qualifies as Original Research, while other bits and pieces are flat-out incorrect. Article needs a lot of cleanup to regain GA status, in my opinion. However, since I have edited the article a bit recently, I think others should do the reassessment so there's no conflict. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this article about one of the worst 2600 games ever made is now one of the worst 80's video game GAs, essentially. ias postb□x 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's around a week since I last commented here and little improvement has been done. I'm sure you edited the article well though. -ias postb□x+ 07:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Honestly, it's beyond my ability to get this article up to GA status. If you would like to do the review and revoke the GA based on the myriad of problems, I would have no problem with that, and frankly, I would welcome it. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could try. -ias postb□x+ 01:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted an unsourced statement!: "The game offers diverse difficulty settings that affect the number and speed of humans present, and the conditions needed to accomplish the objective." -ias postb□x+ 02:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've found 2 1 two-sentences-long paragraphs!:

"On May 28, 2013, the Alamogordo City Commission approved Fuel Industries, an Ottawa-based entertainment company, for six months of landfill access both to create a documentary about the legend and to excavate the burial site.[3] On April 26, 2014, remnants of E.T. and other Atari games were discovered in the early hours of the excavation.[5][72]"
"In December 2014, the Smithsonian Institution added an excavated cartridge of E.T. to their collection.[73][74] In 2015, The Henry Ford museum added several excavated cartridges and a video touchpad, a sample of landfill dirt taken from the site of the burial, and items of clothing worn by the excavation team to their collection. A selection of these items are on permanent display.[75][76]" (Never mind, it was a three-sentence paragraph.)

This is getting crazy! -ias postb□x+ 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section (and especially the Critical response part) doesn't have a {{Video game reviews}} template, it badly needs one. -ias postb□x+ 07:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's information in the lead that isn't even carried over to other sections, namely this one:

"In April 2014, diggers hired to investigate the claim confirmed that the Alamogordo landfill contained many E.T. cartridges, among other games.[3][4][5] James Heller, the former Atari manager who was in charge of the burial, was at the excavation and admitted to the Associated Press that 728,000 cartridges of various games were buried.[6]"

I'm scratching my head as to why this statement even isn't in Legacy#Atari video game burial. -ias postb□x+ 07:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the references listed in the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) article's talk page would be incorporated into the article. Correct me if there's any one or more of such references in the article already before I came here. -ias postb□x+ 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reference used in the lead that isn't used anywhere in any of the headings listed in the table of contents:

"Warshaw intended the game to be an innovative adaptation of the film, and Atari thought it would achieve high sales figures based on the international box office success of the film. Negotiations to secure the rights to make the game ended in late July 1982, giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season.[2]"

Reference 2 should've been in the Development section. -ias postb□x+ 05:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the text with "giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season" in it isn't in the Development section either. -ias postb□x+ 05:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical response section has too many quotes. -ias postb□x+ 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose isn't even like a modern GA, it must become one. -ias postb□x+ 06:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any edits since July 18, 2020 to the article, I doubt that the GA could remain in its current class unless a significant rework is about to take place. -ias postb□x+ 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's several more features about the E.T. game adaption than what this article uses. It has features, but it needs more. -ias postb□x+ 20:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]