Quality of Wiki articles

[Gryzor]

In another thread I asked for the Speccy Ports article to be remade, because it was quite badly written, citing the "butthurt" comment in it.
Well, MacDeath took it to mean that this was the only bad thing with the article. As a result I've just spent an hour and a half trying to edit the article and make it more presentable.
Seriously, I felt like a teacher going through a paper with a fat, red pen. I started taking comments to present here but, frankly, the original article was so bad that I quickly tired of it. Just take a look at the changes to see what I mean.
But, in brief; Wiki articles should not be a personal rant. Wiki articles are ARTICLES and as such should be as serious as possible, with as many references and as much 'proof' as possible.
Things that were particularly bad with this article
-Spelling mistakes. I mean, sure, we all make them, but for heaven's sake, when you edit in your browser you get those squiggly red lines - this means it's a mistake! I corrected so many... and many of them were just the result of not reading what was being written, like "these games is blahblah".
-Chaotic structure. Before writing a long article you have to have some sense of how it's gonna go. When you finish writing it, go back to it and try and make the different sections as organised as possible. Same weight headers, same styles etc.
-There's no "I" in the articles. Keep this for the Discussion pages or this forum. Try and imagine someone (there are far too many) who comes to the wiki without participating in the forum and doesn't know who "you" are and couldn't care less about what you're writing in the first person.
-comments and mentions to other discussions - Like "ssg, thanks mate" etc. Same comment as above.
-"..." really, what's with all those?
-Jokes. Really?
-slang ("dickmove", "butthurt"). Now the article starts to read worse than the 'objective' review of Spectrum/CPC/c64 games we were discussing in the other thread.
-degrading comments like "speccypork"etc.

We're trying to build something serious. Yes, it's a fan site, but it's also the most prominent one and it doesn't exist only for the sake of fanboys. There are plenty of opportunities and ways to act like that, especially here in the forum. But what do you expect the reaction of an outside reader to be if they read such stuff?
I really hope I'm not being offensive to anyone. Any content is good content. But there are some minimum standards than need to be adhered to...

PS Same goes, for instance, to the ZX Spectrum article. "The ZX Spectrum Killed the Amstrad CPC...sort of."? What on earth?.. Going to replace it with the Wikipedia article, feel free to add your input, but always keeping the above in mind.

[MaV]

- snip -
PS Same goes, for instance, to the ZX Spectrum article. "The ZX Spectrum Killed the Amstrad CPC...sort of." ? What on earth?.. Going to replace it with the Wikipedia article, feel free to add your input, but always keeping the above in mind.

Yeah. I was asking myself, if I should critize some of the articles, but refrained from it, since I'm still relatively new to the forum.

I like the info that they convey, but the highly subjective style makes it a tough read. What's more: people from other fora might be put off by the constant derogatory remarks to other 8-bit computers. I think we could need commentators from outside, if they're not trolling. Helps us keeping things in perspective.

But I'd keep the Spectrum article. Let's make it a "Spectrum from a CPC point of view", and try to rephrase the worrisome remarks to something objective.

MaV

[Gryzor]

I just checked the c64 article - good lord... here it is, almost in its entirety:

This page is by no way partial.

A popular 8 bit computer from Commodore released in 1982.

The C64 community always over-exagerate the C64 sound chip capacities and it's marvelous graphical display, it's avant-gardist sprites and scrollings ability and it's pure awesomness.


But the facts are :
The SID sound like a chainsaw to the most delicate ears.
The Amstrad CPC is superior in pure graphism capability, thanks to a colorfull palette.
The Amstrad CPC was by far cheaper, fully equipped and with a fast Disk player (cpc 6128).
The Amstrad CPC range sold better in France (err...Not a good argument maybe)
Only because so many games developped on the Amstrad CPC were puny Speccy ports which didn't really exploited the CPC machines well, C64 games looked like superproductions.
Yet, Gryzor deeply sucks on a C64...


By the way the C64 remains the best selling computer ever.

[/b]

I mean, wtf guys??? Have you even seen the CPC article on the c64 wiki?

What you say, Mav, is a good idea, but I'd make it a different article or a subsection of the main article. It cannot, in any way, be the main article...

And you shouldn't refrain from expressing opinion because you're 'new'

[arnoldemu]

I think you are correct Gryzor about the articles.

I think if we want opinion, why not have a number of pages, or one page, which has screenshot comparisons.
Another which has example audio.

So people can see what makes a speccy port, and what games are superior on Amstrad than other 8-bits.

This would express what we think in a much better way.

[Gryzor]

I agree. I just finished editing and switching the c64 page, as well. Comparison is definitely not out of the question, but it should be made in a certain way... Otherwise I can't see how we're entitled to laugh at the "others'" articles while we produce stuff that can be even worse...

[Bryce]

I fully agree, opinions can be expressed in the Forum, but the Wiki should be reserved for facts only.

Bryce.

[MaV]

I agree. I just finished editing and switching the c64 page, as well.

Ok, I'm expressing my opinion now. 

I do not like the idea of copying the the C64 wikipedia article. I'd prefer a version expressed in our own "tongue", so to speak. The C64 wiki guys used their own words. Besides the original wikipedia article is much too detailed.

If you give me a bit of time, I'll do a version.

MaV

[AMSDOS]

I'm confused cause I've been under the impression that "Speccy port" was a slang term created by "Amstrad Action" to portray the graphics in an inferiority manner when describing the graphics of any number of games on the CPC. At least that's the impression I got. 

Regarding articles which are loaded with "I's" sadly even my Sound Tutorial has a number of them, unfortunately it appears it needs them cause it's a Tutorial, is there a way around that in such a way that a Tutorial can be written without them? Unfortunately I didn't notice this rule when I came to write the article, though writing articles are a bit out of my league! (Personally - real life, I've had a horrible occurrance where someone wanted me to immediately write an article about someone in a short amount of time which I wasn't at all impressed with!  )

[MaV]

@MaV, I think the wikipedia article is better than the c64 wiki article and unless we have some closet c64 experts, we cannot do better than wikipedia.

That's as may be. Still, the copied c64 wikipedia article is too long. Besides, where's the point of a c64 entry when all we do is copy the wikipedia article. We might just as well link to it.

Now, if we can phrase an article with our own collective words, that's bereft of snotty remarks and concentrates on technical detail beyond the wikipedia article, but which might detail more important aspects of the c64 from our point of view, we might also gain more trust from other 8-bit fans (just to name an example: interrupt driven hardware -> not polling the floppy for infos definitely is a nice feature).

(Look at the C64 wiki article on the CPCs! I can live with the praisal of the SID in it, on the other hand they had to admit that the firmware was way better done than on the c64).

Regarding the article as it is now: I hardly doubt that the BBC Micro was a competitor to the C64 in *Europe*, England maybe but not all of Europe. And I don't give a damn about a machine that never came to see the light of day (C65) and that it was cancelled by Irving Gould.
"The Commodore 65, the successor to the C64, was prototyped in 1990, but canceled for officially unknown reasons." is good enough info on an Amstrad website.

So? Anyone agree or disagree?

MaV

PS: The Spectrum page should contain our own words as well.

[arnoldemu]

I'm confused cause I've been under the impression that "Speccy port" was a slang term created by "Amstrad Action" to portray the graphics in an inferiority manner when describing the graphics of any number of games on the CPC. At least that's the impression I got. 

Yes you are correct

Regarding articles which are loaded with "I's" sadly even my Sound Tutorial has a number of them, unfortunately it appears it needs them cause it's a Tutorial, is there a way around that in such a way that a Tutorial can be written without them? Unfortunately I didn't notice this rule when I came to write the article, though writing articles are a bit out of my league! (Personally - real life, I've had a horrible occurrance where someone wanted me to immediately write an article about someone in a short amount of time which I wasn't at all impressed with!  )

I don't have a problem with your sound tutorial. In fact I think it's great.
It is has good information expressed well.

[arnoldemu]

So? Anyone agree or disagree?

I agree both should be in our own words, and a comparison of the hardware would be a good way to do this as well as providing some background information. I think Gryzor's actions are a temporary way to improve it.

I think the tone of the original was not so good, and could have been equally or better presented with comparison screens, videos or sound recordings.

But then i think this is better on another page. so one page for introducing c64 and then comparing against cpc.
Then another for comparing games, sound etc.

[Gryzor]

@Mav: of course, copying the wikipedia entries is just an interim solution. The best thing to do would be to have our very own versions, naturally, but I just don't know enough about the machines to write about them with any authority. Feel free to try your hand if you want!! The c64 article may be long but it's a good read, and I already cut it down. As for Irving Gould, I beg to differ, anyone knowing the slightest about Commodore's history will find this significant.

@CP/M User: there are a few articles (tutorials, mainly) in the wiki where the first person is used; but it is ok, because it's understandable that you're writing about your own methods and procedures - it's *your* guide, as it happens with so many guides. While it's not perfect, it's not that bad. But when you're writing about something more general and big, making the subject/article your own is a big no-no: "-I think that the Spectrum sucked big, compared to the Amstrad!" "-Who cares what you think!"

So, anyone's up to drafting a VS article?

[MacDeath]

I must Admit I used to edit this on late at night, sometimes after a few beers. And could get quite heavy beyond the border... even fully in the Overscan Zone.

So yeah it is far from being objective.

"..." I used them a lot, it's a way for me to keep the thing open to further editing...

To me, such comments on other machine are quite in the "Scene spirit", yet I understand the CPCwiki aims at seriousness and accurate content.


IMO the article could/should keep its opinion oriented flavour... yet of course largely truned down... and this should stick to one chapter/paragraph only...

But this is a collective work.
The article didn't exist until I created it, and talks about a real thing.
Just need other point of view and editing from other peoples.

BTW those articles didn't exist until I created them, my job wasn't meant to be the definite article, just some stub to be replaced by a more professionnal/serious work.
My primary objective was mostly to get the page to exist on the wiki.


Concerning the Speccy port :
Ok it is not that well written, but i tried to get it more complete...
With some sort of classification on the level of speccyports, and so on... and the varied technics used to achieve the portage.

Also the so called "infamous list" should remain.
This is somewhat ironic of course... yet quite usefull to understand how so many well known games of the era (and important Arcade games or well known franchises) had a poor CPC version, which was clearly a handicap.


BTW Gryzor, you did well.
Now those are good articles.

[Gryzor]

I do understand they weren't there till you created them - that's why I said any content is good content - if nothing else, it provides the stimulus for further work. But some minimums (minima?) should be kept.

Of course we are a community, therefore what is written reflects our collective opinion. But this doesn't mean that we should go overboard; if nothing else, we're not writing the articles just for us. If you check the statistics you'll see that most readers do not belong to the community. So we should serve them with something concrete, and objective arguments.

As for the "infamous list", this is more of a style question: you cannot title it "infamous" because it is not one. If it becomes infamous after a while so be it, but when there's not even such a list you just can't compile it and call it "infamous". I'm hoping I'm getting through here. Maybe a better way to do it would be to compile a "list of infamous ports". Much better I think.

[arnoldemu]

Concerning the Speccy port :
Ok it is not that well written, but i tried to get it more complete...
With some sort of classification on the level of speccyports, and so on... and the varied technics used to achieve the portage.

It's getting better, the classification, the techniques.
This helps others to understand this definition, why it is given to a game...
arguments to explain what could be better, and mockups of possibilities would also show how it could have been...
I know it's quite a lot of work, but people reading it would compare what we got, and what it could have been, and realise why we show anger towards it.

Also the so called "infamous list" should remain.
This is somewhat ironic of course... yet quite usefull to understand how so many well known games of the era (and important Arcade games or well known franchises) had a poor CPC version, which was clearly a handicap.

The list is ok to show examples.

We could do the same when comparing spectrum, c64 and cpc. and show some versions where cpc is poor and others are better, and another where cpc is better.
Saying why the cpc is better is considered better by cpc users in general is often good, I think.

I think the actual goal is fine, just how the ball gets to the goal

[MacDeath]

As for the "infamous list", this is more of a style question: you cannot title it "infamous" because it is not one.

Well well well... many of those games got us the same reaction :
"WTF is this ? give me my money back !"

seriously, to me, CPC was supposed to display 4 colours on screen with no attribute limitation, and what i got ? monocolour games ?

My parents bought me a CPC6128 and all I got was a speccy48 game ?


BTW...
The comparison page would be great...
How to call this ?

8 bit WarS ?
The great benchmark ?
Clash of the Chips ?

-Spelling mistakes. I mean, sure, we all make them, but for heaven's   sake, when you edit in your browser you get those squiggly red lines -   this means it's a mistake! I corrected so many... and many of them were   just the result of not reading what was being written, like "these games   is blahblah".

To be fair My Firefox only feature the french version...I have to install the English spellingchecker...

-Chaotic structure. Before writing a long article you   have to have some sense of how it's gonna go. When you finish writing   it, go back to it and try and make the different sections as organised   as possible. Same weight headers, same styles etc.

I heavily edit the stuff, giving it many runs and doing the thing on the spot.
I try to give it a better structure each time but of course some past stuff remains.

And I don't always have all the necessary knowledge..

[sigh]

Some links to "8 bit wars" would be good for comparisons as they are quite nicely done.

[AMSDOS]

Nice to see that Tutorials can have a personal touch! 

Would be good to have a sensible article on the other 8bit computers, from those who know a bit about them

Spoiler: ShowHide

(I'm probably the only one here who doesn't know anything about them!  )

, unsure if 8bit Wars is something worth mentioning since it's one of those here one day gone the next sort of things.

[arnoldemu]

Well well well... many of those games got us the same reaction :
"WTF is this ? give me my money back !"

seriously, to me, CPC was supposed to display 4 colours on screen with no attribute limitation, and what i got ? monocolour games ?

My parents bought me a CPC6128 and all I got was a speccy48 game ?


BTW...
The comparison page would be great...
How to call this ?

I felt the same when I bought "bionic commando".

I would just call it "Speccy Port comparison" or similar.
Show Spectrum Screen and then  Amstrad screen.
Then perhaps say what is lost in Amstrad version, and what it could be gained.

I know you feel very passionate about it, but in the wiki, we need to make it more factual.
So people outside can read it, understand, and then recognise the anger we felt.

At the moment the page has a long list of speccy port games with no links, so although it is stated which are speccy ports, it is not easy to see how we suffered due to that.

I've edited the Speccy port page, and I plan to move some stuff around.

So after technical comparison, there will be a "what they did to make a speccy port", then the levels of port as you have lower down.

Then either all the comparisons or a link to each page for each game showing it's comparison.
Because for some games, although the game is poor, some of the frontend is actually ok.

I think if we should suggest what they could have done, we need to indicate how easy or how much time it could have taken to implement that.

So for example, raster changes is easy and is quick to implement.
Recolouring the graphics is easy, but takes time.
Reworking in mode 0, could cause a lot more work.

I can help with this if I have time to write it.

I think the article is coming much closer, and will justify your crusade.

[TFM]

When I follow that thread - sorry - I can only laugh my butt off again and again. For the FutureOS article every bit did need proof and it was a pain in the a** to provide it again and again. On the other hand we have articles in the Wiki that can't be taken serious.

I do agree with Gryzor, that we need a certain level of quality here.

On the other hand, it seems like some people love not-serious articles.

My bad idea about this: Let's introduce a Kindergarden section where all spitting on c64 and on speccyporks are allowed. But in the same time keep the serious articles serious.

About the c64 article, the more serious we are here, the more people will see that CPC is superiour. But for this we need arguments, not funny insults.

I know it's hard/impossible to find a solution that fits for everybody. But at least we should have some standarts and treat all articles equal.

I just can wish the best 

[arnoldemu]

About the c64 article, the more serious we are here, the more people will see that CPC is superiour. But for this we need arguments, not funny insults.

Yes, I am trying to do just this for the speccy article.

I am trying to do real comparisons, and serious arguments.

A similar thing should be done for the c64 article.

I think the Speccy port article may need to be split when the new Speccy article is ready.
Especially the machine comparison stuff. The rest can stay because it relates to Speccy ports.
(which also now includes porting the Speccy's loader to the CPC

EDIT: When I have some time I could write a list of machine comparsions if noone else is doing it, or at least add some more?

[MaV]

About the c64 article, the more serious we are here, the more people will see that CPC is superiour. But for this we need arguments, not funny insults.

I'm at it! Though I'm by no means an authority on C64 matters, I've been reading a lot about its internals lately. Once I feel I've got enough to warrant a change of the current article, I'll replace it. Should take a couple of days.

MaV

[FatAgnus]

When I follow that thread - sorry - I can only laugh my butt off again and again. For the FutureOS article every bit did need proof and it was a pain in the a** to provide it again and again. On the other hand we have articles in the Wiki that can't be taken serious.

I do agree with Gryzor, that we need a certain level of quality here.

On the other hand, it seems like some people love not-serious articles.

My bad idea about this: Let's introduce a Kindergarden section where all spitting on c64 and on speccyporks are allowed. But in the same time keep the serious articles serious.

About the c64 article, the more serious we are here, the more people will see that CPC is superiour. But for this we need arguments, not funny insults.

I know it's hard/impossible to find a solution that fits for everybody. But at least we should have some standarts and treat all articles equal.

I just can wish the best 

I can't believe it... I'm totally agree with TFM!
YOU ARE RIGHT, SIR!

[TFM]

I can't believe it... I'm totally agree with TFM!
YOU ARE RIGHT, SIR!

Wait SIR, you do agree with me   I have to stop taking drugs
But - hey - a new good start for constructive woking together

I think the Speccy port article may need to be split when the new Speccy article is ready.

Yes, right. Speccy ports are a software thing. And the spectrum itself is hardware.

We may not like spectrum ports, but the hardware can't be blamed for it. It's more about creedy commercial companies. Well, this problem we don't have any longer

[MacDeath]

But - hey - a new good start for constructive woking together

It's more about creedy commercial companies.

/troll


sorry, I spend too much time at 4chan...