![]() | AtariWriter has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 3, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from AtariWriter appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 February 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AtariWriter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Viriditas ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Initial release 1982; 41 years ago. I'm not seeing this in the rest of the article. Body text says "1.0 was released to production in the spring of 1983". Perhaps this is a typo? Viriditas ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The program was fast and easy to use, while still allowing the creation of fairly complex documents.While still allowing for the creation of fairly complex documents? Viriditas ( talk) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
It was a huge success for the platform, with at least 800,000 examples sold. Examples? That sounds so strange. Do you mean units? Viriditas ( talk) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
An author of an add-on printer pack estimated he sold 25,000 copies through the Atari Program Exchange and direct.Does "direct" here refer to Direct selling or something else?
A final upgrade was AtariWriter 80 of 1989, which added support for the XEP80 80-column display."A final upgrade was" reads strangely. Would it help to write "A final upgrade was released in 1989 as AtariWriter 80"? Viriditas ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
This did not include any foreign language versions, French, Spanish, German and Italian, or the later versions like Plus and 80.[12] Given about 4 million machines sold in total,[13] this represents a significant portion of the entire Atari fleet.I note there is no source at the end of the paragraph. Is this a WP:CALC or an unsourced statement? How do you think this should be handled? Will others see this as OR? Viriditas ( talk) 01:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The decision to only support Atari printers was a terrible one, one that every product review harped on. Factually, I don't have a problem with this; but we are supposed to use a more formal, encyclopedic tone. Don't assert that the choice of printer support was a terrible one, attribute it. Of course, you do this ("one that every product review harped on") but it should be stated in that context from the beginning ("Every product review noted that Atari's singular support for their own printers alone was a bad decision"). Just an example, but you get the picture. Viriditas ( talk) 21:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The program was apparently completed in November 1987, but for unknown reasons was not released until well into the late summer of 1988.
Concerned about the same issue that caused the Atari 800 to be seen dismissively, they had programmer Dan Oliver port the existing assembly language. Please remember to prompt the reader, as they may have no idea what you are talking about. Briefly remind us what the issue was that led to the dismissive comments. Was it memory? A lack of business software? Whatever it was, say that. Viriditas ( talk) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
By this time it had garnered a major following of its own, and the replacements were seen as second rate in comparison.
He continued releasing the product through a number of major versions, even adding a limited GUI for menu access, with the last releases well into the 1990s.Any citation available for the last statement? Viriditas ( talk) 22:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The product is described as being easy to use and foolproof due to the many checks to prevent data loss. Many readers won't understand what "many checks to prevent data loss" means. Please consider using different words. Viriditas ( talk) 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
According to Furr, they contracted with Datasoft. According to earlier versions of this document, they hired Robinson after his agreement with Datasoft ran out. It is likely this refers to later versions of the program, which were written by a different company started by Robinson. Additional references here would be useful.It's not exactly clear what you are talking about. Please consider rewriting this note. What do you mean by "this document"? Not sure if we need "additional references here would be useful". Viriditas ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Includes TV advertisement with Alan Alda.I'm surprised there's nothing about the marketing and advertising, including this ad, in the article. At the bare minimum, you can mention the ads (if only using them as primary sources), but my guess is that there's good secondary sources on the subject. Viriditas ( talk) 20:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: Sorry for my tardyness, I've been busy with holiday issues and am just getting to this now. This is a suberb review BTW. I have performed many of the smaller GR and wording issues from the original list. A number of the original questions above are "why is it this way?", and the simplest answer to that is "because that's the way WordStar and Microsoft Word and even Electric Pencil are organized". I'm not convinced this is the best way to organize such articles, but this is generally the way it is done. A counterexample is WordPerfect, which separates the article into blocks based on the version of the software, but within those blocks we still see the history at the top and the description following. This seems like something someone should research - are people on the page to read the history or the description? In any event... as to the rest in the para directly above:
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: Sort of back. I love the stuff you found, and edited it down for inclusion. See what you think! Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
17:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Created by Maury Markowitz ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/AtariWriter; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
![]() | AtariWriter has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 3, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from AtariWriter appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 February 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AtariWriter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Viriditas ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Initial release 1982; 41 years ago. I'm not seeing this in the rest of the article. Body text says "1.0 was released to production in the spring of 1983". Perhaps this is a typo? Viriditas ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The program was fast and easy to use, while still allowing the creation of fairly complex documents.While still allowing for the creation of fairly complex documents? Viriditas ( talk) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
It was a huge success for the platform, with at least 800,000 examples sold. Examples? That sounds so strange. Do you mean units? Viriditas ( talk) 07:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
An author of an add-on printer pack estimated he sold 25,000 copies through the Atari Program Exchange and direct.Does "direct" here refer to Direct selling or something else?
A final upgrade was AtariWriter 80 of 1989, which added support for the XEP80 80-column display."A final upgrade was" reads strangely. Would it help to write "A final upgrade was released in 1989 as AtariWriter 80"? Viriditas ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
This did not include any foreign language versions, French, Spanish, German and Italian, or the later versions like Plus and 80.[12] Given about 4 million machines sold in total,[13] this represents a significant portion of the entire Atari fleet.I note there is no source at the end of the paragraph. Is this a WP:CALC or an unsourced statement? How do you think this should be handled? Will others see this as OR? Viriditas ( talk) 01:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The decision to only support Atari printers was a terrible one, one that every product review harped on. Factually, I don't have a problem with this; but we are supposed to use a more formal, encyclopedic tone. Don't assert that the choice of printer support was a terrible one, attribute it. Of course, you do this ("one that every product review harped on") but it should be stated in that context from the beginning ("Every product review noted that Atari's singular support for their own printers alone was a bad decision"). Just an example, but you get the picture. Viriditas ( talk) 21:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The program was apparently completed in November 1987, but for unknown reasons was not released until well into the late summer of 1988.
Concerned about the same issue that caused the Atari 800 to be seen dismissively, they had programmer Dan Oliver port the existing assembly language. Please remember to prompt the reader, as they may have no idea what you are talking about. Briefly remind us what the issue was that led to the dismissive comments. Was it memory? A lack of business software? Whatever it was, say that. Viriditas ( talk) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
By this time it had garnered a major following of its own, and the replacements were seen as second rate in comparison.
He continued releasing the product through a number of major versions, even adding a limited GUI for menu access, with the last releases well into the 1990s.Any citation available for the last statement? Viriditas ( talk) 22:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The product is described as being easy to use and foolproof due to the many checks to prevent data loss. Many readers won't understand what "many checks to prevent data loss" means. Please consider using different words. Viriditas ( talk) 19:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
According to Furr, they contracted with Datasoft. According to earlier versions of this document, they hired Robinson after his agreement with Datasoft ran out. It is likely this refers to later versions of the program, which were written by a different company started by Robinson. Additional references here would be useful.It's not exactly clear what you are talking about. Please consider rewriting this note. What do you mean by "this document"? Not sure if we need "additional references here would be useful". Viriditas ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Includes TV advertisement with Alan Alda.I'm surprised there's nothing about the marketing and advertising, including this ad, in the article. At the bare minimum, you can mention the ads (if only using them as primary sources), but my guess is that there's good secondary sources on the subject. Viriditas ( talk) 20:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: Sorry for my tardyness, I've been busy with holiday issues and am just getting to this now. This is a suberb review BTW. I have performed many of the smaller GR and wording issues from the original list. A number of the original questions above are "why is it this way?", and the simplest answer to that is "because that's the way WordStar and Microsoft Word and even Electric Pencil are organized". I'm not convinced this is the best way to organize such articles, but this is generally the way it is done. A counterexample is WordPerfect, which separates the article into blocks based on the version of the software, but within those blocks we still see the history at the top and the description following. This seems like something someone should research - are people on the page to read the history or the description? In any event... as to the rest in the para directly above:
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Viriditas: Sort of back. I love the stuff you found, and edited it down for inclusion. See what you think! Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
References
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
17:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Created by Maury Markowitz ( talk). Self-nominated at 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/AtariWriter; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |