Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Accolade (company)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 April 2021 [1].

Accolade (company)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision, and going on to create several notable franchises. Article is very complete, thorough, and well-sourced. I'm happy to work on the prose and formatting to bring it up to quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

I have made some copy edits as I went. Flag up here any you don't like or don't understand.

  • "before facing more difficult competition in the following years." More difficult that what? You haven't previously mentioned competition.
  • "consolidated into a singular Infogrames brand". Why "singular" rather than 'single'?
  • "The Accolade brand has since been revived in 2018". The grammar of that doesn't quite work. Maybe 'The Accolade brand was revived in 2018'?
  • Infobox: "Merged out" is jargon. Although I am stuck for a better brief description. Just 'merged' maybe?
  • The first quote box - I suggest deleting "Retro Gamer feature".
  • "Activision became the first ever third-party game developer". Delete "ever". First is first.
  • "After the large devaluation of their stock". Do you mean 'After a large devaluation of their stock'?
  • "Miller and Whitehead left Activision to form Accolade in 1984." No need to repeat "in 1984".
  • "They also hoped to take advantage of the emerging medium of floppy disks compared to the more expensive cartridge format seen on consoles". You are talking about two different things. It may work better as two different sentences.
  • "not to mention the licensing fees that console brands were charging developers." Again, perhaps a separate sentence?
  • There are a lot of duplinks.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went ahead and changed some of those sentences. Hopefully I'm on the right track. I didn't see any duplicate links outside the normal standard of linking once in the lead and once in the body, but let me know if there's anything I can modify. Happy to keep working on this once you have more notes. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To take just the first four of many: Porting; Mean 18; Adventure game; and Steve Cartwright. If you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk they will tell you how to load the dup link checker tool. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "multiple dialog options to be seen in later games." "to be" is a little clunky. Could it be tweaked? (Maybe 'multiple dialog options which later became common in games' or similar?)
  • "which led to HardBall! as his Accolade debut." Perhaps mention which sport features in this game.
  • "and also introduced new features". Delete "also".
  • "It became of Accolade's best selling games". Word missing?
  • "Accolade aimed to balance their role as both developer and publisher". 'roles'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Still chipping away at this. Keep it coming. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with external groups handling ports so that Accolade". "ports" is jargon and needs either a different word or phrase, or an in line explanation.
  • "selling 500,000 units on a budget of less than $80,000." "budget"? Sales budget?
  • "previously helped Accolade with ports". "ports" again.
  • "towards a market they previously abandoned." → 'towards a market they had previously abandoned.'
  • "Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed that" → 'Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed the opinion that'.
  • "The company soon released several games on the Sega Genesis" Open question: should "on" be 'for'?
  • "was that Accolade would meet a quota of games for Sega" . What does "meet a quota of games" mean?
  • "as a way for Sega to preserve its advantage over other consoles", How did it do that?
  • "Despite Accolade earning an agreeable court ruling and settlement". I am not sure that "earning" is the best word, and if "agreeable" is not a typo, it looks like one.
  • "lost somewhere between $15 million and $25 million". Profit or revenue, and why/how?
  • "As the company rushed to fulfill its mandate to Sega" I don't understand this at all.
  • "feeling that he lost interest in the diluted quality of their games." The grammar has gone wrong here Do you mean 'stating that he had lost interest in their games because of their diluted quality.'?
  • "As the company transformed". This is the first mention of a transformation.
  • Cite 80: 16 pages!?
  • "including their soccer game Pelé! and football game Mike Ditka Power Football". Anyone outside north America will wonder why you are using two synonyms for football.
  • "while fighting the injunction in court". Suggest "the" → 'Sega's'.
  • "the company hired former FAO Schwarz head Peter Harris as CEO in 1994" 1. Abbreviations should be give in full at first mention. 2. What is a "FAO Schwarz head"?
  • "to attract new investment." How did hiring Harris do this?
  • "and largely doubled down on existing series." I am unsure what either half of this means. Perhaps express it more formally?
  • "releasing the game on-time." Why the hyphen?
  • "The unstable release would ..." What unstable release?
  • "hurt the reputation of Bubsy series" → 'hurt the reputation of the Bubsy series'.
  • "as well as Accolade as a company." Did it hurt "Accolade as a company" - which is what you say here - if so, how and why? Or did it also hurt Accolade's reputation? (In which case 'as well as that of Accolade as a company.')
  • "at the same budget". At the same budget as what?
  • "did not enjoy the acclaimed legacy of the first two games". I am not sure if this is gamer speak, USVar, or if I am just feeling sleepy, but what does it mean?
  • "as well as the release of Deadlock that same year". Do you mean 'as was the release of Deadlock that same year'?
  • Explain what "E3" is in line.
  • "By that fall". See the MoS on seasons "Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres."
  • "Accolade cancelled their plans" → 'Accolade had cancelled their plans'.
  • "Development also completed on Redline" → 'Development was also completed on Redline'.
  • "to acquire Accolade's employee base of 145 employees". Can we avoid employee twice in five words? Maybe 'to acquire Accolade's 145-strong employee base'?
  • "brands such as Major League Baseball". Why the italics?
  • "were published as Infogrames North America starting in 1999." Do you mean something like 'were published by Infogrames North America starting in 1999.' or 'were published under the Infogrames North America brand starting in 1999.'?
  • "What followed were a series". "were" → 'was'.
  • "The game was met with negative reception" → 'The game was met with negative reception'.
  • "where Metacritic aggregated "generally unfavorable reviews". I don't think that "where is correct, and what is "Metacritic"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of those. The legal stuff is particularly complicated, but hopefully it's clear that (a) Accolade shifted strategies to consoles, but (b) it backfired with the courts enjoining them from developing or selling the "unauthorized" games, and (c) while they won on appeal and settled with Sega, (d) they still lost millions of dollars due to the interruption, which (e) led to a scramble to make new games and attract new investment, and (f) the change in strategy rippled into the company's leadership. I don't mind taking another stab at it if the rephrasing has introduced new errors. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some minor copy edits as I have gone through. If you don't like any, could you flag that up here? The article looks to be in good shape and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The copy edits are great and make things more clear. Thanks for the review and the help. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

[edit]
  • If there's no objection, I'd like to re-add it. The article definitely mentions the historicity of Hardball, with the statement "The game was the first to emulate the behind the pitcher viewpoint seen on television, and also introduced new features such as coach-mode and player data." Unless I misunderstood your rationale that the article doesn't describe the gameplay of Hardball. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no in-depth coverage of the gameplay of this particular game, such that it's not the case that the screenshot's "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of the article topic (Accolade) as required by NFCC. Using in both the game article and the company article also goes against minimal use IMO. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I know that the WP:NFCC standard is deliberately more strict than fair use, which is sort of frustrating for the non-commerical use of an image of a game from 1985 that isn't commercially available, published by a company that no longer exists. It is hard to find relevant images, so let me know if you find a good image to improve this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. A common mistake is adding too many images to an article that doesn't really need them. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Should all be fixed now. Let me know if you see any other errors or omissions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can add logo_alt to write alt text for the infobox image.
  • The table still needs row scopes and headers (! scope="row" | SunDog). You can add "plainrowheaders" next to "wikitable" to avoid bold centred text. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "The Accolade brand was later revived in 2018, when their former assets were acquired by Hong Kong-based holding company Billionsoft, leading to new Bubsy games published by Tommo. " The text states 2017 and mentions an announcement but not any new publications
  • Source for headquarters being in San Jose?
  • FN2: author name doesn't match source
  • FN4 is a dead link
  • Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • What makes Saltzman a high-quality reliable source? Hardcore Gaming 101? Retrovolve? VGF? Lendino? Allgame? Sega-16?
  • FN20 is malformatted
  • Gamespot or GameSpot or gamespot.com? Check throughout for consistency
  • FN30: where does this page range end?
  • Some inconsistencies on what's listed as a work title vs publisher - eg. Kotaku is listed as both in different refs. Check throughout.
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • Fn41 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other refs
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • FN73 is malformatted. Ditto FN81, check throughout
  • FN96 is incomplete. Ditto FN108, check throughout
  • FN98: what kind of source is this?

Lots of formatting cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source for the Bubsy revival, and for the location being in San Jose. I managed to clean up most of the other references and thanks for catching those.
I went ahead and removed VGF and Sega-16 to be safe. But the other sources should check out very strongly. Saltzman is a prolific journalist for major publications in and outside gaming, and the passage is about Chris Taylor, who he interviewed directly. It passes the highest standard for WP:RS with flying colors, as well as the lower standard at WP:SELFSOURCE for uncontroversial claims about the interview subject. Hardcore Gaming 101 is considered a reliable source among the Video Games Wikiproject and Kurt Kalata is a highly reputable authority as the editor -- their site says "Contributors of articles may not be professionally affiliated with the developer or publisher of any of the games covered. All submitted articles are subject to fact checking and editing by staff." Retrovolve is an interview with the developer Michael Berlyn, quoting his experience with the game's production, so I think this is a WP:SELFSOURCE situation. Jamie Lendino is a reputable author among gaming publications and is really only there to verify the title of the game and its existence. AllGame is similarly only there as a database, and should be as reliable as AllMusic which is in frequent use around Wikipedia. It's since ceased operations due to budget issues, but should be reliable by every standard.
Let me know if there are any lingering issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the fact of being an interview doesn't automatically make the source reliable. Regarding HCG101, FN20 is not attributed to Kalata - why would this specifically be considered high-quality? AllGame is listed at RSP as questionable. I'm also on a quick look still seeing considerable formatting inconsistencies. For example, FNs 85 and 86 are to the same title on the same site, but have different date formats, different dashes and different italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the date formatting, and I hadn't been as thorough checking the accessdate field. I'm hoping I've caught them all now, but you can let me know if you spot any other inconsistencies. I'm happy to keep chipping away.
The HG101 source is for sure edited by Kurt Kalata, especially considering it's the site's official top 200 list. To be safe, I found this longer form published book that's attributed to Kalata as editor, and this is the "top 200" book that the article is summarizing and referencing in its contents. As for the Retrovolve interview, the important part are the statements from developer Michael Berlyn, which give important context about the company's development challenges. They are important but non-controversial claims, and I was able to verify a similar statement to another interview so that there is no doubt about the authenticity, as per the WP:SELFSOURCE section at WP:RS. I did read the consensus about AllGame being questionable, so I went ahead and replaced those with more reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing lots of formatting errors and inconsistencies here. Please go through and make sure that similar sources are formatted similarly, and that the same information is provided where available for each. A few more quick examples, emphasizing that these are examples only rather than a comprehensive list: Computer Gaming World is unitalicized and unlinked in FN79 but both in FN80; Kotaku has a retrieval date in FN20 but not in FN35; Gamespot has a publisher in FN140 but not FN131; FN36 is missing pages and has the edition statement as part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Nikkimaria. I went through them again and tried to dig into the guts of the citation templates. I fixed several more, including the few that you highlighted. There's a lot of references for this lengthy article, and they're from a variety of media (magazines, websites, newspapers, books). Hoping once again that I noticed the last bunch, but I will continue to chip away if you see any other issues. Your help is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... believe me, Nikkimaria, I am trying my best. To your suggestions, I tried to (a) add access dates to all "cite web" templates, (b) replace all ranges with the emdash format, (c) fixed the misplaced italics markers, and (d) replaced all "publisher" and "magazine" fields with "work", except where the field is truly just the name of the publisher. I believe that's everything but once again I appreciate any pointers. This is still my first FA nomination but hopefully we're getting close. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I worked through another round of edits. I did a quick scan for quotes within quotes and found one other, which I fixed. Scanned dates and fixed two or three of those. I made the SF Chronicle cites consistent in name and form. I went through the author field for commas / first-last format. Checked the page(s) field to be consistent. I found just one more place where an ndash is appropriate. I removed the new Sega-16 interview, which was only to confirm the accuracy of another interview saying the same thing. Let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the remaining issues are inconsistencies rather than errors, so they're things that need deciding. For example, some periodicals currently have publishers and others don't - neither is wrong, but we need to pick one or the other and run with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little outside my element, so I don't know which sources count as periodicals or not. But my guess is it would be easier to just remove the publisher, assuming that there is still enough relevant information to identify the source. Where should I be looking? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Periodicals are magazines, journals and newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Took care of that to the best of my knowledge. See anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what cases are you intending to include retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to use an access date for anything with a URL, and just went over it all again for consistency. It should include a mix of web sources and magazines that are archived online at certain urls. Double checked the book references and found they should all have publishers. Also linked to pages for magazines that have Wikipedia articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your patience, Nikkimaria. I checked once more to make sure the "cite book" templates have "publishers" and not "works". Is there anything else that you see? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be the last issue: FN102 is missing page(s) (and check that it doesn't need combining with FN124). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both of those. Let me know if that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
  • This has been nominated for over three weeks and has only attracted one general review. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's annoying. I'll see if I can scare up some interest from the video games WikiProject. Do you have any ideas to address the lack of reviews? I don't mind doing some QPQ if that's consistent with normal practices around here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

Wow, we really need more reviewers over here. Would it be a good idea to put a little icon in the corner of an article to show readers that the article is at FAC, in hopes to attract more attention? Panini🥪 00:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker, I'll publish my thoughts piece by piece so you can work while I'm reviewing.

Thoughts
  • Like Namco and Nintendo, the subheaders under history should explain the time range of the events in that section ("(1990-2006)" as an example)
  • The quote box under origin should be moved to the right, as it breaks up the text and its subheader
  • Are there any navboxes for this topic?
  • The lead doesn't really explain why it was purchased by Infogrames, when just before it says they won a profitable lawsuit.
  • I'd link Activision in its first appearance under Origin
  • There should be a "Main article" template under Console and legal challenges to Sega v. Accolade, rather than a link in the text.
  • "New leadership", second paragraph: I think starting a sentence with "So the publisher" is a bit off, maybe try "Instead, the publisher"
  • There's a couple of duplicate links here, so I recommend User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to point them out.

This is a very solid article in my opinion. So much, in fact, that this is all I had to say and I feel guilty about it, considering you left an 8,000-byte review in return! I hope my future support will make up for that... (I will not be claiming points in the Wikicup for this one). Panini🥪 13:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't feel the least bit guilty -- the review is still helpful and a lot of the other issues were caught by other reviewers. I incorporated all your suggestions, including a clearer lead. Thanks for the review and hoping this means the article is suitable for FA status. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

[edit]
  • I read the whole article and my comments above were all I had. I know nothing about the topic and haven't done any in-depth stuff but given the supports above and my reading of the prose, I can support promotion :) Heartfox (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note

[edit]

By my count, three people now support promoting this to FA, with a few more neutral comments which I addressed through constructive editing. My hope is that's enough, but if not I would appreciate another chance to solicit more comments. I know I'm biased, but I'd be shocked if there were any significant issues left with the research, prose, or formatting. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused, but @FAC coordinators: should attract my fellow coordinators, in the event that they have not already taken note. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Namcokid47

[edit]

I noticed that this was sitting in the FAC backlog for a bit, so I decided to have a look. Unfortunately, I've chosen to oppose this nomination, primarily for the writing. This page feels very half-baked compared to Sega, which is a featured article and more comprehensive and well-written than this. Games are introduced with no context as to what their importance is for the company or the industry itself. Some information feels more like trivia than something that should be included (ex. "Because Accolade had focused their success around sports games, they accidentally placed a sticker on the box of Star Control II calling it the "Best Sports Game" of 1992", I don't see how this is worth mentioning). There's a lengthy list of games that feels more appropriate as its own page than something in the article. The article doesn't really do a good job at explaining the how and why for certain events and game releases, and lots of it just feels tossed in. I get that trying to summarizing the entire history of a company is hard (I encountered this multiple times with Namco), but it still isn't that great. There's other issues as well, such as several links lacking archived versions and some information feeling biased (how exactly was Bubsy a "breakthrough hit"? I'm not seeing it in the citation), but the writing is my biggest issue with this. Namcokid47 18:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47, I'm all for putting more work into this one and I've been trying to get more feedback. Were there more issues than the ones you mentioned? A comprehensive review is always appreciated, and I'd like to find a way to integrate any comments in a constructive way. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM

[edit]
  • "in October 1979" October not mentioned in the main body, would just make this 1979 in the lead and move October to main body.
  • "including HardBall!, ..." Hardball! doesn't link to a series, the other two do, this is inconsistent.
  • "published acclaimed games such " well the published the games which then went on to be acclaimed.
  • "But the company..." reads poorly.
  • "of a lawsuit with Sega, " even in the lead, worth just summarising what that was about.
  • "Still, games such..." not sparkling prose.
  • "called "Infogrames North America" and " Inc.?
  • "revived ... revived" repetitive.
  • "by Hong Kong-based" no need to link common geographical regions.
  • "coding team" jargon, link/explain.
  • "start Activision in 1979.[2] Activision" quick repetition.
  • Source says "the first independent game software publisher" makes more sense to me than the "first third-party game developer"
  • "Activision became the first..." game appears in this sentence thrice.
  • "in San Jose, California" linked in the lead but not here, what's the approach?
  • "This would also allow Accolade" -> "This also allowed Accolade..."
  • "video game climate of the time" odd phrasing.
  • "CEO" explain/link before using abbreviation.
  • "High Noon inspired" ->"High Noon-inspired"
  • Is Dialogue in writing really the pertinent link here?
  • "game HardBall! as his " this is a different link to that used for Hardball! previously.
  • "as coach-mode and" why is that hyphenated?
  • "best selling games" that should be hyphenated!
  • "Commodore 64[7] and was" you can safely move that ref to the end of the sentence to prevent the jarring insertion.
  • "commercial blockbuster" this seems POV, is it a quote?
  • "by external development groups." External groups would" quickly repetitive.
  • "focus more energy" feels a little colloquial.
  • Page numbers should be provided for book references.
  • "called Ace of Aces.[5] Ace of Aces became" quick repeat again.
  • "called Test Drive.[9] Test Drive was" likewise.
  • "other computer systems.[6] " do you mean "other platforms"?
  • "longest lasting" what does that mean?
  • "game Hardball went" exclamation mark?
  • Why isn't Serve & Volley considered notable enough for an article?
  • "Most notably, Accolade's biggest success would be in golf" why is this most notable? And why all the "would be"? -> was.
  • " in golf.[5] Their golf game"" repetitive.
  • "of games.[6] These games" likewise.
  • "Accolade was able to outsell other"-> "outsold"

That's got me to the "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)" section. Generally I'd suggest the prose needs a lot of work for it to be considered satisfactory for a featured article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this has been open more than two months and the prose concerns noted above will be better worked on outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Accolade_(company)/archive1&oldid=1019528980"