Talk:Thatgamecompany/Archives/2019
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Thatgamecompany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Concerns About Feature Article Class
I am having some issues understanding the FAR process and don't want to kick anything off unless I reach out in talk first. I had concerns about the quality of some of the sources used in this article, which was listed as a feature article. Much of my concerns can be found in this teahouse question (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Help_Understanding_the_Feature_Article_Class_(Thatgamecompany)). Unfortunately, I'm not sure what sort of improvements can be made to the reliability of the sources in the philosophy section of this article. I'm more than willing to help, but could use some advice. Thanks.
Jonkatora (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- The sources you mention are considered reliable at WP:VG/RS by peer review. What specific concerns do you have about them? Is the information incorrect? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jonkatora: There are certainly improvements to be made to this article; I wrote it 8 years ago and was not as good of a writer then. That said, of course there are differences between this article and the one on Sega: this is an article on an indie studio that has released 4 games in 15 years, while that one is on an industry juggernaut with a complicated 80-year history. Besides that:
- At the teahouse, you listed Gamasutra and Gamesindustry.biz as the sources you were concerned about, right? Gamasutra is a 22-year-old, deeply reliable source and the online sister to Game Developer magazine. GameIndustry.biz is the 13-year old side project of Eurogamer. Both are sites aimed at covering the video games industry, rather than reviews for consumers. Other than the names, what made you think they were unreliable?
- I see that you now understand that the lead should not have citations, as it should be summarizing the body; I do agree that the second paragraph of the lead could do a better job of not ascribing the founders' statements on what the company does (/did) to be fact, and it should not say "employees" when it means the founder/designer. I'll try to clean this up in a minute.
- In the end, if you're looking for an objective measure of what a featured article is, you're not going to find one, beyond the FA criteria. Sega is certainly a better article than TGC. It's also, despite being in the same industry, a very different subject. If you have specific criticisms of this article, or areas that you feel it is lacking, please list them- as the rules at FAR state, the first step is stating your concerns on this talk page and giving interested editors 2-3 weeks to try to address them. --PresN 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jonkatora: There are certainly improvements to be made to this article; I wrote it 8 years ago and was not as good of a writer then. That said, of course there are differences between this article and the one on Sega: this is an article on an indie studio that has released 4 games in 15 years, while that one is on an industry juggernaut with a complicated 80-year history. Besides that: