Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/John Company (board game)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 18:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

John Company (board game)

(
)
Painting used in the box art
Painting used in the box art

Created by CohenTheBohemian (talk). Self-nominated at 07:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Company (board game); 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 compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - (1) There are no sources cited in the three sections entitled "Gameplay", "London Season" and "Advanced Scenarios". These sections appear to be summaries of the rules. I think it would be advisable to add inline citations to the sections of the rules which cover each of these sections. It wouldn't have to be for each line, but at least for each paragraph. (2) Similarly, there are no cites for the first two paragraphs in "Historical background", and only two cites in the next two paragraphs. I think something needs to be added there, because statements about the colonial history of the British and the East India Company in India are definitely something that could be challenged. (3) Citation 5 is to a blog. I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source; see WP:USERGENERATED. (4) I'm not sure about cite 14. Is it a blog, or does it amount to a reliable source? It's one individual writing, but it seems a well-established set of game reviews.
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
  • Other problems: No - (1) I think that the first line in the section entitled "Art" is problematic, as it seems instructional in nature, possibly Original Research: "Another way in which John Company articulates its theme is through its art." See: MOS:INSTRUCT. The simplest thing would be to delete that sentence entirely. (2) The rest of the section is describing art in the game pieces. I think that's okay, since it's simply descriptive of the game, and some of the artwork is given in the article as illustrations. (3) Is there a public domain version of the Disraeli cartoon? if so, can it be added? The reason is that the cartoon is mentioned at some length, and is a famous one, so I think it would be valuable to add it, if possible.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: No - Three of the four images are public domain. For the portrait of Warren Hastings, the Commons page states that there is a pending challenge to the public domain status, but Commons has accepted that it is public domain. I don't know if that matters?
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: (1) Dates: article started August 22, 2023, nomination August 26, 2023, so that's okay. (2) To check page length, I used the Java Script Kit, and it came to 15,477 characters, so that's okay. (3) To check for copyright violations, I ran it through Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and it came up okay. There are repetitions of terms and phrases used in other sources, but they all appear to be properly attributed. (4) With respect to cites to the rulebook, I have applied AGF, since I don't have access to the rulebook, but checks to the online sources don't suggest any problem; properly attributed. (5) I prefer Alt 1 to the proposed hook. The reason is that Alt1 puts the name of the John Company article first, while the proposed hook puts the Duchess and the Prince first, followed by the name of the article. I think the focus of the hook should be the bolded article. (6) I would suggest rephrasing the reference to George in both the hook and the text of the article, because at the time of the cartoon, he was not George IV. I suggest changing the sentence in the article to: "her sister Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, and the young George, Prince of Wales, play the dice game hazard,", and the Alt1 hook to: "that the box cover of the board game John Company (pictured) shows Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and George, Prince of Wales, gambling at hazard?" I would avoid adding any clarification to the hook that he later became Prince Regent or King George IV, because you want to keep some ambiguity there that may draw the reader to click on the link to the article. You want the reader to ask: "Which Prince of Wales? I want to find out!" For the article, maybe add a parenthetical: "George, Prince of Wales (later George IV), gambling..." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your attention to this article and your kind words. As you say you don't have access to the rulebook, it and all the game files are freely available from the publisher[1]
  • Sources: (1 and 2) I've added citations to the rulebook and cards, plus one for the impact of the Indian Rebellion. If there's any more you think necessary, or anywhere you think game and history need to be more thoroughly distinguished, please feel free to tag it or say so here. By the way, I interpreted WP:NOTCITE's "If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information." as making these unnecessary; am I wrong? (3 and 4) I think these citations are covered by WP:RSSELF. For 5: this review[2] was published by Dicebreaker in 2019, which is listed as a reliable source on Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, which I therefore think falls under RSSELF's "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Same for 14; Theel has been published by Polygon[3], Dicebreaker[4], Ars Technica[5], all listed as reliable sources on the same page, plus MSN[6] and IGN India[7].
  • Policy, other: (1) Opening line of "Art" section is gone - thank you. (3) Yes, the Disraeli cartoon is on Wikimedia Commons and on Disraeli's page. If you feel it fits well in a particular place, I'll put it there. The art section is a bit full at the moment, so "Historical background" maybe?
  • Pictures: The challenge to public domain status is due to the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute in 2009. These images are used in Wikipedia - this picture is used on the Warren Hastings page - and it seems the Intellectual Property Office disagrees with the NPG. I don't think this is an issue.
  • Comments: (5 and 6) Changed the article. I'm OK with adapting Alt1 into this (NB I moved "pictured" to the end as it's not the actual box cover):
  • Alt2: ...that the box cover of the board game John Company shows Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire and George, Prince of Wales gambling at hazard? (pictured)
Responses from Mr Sejeant Buzfuz
  • Sources (1) and (2) The additional cites look fine. With respect to WP:NOTCITE, the reason I suggested additional cites to the rules is that with a historical piece like this, I was thinking that there could be confusion for the reader between what they know of history, and the game's take on the history. Having cites to the rules helps clarify that. More generally, anytime there are really long passages in the article without any cites, that may trigger "uncited" templates being added by other editors. I tend to err on over-citing rather than under-citing, but I appreciate it's a judgment call.
  • Sources (3) and (4) Thanks for the clarification; yes, I agree that they are reliable sources.
  • Other (1) Thanks for doing that. (3) Historical background would be a good place. It's a long bit of text; I think illustrations always help the reader keep going.
  • Hastings picture — the rules for Wikimedia and copyright are largely a mystery to me. I just wanted to flag that, but sounds okay.
  • Comments (5) and (6) — Looks good.
  • All of the red X marks have now been resolved.
  • I'll change the status field to a check mark, and it should be good to go!
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Reply from CohenTheBohemian
Thank you for your reply about NOTCITE; those are good points. I hope I didn't seem demanding; just wondering if there was a better practice.
I've added the Punch cartoon. Thank you for your help with the nomination. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Company_(board_game)&oldid=1181079452"