Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Accolade (company)/archive3

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2021 [1].

Accolade (company)

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 20 July 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. They went on to create several notable franchises, especially in sports. Things get shaky in their final years, and the most detailed sources prefer to focus on their golden age. But there are enough reliable sources to explain their decline and overall fate.

I'm nominating this after a few rounds of work and review. The previous FA-nomination(s) failed. I became busy during the first nomination, which was closed with some suggestions I didn't get to at the time. I have since incorporated the feedback, then sought a peer review for even more feedback. I got ahead of myself with the second nomination, but third time is a charm.

The article is comprehensive, well-researched, well-cited, neutral, and stable, using images in compliance with fair use. I feel optimistic that this article is close enough to the Featured article criteria that I can work on any remaining issues through this process. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

- is appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 14:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politely pinging a few editors who reviewed the first edition.

For prose, @Gog the Mild:, @Panini!:, @The Rambling Man:
For technical, there's @Heartfox: (accessibility), @Nikkimaria: (sources)
buidhe was too fast for me, and has covered the images and fair use criteria.

You'll find that I addressed all of your comments from the first nomination. Happy to keep working on new suggestions, and trying to save time for all of us by not re-treading the same ground again. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Despite only having one header, it manages to be highly comprehensive and well-written. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini!

Staying true to my promise, Support. Good Job! Panini!^🥪 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Panini!. A bare "Support" doesn't carry much weight. I assume that your support is on the basis of your feedback during the article's first nomination, but if so specifying this and providing a link helps out the coordinators. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right! I've made a comment about this at User talk:Shooterwalker, disappointed in the archiving of the previous nomination. I reassured I would give support based on my initial thoughts and reactions prior. Sorry for not mentioning that! Panini!^🥪 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

Unique FAC, as it is just one section, but eh, at least it's comprehensive. These comments might help:

Resolved comments from Gerald WL 01:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* "(renamed as Infogrames North America, Inc. in 1999)"-- this is later stated in paragraph 3. Is it needed here?

I usually like to have brackets after the game stating its year. For example, Star Control (1990).
"and experienced strong sales"-- I don't think "experienced" is the right word. "saw" sounds better.
"subsidiary called "Infogrames North America""-- why quotations?
"rebranded as Atari SA"-- should this be bolded?
"when Hong Kong-based"-- link Hong Kong

"Artech also created the flight simulator game"-- flight simulator is the typical devices used by airlines to train pilots. The game version is amateur flight simulator, but the combat one is combat flight simulator.
"cost of $80,000"-- which dollar specifically?
"series with 3D polygon" --> "series with three-dimensional (3D) polygon"
"Accolade expanded the" --> "It expanded the"
"This marked the end of Infogrames North America as a separate company and what was left of Accolade as an entity." Just wanna ask clarification regarding the no citation here.
"under Atari SA. [48]"-- space between punct and ref.
"a California video game" --> "a Californian video game"

In addition, I suggest having a list of games table, like Thatgamecompany does. Considering the history already covers it all, the prose is not needed. After all my comments got resolved, I'll support. Gerald WL 03:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most confusing part of this topic for readers is the corporate stuff. A few notes on those:

The "renamed" part in the first sentence is because people do search for Infogrames North America, which is the name of Accolade after it had been changed. That said, if it's enough to have the bolded part in the third paragraph, at the end of its life, I could be talked into removing it. Trying to satisfy a lot of different editorial opinions here.
Atari SA is Infogrames Entertainment SA. Inverting the principle above, it's a different corporate entity, and a different article, and thus isn't bolded.
There was a consensus that the uncited statement at the end is needed, because it objectively summarizes the other sources without making any novel claims. You could remove this sentence and just leave it at the previous sentence, which says "Infogrames had merged Infogrames North America into Infogrames Inc". But people have a hard time understanding what all these corporate renames and restructurings mean. This last part is added for clarity: it means Accolade was merged, renamed, then slowly dissolved into raw assets for another company. It's gone.

I added some dates, and hopefully people don't have too many different opinions on that. There was previously a list of games that was removed as part of a previous peer review / FA, and split into List of Accolade games. This was after painstakingly formatting the table and citations for FA quality, but it's another area where tastes vary and I'm getting conflicting advice. I appreciate all your comments and hopefully that addresses all of them. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications — and apologies, I did not see that "See also" section. The article looks nice by now; last stuff I would ask is have all the dollars consistent to US$, and add {{Main|Sega v. Accolade|''Sega v. Accolade''}} at the top of "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)". Once that's resolved, I'll support. Gerald WL 01:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Good suggestions. Should be all done now. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! To finalize, I italicized the hatnote and added upright to the image. Glad to support this article. Gerald WL 01:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. This is a very unique FAC, and I do learn some things from here, also important since I'm also planning to have several articles (earliest on the line is Living in the Age of Airplanes) to have a FAC at someee point. If you want to and have the time for it, may I suggest reviewing a peer review I just opened for that article? It can help a lot. Gerald WL 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Link20XX

Putting this here as a placeholder, will leave comments soon. In the meantime, if you could leave comments on a peer review of mine, it would be appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I gave the article a basic read-through and the only comment I have is admittedly pretty nitpicky. In the section "Console and legal challenges (1990–1993)", the hatnote below the image looks very poor for me as a mobile reader. Could it be moved above the image perhaps? Link20XX (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy fix. Done. Anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Looks good to me. Happy to Support. Link20XX (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shooterwalker (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator

I count support from Shadowboxer2005, Gerald Waldo Luis, Panini!, and Link20XX. Panini! had previously reviewed the article at the last FA, and led to several improvements. buidhe has returned to once again review the images and licensing, with support.

I'm paging a few editors from previous reviews who might want to check back in. @Heartfox: previously reviewed this article for accessibility, and @Nikkimaria: previously reviewed the sources, and hoping they can confirm that the article still passes their scrutiny. I'll also page @The Rambling Man: and @Indrian:, as they previously reviewed the article and might want to check back in too. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: ... a few days later, I feel pretty confident this is well on its way, after several review processes, and 4 unanimous supporters on this latest round alone. I don't want to rush this process, and my real hope is to start another FA process and continue improving other articles. Let me know if I would have permission to start in on that. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would need a source review to at least be well under way, if not passed, for that I am afraid. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: That's a fair requirement. Going to ping @Nikkimaria: one more time, as she reviewed the sources last time and they have not substantially changed. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up with @FAC coordinators: after the much appreciated source review from Nikkimaria. Would this now qualify as a pass, or at least good enough to start another featured article nomination while I wait for further feedback? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start another. And thanks for the ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the cost of the lawsuit was a financial strain for the company". The text says it was the impact of the injunction, rather than the actual cost of the lawsuit - which is correct?
"The Accolade brand was revived in 2018, when Hong Kong-based holding company Billionsoft acquired their former assets, leading to new Bubsy games published by Tommo". As noted last time around, the text gives a date of 2017 and does not mention new publications (just plans for such)
"Accolade credits the Jack Nicklaus license with giving them an edge as a publisher of sports games." Text supports outselling other golf games, but that's narrower than "sports"
Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
FN4: page?
FN32 is missing language indication
Be consistent in how you're handling "staff" publications. For example FN46 is credited to IGN Staff, but FN51 is not - why?
Be consistent in when you include publisher - you've got it in FN53 but not other similar refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. That should address all the comments

Changed the lead and the image captions to be consistent with the article and sources.
Adjusted the references as you suggested.

A few editors stepped in to try to assist, so it's possible I missed something. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit inconsistent wrt staff publications. They're now gone from IGN, but eg FN1 still uses a staff credit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think this is fixed now, thanks to Gerald Waldo Luis. I checked through all the refs and there should be no more sources credited to staff. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again to the coordinators, and to everyone who chimed in with suggested improvements. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:17, 7 August 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.