Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PlayStation (console)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2022 [1].

PlayStation (console)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♦ jaguar 17:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PlayStation is a Faustian story of trust and betrayal, animosity and friendship, and strive to power. It is one of the most important video game consoles and also among the most recognisable. I started work on this back in 2014, left it for six years, and picked it up again last year. Since then its length has been tripled and much needed comprehensibility added. It has recently come out of a GA review which has improved the article even more. My thanks goes to Indrian for his invaluable knowledge and support, and TheJoebro64 for picking up where the review left off. Seeing this as a Featured Article along with the Sega Saturn would do both consoles of the electrifying 1990s great justice. ♦ jaguar 17:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Playstation_logo_colour.svg is tagged as lacking source information. Given that this is a 3D model design, not sure the simple geometric shapes tag is appropriate
  • "A photo of the only known SNES-based PlayStation prototype" - source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: thank you, I've addressed your points. I've added alt text to the appropriate images and removed fixed pixel sizes. The rationale for the PlayStation logo is correct since it uses "PD-textlogo", the same found on other video game company logos such as Sega. I've also added a separate source. ♦ jaguar 21:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

Since you've done literally hundreds of video game-related reviews (including two of mine), I should most definitely return the favor. I'll be here Monday, and if I'm not, I forgot. Don't take it personally, I don't even remember my girlfriend's name. Jenna, probably. Please ping me if I slack on my job. Wait, no, it was Emma. Emily? Hmm... Panini!🥪 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's do this. I'm no PlayStation expert, in fact I actively despise it. So please, if I question something I'm incorrect about, joyfully deny it.

Resolved comments
Lead
  • PlayStation didn't necessarily "compete" with Sega and Nintendo, they temporarily blew them out of the water. In fact, as the Console war article puts it (written by Masem), it completely "evaporated" that well-known console war between Sega and Nintendo due to how successful it performed in North America. I think it deserves a tad bit more credit here.
  • Using "premier" to describe the popular franchises makes it sound like they debuted as the first games in their series or were one of the first games on the consoles. Contrarily, Final Fantasy had six other games on Nintendo hardware and Gran Turismo released two years after the console. Is there another way this can be phrased?
History
  • I'm seeing Ohga's name being thrown around a lot here. Is he worthy of a picture?
  • He certainly would be, but sadly I can't find a free image of him. The image on his page is non-free and its rationale would undoubtedly be shot down in this FAC (the only free file I found of him actually was this extremely bizarre image). I've always wanted to insert an image in that big wall of text but haven't been able to find anything relevant. I'm open to ideas. ♦ jaguar 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Development

"This was in contrast to Sega, which had a versatile and well-equipped in-house software division for its arcade games and could easily port successful games to its home consoles." - Wouldn't the same apply for Nintendo? The two were in the same league around this time.

  • "since the system's rival, the Saturn, was produced by Namco's rival in the arcade market, Sega" - Since "rivaled with the Saturn" and "rivaled with Sega" are one in the same, this can be shortened. "Since Namco rivaled Sega in the arcade market"
  • "television variant of the console" - I'm not really sure what this refers to, and feel it could use some more clarification.
  • Rephrased to "a television with a built-in PlayStation". Just found out that Hetherington passed away a few weeks ago, he really was one of the unsung heroes in the PlayStation project. ♦ jaguar 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something linker can hyperlink to like the other two around it, assembler and debugger?
  • "it was bought out by Sony in 2005" -> "and was bought out by Sony in 2005"
Launch and Marketing success
  • Like I said about the lead, PlayStation was the reason why the console war between Sega and Nintendo fizzled out (more info over at that article). Might be beneficial to give it a mention in this area somewhere.

I'm gonna skip over the hardware section; the technical content is far from my strong points and I won't be able to give adequate advice about it.

Me too, don't tell anybody. ♦ jaguar 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reception and Legacy
  • The Famicom Tsūshin's low rating is mushed between positives; could it be moved elsewhere?
  • It may be worthwhile to mention it's one of the bestselling video game consoles of all time (in the top 5).
  • The PlayStation 2 is also credited for being one of the final nails in the coffin on Sega consoles; might also be worth a mention.
  • The addition of the Xbox pops in out of nowhere like that aunt that claims she changed your diapers when you were little. Might also also be helpful to briefly mention it's a new competitor in the ring.
  • Fun fact, when Square pulled the Final Fantasy series from the Nintendo 64, Nintendo said "fine, we don't need you anyways" and made the Paper Mario series to make up for the lack of RPG content. Is this byproduct worth tacking on somewhere in that final paragraph of the CD format section somewhere? I doubt it, but it's your call.

That's all from me! Lemme know when you get around to satisfying them, and I'll leave my support. Panini!🥪 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: thank you for the review! Sorry it took me a while to address all the comments. I've added some more content in and made some tweaks to the legacy section. Please let me know if you think I've missed anything or if something is amiss. I'm going to make myself suffer more and start work on PlayStation 2. ♦ jaguar 22:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeps-Darkly - Support

[edit]
CES announcement
[edit]

I should mention that the CES announcement part, specifically "At 9am on the day of the CES, instead of announcing a partnership between Sony and Nintendo", is quite lacking in detail. There's way more stuff to this, specificially that Sony announced their console, and then Nintendo announcing their pulling out.

Going to list sources:

  • Jones, 2015, p. 10 : "and on the first day proudly announced the details of its new alliance with Nintendo"
  • Jones, 2015, p. 10 : "what happened next is one of the most infamous double-crosses in the history of the videogame industry"

In regards to the planned Sony+Sega console, it has a name:

  • Also mentioned in Sheff's book, "Game Over", chapter "Sonic Boom" : "Sega made the additional announcement of a deal with Sony, which planned to create games for the Sega Multimedia Entertainment System based on its entertainment companies—the Columbia and TriStar studios and Sony (CBS) Records"

Otherwise, very solid, though I believe these details should be in the article. I've wrote some stuff in the article before, and was writing the Russian counterpart, but put it on the hold until English article getting a GA or FA status in hopes that there will be more sources to look at. Support.

Also, additional part w/r/t sources: The author of a "Retroinspection: Playstation" article in a Playstation Book is not Darran Jones, it's Damien McFerran, and it was published previously in a previous issue of Retro Gamer. Probably should just change the reference from `Jones, 2015` to something like `Playstation Book, 2015` --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, apologies for the delay in addressing this. I've fleshed out the CES details and added that Nintendo's withdrawal provoked backlash. I've also changed the author of the RG source and added the name of Sega's proposed system. ♦ jaguar 17:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would've still expanded the CES part. With something like this, I wrote this quickly:

Kutaragi and Nobuyuki Idei, Sony's director of public relations at the time, learned of Nintendo's actions two days before the CES was due to begin. Kuturagi telephoned numerous contacts, including Philips, to no avail. In June, at the beginning of the first day of CES, Sony announced its partnership with Nintendo and its new console, the Play Station. But the next day, in what observers call "the greatest betrayal" in the industry and Nintendo's biggest mistake, Howard Lincoln took the stage, but instead of the expected confirmation of the contract with Sony, he announced that he was breaking the agreement and signing a new contract with Philips. The event came as a shock to many in the Japanese business community, who saw the cancellation as a grave betrayal - one Japanese company humiliating another Japanese company in favor of a European company - which seemed unthinkable to Japanese businessmen.

You can reword this as you see fit. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. I've expanded on the CES paragraph slightly. The after-effects of Nintendo's betrayal has also been expanded on in the inception section. ♦ jaguar 21:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, thanks. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 and retirement
[edit]

Forgive me for adding more comments, but because it's a candidate for a featured article status, I would strive for the information fullness. In general, other gaming consoles articles, for example Saturn and Dreamcast both have the ceasing of manufacturing in the end of their history sections. This one does not, and delegates the "by the time it was discontinued in March 2006" into the Models section. I'm of a belief it would be better being also mentioned in the History section.

I would be of an opinion that the end of history section would alse be in a need of adding a Dreamcast/PSOne sales competition; for example: Jones, 2015: p. 13: "the launch of Sega’s technically superior 128-bit Dreamcast in 1999 was unable to upset the status quo".; and: Kent, 2001, pp. 588—589 says that Sega was unable to keep the competition with both PSOne and PS2, and decided to retire Dreamcast early. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleeps-Darkly: thank you for your comments and support! I know what you mean, I always felt that the history section was unfinished. I've added a new paragraph detailing the PlayStation's later years and its renewed conflict with the Dreamcast. It feels like the final piece of the puzzle has been slotted in. ♦ jaguar 22:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SCEA and SCEE source?
[edit]

Sony formed its North American division and European division, known as Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE), in May and June 1995.

This isn't in the source that is put at the end of that (Charla 1996, p. 39.). It only covers the followup PSX part. Needs sourcing. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added two additional sources.[2][3]. Also corrected an error: SCEE was formed in January 1995, not June. This is corroborated in SIE's timeline. ♦ jaguar 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
Resolved
  • "A total of 7,918 PlayStation games were released, with cumulative sales of 962 million units." There needs to be a {{nbsp}} between 962 and million, per MOS:NBSP.
  • Check the infobox figures to make sure they also have NBSP, wherever needed.
  • "Although Kutaragi was nearly fired because he worked with Nintendo without Sony's knowledge,[19] Sony president Norio Ohga" - repetition of "Sony" in such close proximity.
  • "What became the released PlayStation dates back to a 1988 joint venture between Nintendo and Sony." I don't know why but this sentence's structure is rather strange. I had to read it multiple times to understand the significance of "what became". Maybe it's just me?
  • "Although the initial agreement between Nintendo and Sony was about producing a CD-ROM add-on, Sony had also planned to develop a SNES-compatible Sony-branded console, but one which would be more of a home entertainment system playing both SNES cartridges and a new CD format named the "Super Disc", which Sony would design." This sentence uses "Sony" four times, is incredibly long and uses two contradictory conjunctions. Splitting it into two would solve most of the problems.
  • "Sony's American branch considered allying with Sega to produce CD-ROM hardware, but Sega's board of directors in Tokyo vetoed the idea when Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske presented them the proposal." Sega.. Sega.. Sega
  • "Sony halted their research, but decided to develop what it had developed with Nintendo and Sega into a console based on the SNES." Maybe not the best suggestion (please look carefully if what I'm suggesting is possibly changing the meaning) but how about decided to continue developing with Nintendo.. to avoid the repetition of develop.
  • I've changed 'developed' to 'made'. By this point Sony was not developing anything with Nintendo, rather some additional (albeit futile) negotiations were still taking place. ♦ jaguar 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To determine the fate of the PlayStation project, Ohga chaired a meeting in June 1992" - NBSP
  • "where companies were familiar with one another and could conduct "civilised" business negotiations" - the source says "and where business negotiations were conducted in a civilized manner". Change to "civili[s]ed".
  • "..known as Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) and Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE), in May and June 1995." NBSP
  • "A team from Epic Sony visited more than a hundred companies throughout Japan in May 1993" - same as above. I will point it out wherever I see it missing one, but do check for other instances I might miss.
  • " This changed in 1993 when Sony acquired the Liverpudlian company Psygnosis (later renamed SCE Liverpool) for US$48 million", "When Psygnosis arranged an audience for SN Systems with Sony's Japanese executives at the January 1994" - NBSP

Down to the end of development subsection. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrB.TG! All done so far. ♦ jaguar 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these. I’ll continue my review once Snuggum’s concerns have been resolved to avoid possibly repeating what he has said. FrB.TG (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sony released the PlayStation in Japan on 3 December 1994, a week after the release of the Saturn, at a price of ¥39,800." You should probably clarify and wiki-link Sega Saturn (assuming that is what you mean) here since it's the first time you mention Saturn in the main body.
  • "The attention to the Sony conference was further bolstered by the surprise appearance of Michael Jackson and the showcase of highly anticipated games, including Wipeout (1995), Ridge Racer and Tekken." You should probably arrange the games in chronological order unless this is the order, in which they showcased the games, in which case you can leave it as is.
  • "By November it had already outsold the Saturn by three to one in the United Kingdom, where Sony had allocated a £20 million" - there should be an NBSP between 20 and million.
  • "By early 1996, the PlayStation had grossed $2,000,000,000 (equivalent to $3,500,000,000 in 2020)" - why not just $2 billion and $3.5 billion?
  • "By late 1996, sales in Europe totalled 2.2 million units, including 700,000 units sold in the UK."
  • "Approximately 400 PlayStation games were in development, compared to approximately 200 and 60 games being developed" - repetitive phrasing
  • "While the Saturn was marketed towards 18- to 34-year-olds,[108] the PlayStation was initially marketed exclusively towards teenagers." Same as above.
  • "The console was marketed with advertising slogans stylised as "LIVE IN YOUR WORLD. PLAY IN OURS" and "U R NOT E" (red E)." Why is only the colored "E" explained when there are other ones too?
  • "It was launched in June 1996 in Japan,[145] and following public interest, was released the following year in other countries." following.. following
  • "Sony still held 60 per cent of the overall video game market share in North America at the end of 1999." You should probably opt for % instead as you have used it than writing the word elsewhere throughout the article.
  • "The European and North American models of the original PlayStation controller is" - shouldn't "is" be "are" considering "models" is plural?
  • "Sony's first analogue gamepad, the PlayStation Analog Joystick (often erroneously referred to as the "Sony Flightstick"), was first released in Japan in April 1996." - NBSP between April and 1996.
  • "The Analog Joystick sold poorly in Japan, due to its high cost and cumbersome size." Not sure if the comma is necessary.
  • "after this, games will no longer load, due to data read errors" - I could be wrong but the comma is redundant here.
  • "Critically acclaimed PlayStation games included Final Fantasy VII (1997), Crash Bandicoot (1996), Spyro the Dragon (1998), Metal Gear Solid (1998), and Tekken" - overlinking of Tekken. Side-note: I used to love this game.
  • Dreamcast is repetitively linked in random order for whatever reason.
  • " In Japan, Sony published limited numbers of a large number of games" - this should be rephrased as the "limited numbers of a large number of games" part sounds almost (unintentionally) ironic.
  • "It was announced in September 2018" - NBSP
  • "Technically there is one exception to this." Comma after the introductory adverbial element (technically).

This is it on my part. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jaguar. It appears you might’ve missed the rest of my review as it was not easily noticeable above Snuggum’s comments. Just making sure. :) FrB.TG (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies FrB.TG, I completely missed your comments! I've addressed all of them now. Thank you for taking your time to look over the article. ♦ jaguar 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Admirable work. If you have the time and interest, I would appreciate comments on my FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • Per MOS:FONTSIZE, there is no good reason to make text appear smaller than it naturally would as that just needlessly makes it harder on the eyes to read. This especially applies for places like infoboxes that already use sizes that aren't as large as regular prose.
  • "Notable" from "Notable PlayStation franchises included" is blatant POV, also I can only find support for Tomb Raider boosting console sales within the article prose
  • Within the "Background" section, "Kutaragi convinced Nintendo to use his SPC-700 sound processor in the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) through a demonstration of the processor's capabilities; his willingness to work with Nintendo derived from both his admiration of the Famicom and conviction in video game consoles becoming the main home-use entertainment systems." is quite a mouthful! I recommend separating it into two sentences by replacing the semi-colon with a period. Same goes for "The console was not marketed with Sony's name in contrast to Nintendo's consoles; according to Phil Harrison, much of Sony's upper management feared that the Sony brand would be tarnished if associated with the console, which they considered a 'toy'." under "Inception".
  • From "Development", I'm not sure "suffered underwhelming sales" is the best tone. What you really mean is they had low sales, right?
  • Another overly long sentence with "Another strategy that was effective in attracting software developers was the PlayStation's use of the CD-ROM format instead of traditional cartridges; in contrast to other disc-reading consoles such as the 3DO, the PlayStation could quickly generate and synthesise data from the CD since it was an image-generation system, rather than a data-replay system." In addition to splitting it where the misused semi-colon lies, I'd change "that was effective in attracting software developers" into something more concise like "that helped attract software developers".
  • What is "by a factor of three" from "outsold the Saturn by a factor of three in the United Kingdom" supposed to mean?
  • It's quite monotonous how almost every sentence from the first paragraph of "Technical specifications" begins with "The".
  • How come the non-Japan releases for PocketStation where cancelled?
  • Unfortunately I can't find any info on why it was never released outside Japan, and I have looked hard. Seems that it will always remain a mystery as not even contemporaries could understand why. I have expanded on the PocketStation paragraph by adding sales figures. ♦ jaguar 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including reviews from only four publications under "Reception" doesn't feel like nearly enough for such a famous console (it's not even half of what I'd expect), and you should elaborate on "scored the console a 19 out of 40, lower than the Saturn's 24 out of 40" with comments on what the reviewer did/didn't like.
  • Famitsu scans are almost impossible to find. My reasoning for leaving the scores in was to satisfy the need for a Japanese perspective. Their scores from the same issue are likewise in the review section of the Sega Saturn article (with no context), so that further encouraged me to leave it in. While I would love to expand on the reception section (you might know I can get carried away with that sometimes), it appears that critics in those days did not critique hardware, unlike the abundance of console reviews found today. The Sega Genesis article boots an even smaller reception section owing to this scarcity. The four reviews were unfortunately all I could find by rummaging through hard-to-find scans, and their reviews are woefully minimal. The legacy section hopefully compensates for this. ♦ jaguar 20:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Legacy", starting three sentences in a row with "The" feels repetitive, and I'd replace "citing" from "citing its sophisticated 3D capabilities" with "crediting"
  • Not only is "As a result, some third-party developers switched to the PlayStation, notably Square, whose Final Fantasy VII, and Enix (later merged with Square to form Square Enix), whose Dragon Quest VII (2000) were planned for the Nintendo 64; while others released fewer games to the Nintendo 64 (Konami, releasing only thirteen N64 games but over fifty on the PlayStation)." an excessively long sentence, but its use of "notably" is POV/inappropriate editorializing.
  • 1Up.com should have an uppercase "U" and lowercase "p"
  • "Bilbiography" is frowned upon as a vague section title that could also refer to works written by a subject

There's some work to do, but I'm sure you can get it done within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: thank you very much for the review! I was without internet access at home for two days, otherwise I would have addressed your comments much sooner. I've hopefully addressed them all. It is a shame that there is a scarcity of console reviews otherwise you can be assured the review section would have been much more extensive. The non-release of the PocketStation is likewise a mystery. ♦ jaguar 21:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure :). Moving the "has often ranked among the best video game consoles" paragraph into "Reception" would be a good way to expand it as this offers stances on the system. As for the lead, I still don't see anything in the body to substatiate how any games besides Tomb Raider helped increase sales. If the others were only based on the listings of what "became established franchises" under "Game library", then that's not enough. Those lack commentary related to how much the console sold unlike "Eidos Interactive's action-adventure game Tomb Raider contributed substantially to the success of the console in 1996". There's also a duplicate "Digital Spy" listed within ref#203 ("Sony PlayStation vs Nintendo 64: Gaming's Greatest Rivalries"), which I've just noticed has an incomplete title. Just use "Digital Spy" once without italics there. Another issue that still remains is the needless inclusion of cities within citations (seemingly where works got published). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: I've removed the mention of the "helped boost sales for the console" statement from the lead. Although it is likely true, I cannot back it up on behalf of the other franchises. Ironically, it is documented that Harry Potter boosted the console's sales after 2001. I've also fleshed out the Digital Spy ref and removed italics for both cases. The "has often ranked among the best video game consoles" paragraph belongs to the legacy section as it is based on retrospective writings. Even the retrospective stuff aren't proper reviews, rather just 'list of top 10 best consoles'. I include the cities of publications for written sources/scans; I also do this academically and there's nothing in WP:CITE which prohibits it. I thought it was good practice and generally the choice of whoever is inserting the references. If you wish I could remove them from the online citations for consistency's sake? ♦ jaguar 23:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removal of cities would be a good way keep the citations more consistent. Are there maybe other rankings (retrospective or not) that go into more detail on what reviewers liked on the console than what used within "Legacy"? In either case, I'd say it's worth mentioning Harry Potter served as a sales boost. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, the lists used in the "legacy" are as barebones as you would expect.[4][5]. I have expanded IGN's passage somewhat though. The mention of Harry Potter selling well is already in the game library section ("went on to sell over eight million copies late in the console's lifespan"), but I've added that it boosted sales. I've removed the use of cities from online citations. ♦ jaguar 22:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can now say this has improved enough for me to support it for FA. Hopefully the nomination passes! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SNUGGUMS. I'll keep an eye out if you ever submit anything at FAC! ♦ jaguar 22:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
  • I've freed up space in the inception subsection by trimming the infobox as much as I could. On my monitor there's miles of room there so I'm afraid I can't judge. I've also fixed the slight squeeze in the controller subsection. ♦ jaguar 21:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think the comments have culminated; do you think there's a consensus? ♦ jaguar 22:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see it still needs a source review. A request for one has been listed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Sleeps darkly and Snuggums combed through the sources in their reviews? ♦ jaguar 21:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Pass

[edit]
Formatting and miscellaneous points

(this version was reviewed)

  • In the past people have asked me to insert hyphens into ISBN numbers, and I believe this may conform to the relevant ISO standard... although this discussion would suggest there isn't firm consensus for it in the MOS. I would make it consistent though. Currently we have McFarran 2015 with no hyphens (9781785461064) and Asakura 2000 with hyphens (978-0-07-135587-2).
  • Also be consistent between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
  • Refs 7, 66 and 188 - "Sony Computer Entertainment" was linked in all the other instances, but not this one.
  • Also in Ref 66, it says "Inc." on the end, which it doesn't in others.
  • And Ref 96 abbreviates it to "SCE"
  • Ref 150 - is there a reason this one was "Sony Computer Entertainment Europe" while the ref 4, which is also a SCEE facts and figures, was just Sony Computer Entertainment? Also consider linking.
  • Ref 29 - range should be 25–26 rather than 25–6 per the MOS, and indeed other refs in this article. Ditto #57 and #69
  • Quite a few of the refs (#51 is one example) are using archive links first and "the original" later, even though the original reference is not dead. Ideally these should have url-status=live, particularly given that such a parameter is used in other examples
  • I've combed through the sources and added url statuses for all of them. Not sure if there was a script that could do this, it would've saved a lot of time! ♦ jaguar 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 52/144/204 - inconsistency in (a) whether "The" is included before "New York Times" (it probably should be) and (b) whether "New York City" is included as a location
  • Edge is sometimes linked and sometimes not
  • The location of "Bath" is also sometimes given and sometimes not
  • Ref 82 - "the Guardian" is odd styling. And if other places have a location it should also have one. I'll stop mentioning locations now, but please make it consistent throughout, either omit or include.
  • Ref 94 - in what sense is this "page 3"? It just looks like a single article to me
  • Ref 130 - I got a "privacy error" in my browser when I tried following this. Maybe switch to the archived version.
Spot checks

(this version was reviewed)

  • 1 - checks out
  • 4 - the source says "November 1995" but I'm not seeing reference to the 15th specifically
  • 26 - checks out for all
  • 94 - checks out

I'll pause there, and then do another pass once some of these issues have been ironed out  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: thank you for checking over the sources! I've addressed all of them so far. I really appreciate your thorough spot checking. ♦ jaguar 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Jaguar: - sorry for the lengthy delay here and thanks for the amendments made so far. Continuing review with numbers as per this version.

  • Ziff Davis - some refs give its location as New York City, while others say Chicago. Some, such as 166 and 169, don't give a location at all.
  • Refs 186 and 206 don't say Tokyo, as the others do
  • Various refs, e.g. 98, 107 etc. give Imagine Media with no location, while others say it is in Bath
  • Univision is given sometimes as Los Angeles and sometimes Miami. Did it move?
  • Ref 154 - doesn't say Brighton, as the other Game Network refs do
  • Ref 200 - no publisher or location given
  • Ref 214 gives a location and publisher for "GameSpot", but 8 and 194 don't. Ref 15 gives a different location and publisher
  • Ref 197 - no location. Grapevine maybe, as per 93?
  • Ref 213 - no location for AOL. 38 says it's NYC
  • Ref 225 - no location for The Guardian
  • Ref 226 - location and publisher for Ars Technica
  • Refs 204 & 230 - Digital Spy is a website so should probably be italicised, and give a location and publisher
  • Ref 8 - Date says 24 March 2006, but when I click through the article says 23 March.
  • Ref 13 - date seems to be 5 May rather than 4 May. Also, what is this verifying? I can't see any reference to Ken Kutaragi in the linked article.
  • Ref 19 - missing date and author
More spot checks
  • 14, 16 - checks out

Sorry, I've got to go and do some errands now but I will definitely return back again later today or tomorrow. Almost there now!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back for more 6 March 2022
  • Asakura 2000 - link McGraw-Hill
  • DeMaria etc - is there a link for Osborne?
  • "Sony Computer Entertainment America v. Bleem" ref - I don't think it's accurate to attribute this to Google Scholar. That's just an aggregation and search website. It looks like the original source is the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit for that one. You could probably use the {{{via}}} parameter to highlight that the info was found at Google Scholar, but they are not the authors.
  • Ditto the Google Patents ref (182)
  • Ref 195 and 181 - YouTube isn't the publisher of this information, just the host. Suggest {{{via}}} again. And 181, the author/publisher is GameTrailers.
  • Ref 21 - link points to a printable version of the article, with no date, but the full version gives a date of 9 September 2010.
  • Ref 24 is credited to "IGN Staff" in the link, but you give it just as "IGN". Ref 26, however, is "Edge staff" and you credit it to "Edge staff". Be consistent one way or the other. Ref 42 just says "Edge". Ref 60 just says "MCV".
  • Ref 27 - where do you get "The Road To PS5:" from? I can't see that in the link, title just looks like "PSOne's Betrayal And Revenge Story".
  • Ref 28 - author is Brian Ashcraft
  • Ref 36 - main link seems dead to me, so suggest using archive link. Also the date looks like 10 April 2008 rather than 17 June 2008
  • Ref 38 - link is dead. Also the title should be "Original Nintendo/Sony PlayStation prototype found" with author JC Fletcher and date of 7 June 2007
  • Ref 65 - Should the title include "game content development" at the end? And date is 27 September 2005
  • Ref 102 - [6] appears to be a better archive link, pointing to the actual article in question
  • Ref 112 - link has Keith Stuart and Steve Boxer has co-authors

Will finish combing through the remainder later.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More spot checks
  • 22 - checks out
And yet more
  • Ref 132 - date on the link says 2 March 2002. Unless it was earlier printed under the 2000 date?
  • The archived version gives the date as 5 December 2000, which is definitely correct given the article's reflection of it. I'm not sure why it now says 2002, but I've switched to the archived version to reflect the correct date. ♦ jaguar 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 183 - main link doesn't work; switch to archive link
  • Ref 193 - date 21 July 2015
  • Ref 196 - date on link says September 14, 1997 rather than August 1997
  • Ref 294 - author Mark Langshaw
  • Ref 209 - link dead
  • Ref 210 - archive link doesn't work. I assume [7] is the same article, so maybe switch URL to that and archive it again
  • Ref 211 - the page has been updated since 2014 (date stamp is 2019) so make sure it's still relevant
  • The updated article still reflects Sega's console demise, so no need to change the content or remove it. I've updated the date, in any case. ♦ jaguar 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 213 - date is 6 December 2006 I believe
  • Ref 215 - the contents of the link [8] has changed from the 30 best to the 20 best, and is now by Josh West, so make sure it's still relevant (it looks like the PS slipped from 3rd to 5th in the ranking). Otherwise make the archive url the primary and probably use a parameter of url-status=usurped on the cite template.
  • Ref 215 - it's not dead
  • Ref 219 - date is 19 September 1997
  • Ref 224 - needs an author, and also a date (if available). And is lostlevels.org confirmed to be a reliable source?
  • This must have been added in after the GAN, I don't remember seeing this... it's not listed at WP:VG/S so I've removed it. I've added two new sources [9][10] which confirm that the two games were moved to the PlayStation. ♦ jaguar 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 225 - author is Keith Stuart. And link The Guardian and provide publisher/location
  • ref 231 - original date is 27 Nov 2018 with an update date of 21 April 2020. ALso the main link is not dead
  • Anderson 1997 ref - article is on pages 54 to 57, rather than just on p56 so give that range, and amend the link to point to the start
  • Felit 2012 - why is this a short ref with publication rather than a direct long ref?

And done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: thank you very much for your thorough source review! I've addressed all your points. The publisher locations may have been a hassle but it was my fault for not making them completely consistent throughout all the refs. That wouldn't have been an issue if I wrote this whole article from scratch though! Anyway, I'm grateful that you've taken the time to do this. ♦ jaguar 21:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy fixes @Jaguar:, all looks good now so happy to support on sourcing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Amakuru. I'll keep an eye out if you have any FACs in the future. ♦ jaguar 16:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: all done here! ♦ jaguar 16:05, 9 March 2022 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/PlayStation_(console)/archive1&oldid=1076218040"