Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wizards of the Coast/archive1

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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:04, 10 January 2009 [1].

Wizards of the Coast edit

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that I've improved it quite a bit since it became a GA, and believe that it meets the FA criteria. I'll do anything I can to help get this to FA-Class. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, inconsistent date formats in citations:

^ "American Mensa mind games past winners". Mind Games. Retrieved on December 27, 2008.
^ "Origins Award Winners (1993)". Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design. Retrieved on 2007-11-01.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that up shortly. I hadn't before I nominated the article because I'd read somewhere that date formatting shouldn't be changed much, although it does make sense for consistency. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of them; I'll look through the punctuation shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I fixed the only punctuation problem that I noticed around quotations; sorry if I missed any! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:Wizards of the Coast logo.png - I've fixed up the fair use rationale for this image, but it still needs a source. All other images have verifiable licenses and sufficient descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; I don't know where that specific image comes from, but I'll try and find one that I do know the source for and replace the current one. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, although I don't know what date would be accurate to put in the description. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added today's date as the upload date. Any other information you have on when the logo was created could also go there. Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay; I don't know when the image was added to the original website that I took it from. Is that needed for an FA? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you mean when the logo was created for use by the corporation? That sort of information may be very hard to track down. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant when the logo was created for the corporation, yes. It is not necessary information - it is just best to include every last scrap of information available, particularly for fair use images. Awadewit (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll see what we can do... but I can't promise much, there. :| BOZ (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is more like a "if you have the information, add it" and "if you don't have it, don't bother to hunt around for it" kind of thing. Awadewit (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, gotcha. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.rpg.net/
  - I agree that most of RPGnet isn't reliable, because it is mostly a freely editable database and forum site. I considered this page to be reliable because it is written by Shannon Appelcline, and with fact-checking information at the bottom of the article. The article also doesn't look like one that is open to all editing. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to see a bit more about the author to make some sense of why she's reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay; I'll see if I can find something else to establish reliability or I'll try and remove the ref. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Appelcline is the vice president of Skotos Tech, if that would establish any reliability through some of the articles on Google News. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References (resolved), Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://www.thedicetower.com/blog/~~
- ~~http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NPNews&file=index~~

Did this get fixed? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://www.captainprimate.com/~~
- ~~http://www.gamerstemple.com/~~
- ~~http://www.icv2.com/index.php~~
- ~~http://kotaku.com/342028/2008-tech-emmy-winners~~
- ~~http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/~~
  - Both of the MTGsalvation forum cites are to posts by Daron Rutter, who was involved in the lawsuit with Wizards. I'd assumed that his posts on the lawsuit would be reliable, although other comments in the forums aren't. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Major problem with forum posts is that how do we know that the proported person writing it is really the person writing it? On official forums, when the author is given some identification as being "official" then, yes, they become slightly more reliable, but this isn't the case, as this isn't an official forum for WotC. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your point, so here's a bit more info to try and make it "official": his profile page at MTGSalvation, which presumably can only be edited by him, does list his name as Daron, and the combination of two official Wizards of the Coast pages ([2] and [3]) would point to rancored_elf on MTGSalvation as being Daron Rutter. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this is a bit too much conjecture, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Current ref 15 (Engleman..) the title of the journal is Puget Sound Business Journal, and it should be in italics. Use the work field in the template to accomplish this~~
~~Names of your journals should be in italics.~~

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll look into replacing/removing the refs that aren't reliable. I've left two questions above regarding the reliability of MTGSalvation and RPGnet. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Kotaku, ICV2, Captainprimate, Gamers Temple, and Dice Tower references; I'll work on the others later. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed everything with the refs except for the RPGnet and MTGSalvation refs being discussed above. I didn't notice any journal names that should be in italics but aren't; am I just missing something? -Drilnoth (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed both MTGSalvation refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the only one I saw there was Mensa. I thought I fixed this by linking to Mensa International, but it's still showing in the toolbox? BOZ (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that the toolserver has been having some trouble lately, so maybe it just hasn't updated yet? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, I tried it again just now and it said "database replication lag is 4301 minutes"; that's about 71.6 hours, or about 2.4 days, and I did fix it since then. :) BOZ (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the "History" section: "Magic's release has been called "Probably the most dramatic event in RPG history since the 1974 release of D&D", because by 1994 "A mad rush was on to create 'the next Magic.' RPG design came to a standstill at many companies as they scrambled to create a CCG of their own."" These quotes are unnecessarily sensationalist. They should be paraphrased into a more encyclopedic description rather than a Wizards soundbite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, didn't really notice that before... can we keep some of that if toned down or shall it all be shucked? BOZ (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be sensationalist when I added the lines (originally found in The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible), although I can understand if they need to be removed or paraphrased. I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, by removing quotes. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Sold to Hasbro": "Hasbro had expressed interest in purchasing Wizards of the Coast as early as 1994, but had become impressed with the success of its Pokémon game." [Emphasis mine.] The conjunction doesn't seem appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's it look now? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", "Recent years", what's the connection between Daron Rutter/MTGSalvation and Rancored Elf? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Wizards pioneer the Open Game License? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've looked at a couple of featured articles about companies: "BAE Systems" and "Oliver Typewriter Company". The Wizards article has a well-developed History section. However a lot of information is missing. What's Wizards' market share in CCG and RPG? What is their turnover and other relevant financial aspects? I realise that the spin-out article "List of Wizards of the Coast products" is linked. However the article would benefit from a "Critical reception" section, discussing the major products: M:TG and D&D. There should be a list of the main awards received. What about criticisms of the company? Wizards has been accused of trying to monopolise the market, dumb down the game, and overcharge customers. Surely there are some reliable sources about this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WotC has been accused of monopolization, dumbing-down, etc., but to my knowledge there are few if any reliable sources; it's mostly just postings on messageboards and the like. I was also under the impression that "criticism" and "controversy" sections were generally discouraged and better fit into the rest of the article if possible. Otherwise, I think that you definitely have some good points and, looking again, the article does need a fair bit of expansion. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Overall it looks to be in pretty good condition, and is close to meeting the FA criteria. I only have a few concerns:

~~The "Sold to Hasbro" section has one paragraph on the sale; the remainder appears unrelated. How about some information on how the sale to Hasbro has influenced the WotC company?~~ My understanding is that the reason for the sale of WotC was some disgruntlement by the early stockholders who had not seen much of a payback for their investment. Is there any information about this that could be added?[4]
~~The title to the next section, "Changes and controversy", could just as easily apply to the "Sold to Hasbro" section. Is there a better sub-division of the information?~~
The following sentence seems to be dangling a bit, and needs expansion for clarity: Adkison "Set [the] overall design direction for the new edition of D&D". Perhaps some explanation could be provided about the business reasons for producing a new version?
Is there any information on the company revenue and profits? I know their sales were $3.3 billion in 1999; not exactly chump change.
"Games and products" is mostly redundant with the previous sections. The only new item is the publication of novels. Perhaps the last could be expanded?

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll look into those tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the sections and added a quote regarding why Wizards decided to make a new edition of D&D. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent years" might not work because it introduces a time dependency into the article. But I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative. "Second decade" wouldn't quite work since the prior section covers events up through 2008.—RJH (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding revenue/profits, I didn't see any really reliable sources in my first (albeit short) search. I'll see what I can do about expanding the games & products section and the reason for the sale. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fair amount of information available via a google of: "wizards of the coast" revenue. It probably doesn't have to cover every year, but some information on trends would be good. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Axl and criteria 1b. I don't think that an article about a well-known company which only consists of a history section can be a featured article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.