Talk:Wizards of the Coast/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "However, it made its indelible mark when at Gen Con in August 1993, the company debuted Richard Garfield's Collectible card game Magic: The Gathering under the shell company Garfield Games to shelter it from the legal battle with Palladium." Example of long sentence that repeats data from the prior paragraph. "In 1997, Wizards of the Coast was granted U.S. Patent 5,662,332 on collectible card games[3], followed by the purchase of TSR, Inc., the cash-strapped makers of Dungeons & Dragons." How do these two events relate, except chronologically? Large lists of works should be pruned and represented as prose, or separated out into List of Wizards of the Coast games or something.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   You have a reference in the external links list. There are probably more reliable sources out there--you've got a couple, but I am almost certain that there are substantive additional sources which need to be researched and included.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It seems to me that there could be a lot more said about Wizards' history. Integrating the games may help, but I really don't get a good feel for the company's history and evolution. It shared a lot of "dotcom" characteristics, yet I don't see those reflected here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   More pictures would be nice. Just one logo is a pretty minimalist image set.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is pretty weak, and I don't think all the elements necessary to have a GA are in this article yet, even with major work. Do we really want to leave this on hold for multiple weeks, given the 0.7 deadline has now passed? Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good question. :) I think I'll work on the article for now, regardless, and see how far I can take it. If I reach a point where I've had enough or we don't know where else to go, then so be it. I'm fine with that. :) BOZ (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed #6 (although one image is refusing to show), and I think I've improved #1-3 substantially, although I may have a way to go still to get it to GA. I've had a few suggestions from other people to follow up on, but I'll probably just pause for rest for today. :) BOZ (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when you're ready for a re-review. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Any time is a good time! :) BOZ (talk)

11/5 re-review

• "Image:Players hndbk v35 cover.jpg" needs a separate fair use rationale for this article.
• The history section has gotten a lot more comprehensive. It's an unmistakable improvement, but now the challenge is going to be to break that down into logical sections.
• If anything, you may have gotten rid of too many of the non-D&D, non-M:tG product references. While the bare list was horrid, the lack of references to things like The Great Dalmuti and RoboRally gives short shrift to some of the early innovations. (Robo Rally, BTW, is the single geekiest game known to man. It not only attracts computer programmers, but you almost have to be one to play)

Overall, a substantial improvement in the article, well worth keeping it on hold while you continue your work. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I was unclear of the signficance of these other games, so rather than list everything I just went with what I knew or what was specifically mentioned in the RS's I was reading. :)

I do have some unsourced material I need to either reference or remove. The "web community" section, for example. ;) Also the info on the aftermath of the TSR purchase. I think it would be good to expand the Pokemon coverage to be more like the MTG and D&D coverage, so I need to find a source for that as well. There is a list of awards won that I need to pluck a few choice entries out of.

As far as sectioning the history, I'm thinking "Pre-TSR purchase" and "Hasbro era", with the purchase of TSR and addition of the Pokemon game would fill a middle section in between.

Tonight is game night, so most of this will have to wait for tomorrow, or over the weekend. :) BOZ (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable chronology breakdown. You definitely have a lot more information in the article now, now the challenge is to write a good narrative with it. And yeah, I saw that you've flagged the web community stuff as needing work, so I figured it was a bit redundant to tell you it still needed work. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Time for another break - I think I have everything sourced now, and have pretty much any notable events for the company included. :) BOZ (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ready for another re-review when you are. Also, it's not ready yet, but I'd like to make use of a template like this when it is ready. BOZ (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Just got caught up in a rangeblock, though, so I'm going to wait until that clears. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! BOZ just pointed this article out to me... I'm hoping to make some more improvements sometime on the 10th, so if you held off on your re-review another day or so I might be able to make the article a bit better. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No big deal--as long as improvements are being made, I'm not going to fail the article from hold. It's already come a long way, and I don't mind an iterative process. Just drop a note here when you think you've made significant enough additions that it's worthwhile for me to re-review. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

11/9 comments

• Acquisitions? Who else besides TSR did they buy?
• Sold to Hasbro.... why? Surely some RS must have commented on the economics, synergies, greed, or business blunders which led to this, wouldn't you think? It's the most glaring omission left in the article.

Still looking pretty good. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Acquisitions... not sure, other than buying TSR and gaining the Pokemon license. :) Would a change of the header title be sufficient here, because I'm not sure if they bought any other companies at that time, and really pulled that heading out of thin air. ;)

Regarding the sale of Hasbro, I have no idea why they sold it, although I think I read that WotC's success with Pokemon made the company attractive to Hasbro. I'll have to recheck my sources on that one. BOZ (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you can find RS'es for, that's all you can find RS'es for. But it still seems worthwhile to check. Acquisitions and the reasoning behind them tend to be important in the life of corporations. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find it - I probably overlooked it without realizing the significance. :) I just did some more cleanup, and I'll start looking again now. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be at least a bit better, now. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Passed per improvements. The lead section is now barely long enough for the article length, though. Wouldn't hurt to expand it. Good job! Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just added ref for why Hasbro purchased WotC. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, awesome! Better than expected. Thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)