Wikipedia:Peer review/Accolade (company)/archive1

Accolade (company)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I'd like to get this promoted to featured article status. Accolade had a golden era in the 1980s with some historically important franchises, especially in sports. They peaked with a precedent setting lawsuit about reverse engineering in the early 1990s, which led to a rough time. Their later history has been tricky to cover because they are more celebrated for their glory years than their unceremonious corporate buyout.

I nominated this article for FA in February, and it was closed a month ago with a lot of support, but a few notable opposing opinions. My goal is to bring it up to standards so that it unanimously meets the Featured article criteria, and then nominate it for FA again. I'll likely do a few quick edits in the next few days, and then wait patiently for a proper peer review. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Hi Shooterwalker, I am sorry that it has taken so long to get a review for your article. Thank you for your patience. Before I review this article, please WP:SPINOUT the list of games into its own article, and only include the most notable games on the company article. Please ping me when this spinout is complete and I will start my review. If you haven't already, please review Sega, a featured article about another video game company that can provide a helpful template and ideas on how to format this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for finding time to review, and no need to apologize for a WP:VOLUNTEER service. I did a spinout for the list of games as you asked. The most relevant games are mentioned in the article, in context. I'm not sure Sega is the right comparison, although it is one of our only FAs about a game company. Accolade had a brief heyday in the 80s making sports games, but ceased operations by the late 90s, without the same fanfare as one of the most famous console manufacturers. That said, I have reviewed the Sega article as you asked. Rather than compare this against other articles, I'm hoping to get feedback that compares this to the Featured article criteria. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the spinout. I ask that other featured articles are consulted because it helps editors see what is - and isn't - included in a FA. I also struggled to find an FA that was a good comparison, so hopefully there's something in the Sega article that can help you.

Below you will find comments to help improve the article. I will review this article as if it was an FAC. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

"They were transformed under new investors and new management," This feels too general. How were they transformed? Was a new executive team hired? A focus on new types of games (there was a hint of focusing on existing franchises). Were departments laid off? All of the details will be later in the article, but this should be specified a little bit.
"But the company" Remove but
"called "Infogrames North America" and continued operating" -> "and it continued operating"
"Whitehead and Miller saw an opportunity to develop games" Phrases like "opportunity to develop" sound like corporate-speak, WP:PROMO, and WP:FLUFF, and can usually be removed. Instead, keep the language in WP:WIKIVOICE by changing this to "Whitehead and Miller developed games for home computers such as the Commodore 64, a market that Activision did not create games for." or something similar.
"Other early successes included boxing game" -> "included the boxing game"
"Artech also created the flight simulator The Dam Busters inspired by the classic war film, which led to another flight simulator called Ace of Aces.[5] Ace of Aces became one of Accolade's most successful games,[8] selling 500,000 units after a development cost of less than $80,000.[5]" I would put all the Ace of Aces information in the second sentence, perhaps, "Artech also created the flight simulator The Dam Busters, inspired by the classic war film. This led to another flight simulator called Ace of Aces,[5] which Aces became one of Accolade's most successful games,[8] selling 500,000 units after a development cost of less than $80,000.[5]"
"partnered with peers such as U.S. Gold" What do you mean by peers? Do you mean other development companies?
"who would eventually become Accolade's biggest domestic competitor." If this happens later in the timeline, then put the information in the article in the year that this happens.
"and created a long-running series" long-running is an opinion: one person's long running series is another person's short-term blip. I suggest putting "and started the series by the same name" or "and started the Test Drive series".
"Frisina left as CEO and went on to found" -> "Frisina left as CEO to create"
"As a publisher, their baseball game " Delete as a publisher, you established that this paragraph is about publishing in the previous sentence.
"went on to become a consistent and prolific series," This sounds like WP:PROMO language again. What makes the series "consistent"? Was the game released yearly? What made it prolific? Was it popular? Was it their highest-earning game series?
"as well as Artech's tennis game," -> "and Artech's tennis game"
"Around this time, Accolade also gained notoriety as the publisher of the" -> "Accolade also published the"
"Journalists have listed Star Control among their best games of all time,[18] with Star Control II earning even more "best game" rankings through the 1990s,[19] 2000s,[20] and 2010s.[21]" I don't think this sentence is necessary here.

I'm going to pause here, as this is a lot of comments, but I will continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is really helpful so far and the FA-like review is giving me good stuff to work with. I went ahead and tried to incorporate your suggestions. Ready for more whenever you are. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

"Main article: Sega v. Accolade" Delete the hatnote as it is wikilinked later in the article.

"The company soon released several games for the" Delete soon.
"to remove all Genesis products from store shelves." -> "to stop the sale of"
"setting one of the most important precedents on reverse engineering in software law." one of the most important precedents sounds like WP:PEACOCK. What was the precedent that was set? Also, this is a precedent in US law only (I assume) so this should be specified.
"Accolade later reached an out of court settlement with Sega that allowed Accolade to continue building their own Genesis cartridges but as an official licensee." delete but
" as a way for Sega to maintain an advantage over their rivals." I don't think this is necessary, but this is debatable.
"As Accolade rushed to develop the exclusive games promised to Sega," This paragraph can be combined with the previous paragraph.
"While Accolade made internal changes," Delete
"they also published the commercially successful platform game Bubsy, created by Infocom veteran Mike Berlyn." when?
"Meanwhile, Accolade also tried to" Delete meanwhile
" Barnett earned the praise of the company's board of directors for increasing sales.[27]" This isn't needed.
"but the 3D technology proved to be a challenge" -> "but the 3D technology was challenging for the development team, who requested that the game be delayed so they could create a better game. Accolade refused to delay the game's release. Bubsy 3D's technical issues damaged the reputation of the Bubsy series and Accolade." or something similar.
"However, the third game in the series did not live up to Accolade's hopes for the franchise,[5] with reviewers noting the series' change in developer, tone and quality.[33][34][35] Still, Star Control 3 was considered a moderate commercial success for Accolade" -> "The game's release in 1996 was a moderate commerical success for Accolade, with reviewers noting the changin in developer, tone and quality from the previous games in the series."
"Deadlock was considered a potential comeback for the company." who considered this? Did it turn out to be the come back the company hoped for?
"Jack Nicklaus 5 was also a critical success, but also a commercial disappointment." Delete the second also
"With the company in need of a breakthrough," In need of a breakthrough is jargon. Maybe, "With the company in need of a commercially successful game"?
"Electronic Arts agreed to invest in" -> "Electronic Arts invested in"
"which also meant abandoning" Delete also
"Acquisition and fate" -> "Acquisition and decline" so that the title describes their fate.
"Later, Infogrames acquired the Atari " Delete later
" the decade.[51][48] " References should be in numerical order
"Billionsoft announced that it had acquired the Accolade trademark" -> "Billionsoft announced its acquisition of the Accolade trademark"
" it would resurrect several Accolade franchises" -> "it would develop new entries in Accolade franchises"
I suggest using bullet points in ref 18

Final comments:

Has Accolade left any sort of legacy in the gaming industry? Is it enough to have its own section?
I suggest completing the redundancy exercises as lots of extra words were removed in my codyedit.
I highly suggest reviewing WP:FACs. This is a great way to learn the intricacies of the FA criteria, see how other FA writers react to suggestions on what should be in an article, and build goodwill so that reviewers are more likely to review your nominations. You are not expected to be an experienced FA writer to review; articles need reviews from non-experts and inexperienced editors to ensure the writing is not too technical. It takes at least five reviews to pass one FAC, so I recommend that you review at least five articles to help with the backlog.

Let me know if you have any questions! Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! When sources offer an overall impression of Accolade, it is a summary similar to the current lead: the franchises they created, plus the landmark lawsuit. It would be easy enough to create another section but I'm not sure if that would be redundant. It's something I'll keep in mind if other reviewers make similar comments. I'm happy to keep working at this, and I'm going to close this peer review now, with hopes that the next FA goes better. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]