Talk:The Sims 2: Open for Business

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that The Sims 2: Open for Business has been used to teach business students? Source: Neck, Heidi (2011). "Cognitive Ambidexterity: The Underlying Mental Model of the Entrepreneurial Leader". In Greenberg, Danna; McKone-Sweet, Kathleen; Wilson, H James (eds.). The New Entrepreneurial Leader. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. pp. 40–41. ISBN 978-1-60509-344-4.

Converted from a redirect by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 10:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: Open for Business; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article meets DYK requirements and I didn't detect any close paraphrasing (the only Earwig hit was a quote). QPQ has been done and all the hooks are cited inline and either verified or AGF accepted due to being offline. Either ALT0 or ALT3 are acceptable in my eyes (ALT2 seems too overly sensational and ALT1 gives a bit too much away), so I'll leave the choice to the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Vaticidalprophet: I will promote ALT0 but wondering if we should say "the video game" before The Sims 2: Open for Business. Main reason is I had no idea what The Sims 2: Open for Business was. I will leave that up to others. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sims 2: Open for Business/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi vat, I'll leave some comments soon.

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage[edit]

Lead:
  • 1st paragraph: Multiple new advancement systems are added, such as talent badges, which track sims' progress in business skills; business ranks, which measure a business's success based on its company loyalty; and business perks, gifts or skills granted to a sim for running a successful business. - After reading this sentence, I feel like the word "business" sounds strange to me. Anyway, I'd suggest adding "which are" before "gifts or skills" to match the sentence structure of the rest of the sentence.
  • 1st paragraph: building options - Like physical buildings?
    • Knew you would say that :) Yes, architectural design/"build mode" (as opposed to normal play) is a fairly big draw of the series, and OFB had a lot directed at that specifically alongside its more obvious additions. I'm trying to figure out a way to express that without getting too jargony (e.g. not explicitly writing "build mode"). Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you briefly summarize the background and development sections in one sentence? Or is there a reason you didn't summarize that section? (I'd say the same of the Soundtrack section, but it's not that important imo.)
    • Nah, just missed that. I'll see what's worth adding. I have some memory of trying to find a way to slot in the product placement thing and failing. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background and development
  • I see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#For games recommends putting development after gameplay. Not a big deal - I assume there's a good reason you put background/development first.
  • 1st paragraph: amongst all platforms and installments - "Installments" being devices, I assume?
    • wikt:installment, most particularly in its "part of a published or broadcast serial" sense. I don't know if I agree with our friends at Wiktionary that this is a specifically-American spelling. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, that kind of installment. I thought it was like a computer installment or something. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st paragraph: It expanded upon the original game's features, introducting elements such as an aspiration system based around short-term and long-term goals, expanded character and neighbourhood customization, and the ability for sims to raise families, age, and progress through generations - A few things here.
    • "Introducing" is misspelled.
    • The commas after "goals" and "customization" should be semicolons, since this is a serial list where an individual item has commas, per MOS:SEMICOLON.
      • Fixed both of these...embarrassingly, that typo is in three articles. I'll get the others. I considered structuring the list with semicolons when first writing it and decided it wasn't long enough to justify them, but if MOS Sez, that's not the kind of MOS point I fall on my sword over I'm too busy arguing about capitalization. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd paragraph: the in-game easel, which allowed sims to make and sell paintings - the easel being an object in the base game?
  • 4th paragraph: in in-game storylines - This wording sounds a little weird to me.
    • So this is tricky. The Sims is a sandbox game, but TS2 in particular has prominent premade storylines. I naturally think of them in jargony terms ("premades") and there are essentially no good secondary sources discussing them in enough depth to have clear terminology, but as comes up here, they were discussed by secondary sources and do need to be included. So I'm at the admittedly ugly "in in-" wording right now. I'll think about it. Vaticidalprophet 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ended up removing this clause from the sentence. Vaticidalprophet 15:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay:
  • 1st paragraph: on community lots they own - So like a land lot?
  • 1st paragraph: due to its ability to let players control - "since it let players control"?
  • 2nd paragraph: Talent badges are ranked as "bronze", "silver", and "gold" - I presume from lower to higher ranking.
  • I found the pet brick thing funny, by the way.
  • 3rd paragraph: Business Perks; perks include - I feel like this can be reworded as "Business Perks, which include" to avoid repetition.
  • 4th paragraph: conical roofs alongside existing flat ones - Unless these roofs are physically next to each other, I'd reword "alongside" to "along with".
More soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed repetition and overwriting in Special:Diff/1175766865. "Community lots" I'm trying to figure out a non-jargon for; it's...basically anything that's not a sim's house. "Along with" feels ambiguous to me about how long the flat roofs have been around for? Vaticidalprophet 23:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Community-owned lots", perhaps?
As for conical roofs alongside, how about "in addition to"? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the mention of flat roofs entirely, because I couldn't rephrase it a way I was happy with and while trying to do so realized readers can probably guess that houses had roofs before OfB. I'm not sure "community-owned lots" is right -- it's not the term the game uses, and they aren't owned by anyone in particular. (wikiasite:sims:Community lot gives the necessary context; I almost want to interwiki-link it.) Vaticidalprophet 22:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack:
  • No issues to note.
Reception and legacy:
  • Lol at the quote "Thankfully, they haven't yet released The Sims: Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, so that's the only problem."
  • 1st paragraph: Since its release, Open for Business has seen use as an educational tool for business and mathematics students - Is this use particularly widespread, or are you saying that at least one school has used the expansion as a teaching tool?
  • 2nd paragraph: Adams' review should be "Adams's review" per MOS:POSS. Did Adams praise anything in this expansion?
  • 2nd paragraph: Dave Kosack at GameSpy considered Open for Business so deep - Not sure if "deep" is the right word - this sounds a little off to me.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet, this is awkward. I was trying to resume my review but somehow got sidetracked onto The Sims 2 expansion packs because I mis-capitalized a word. Is there a reason why this article, and the other Sims 2 expansion pack pages you created, aren't in Category:The Sims 2 expansion packs? – Epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be in the category page -- if they're not that's because I missed them, so should be added. The list itself is a mess -- it's the product of a single editor making unilateral merges several years ago, but not doing anything to produce a list afterwards (i.e. the list is just a 6000-word straight-down merge of a bunch of articles that at the time were in poor enough shape that they looked like they should be merged, rather than any attempt at either improving the underlying articles or creating a consistent list). There are a ton of redirects, which should all be retargeted where the articles have been rewritten (and the list should be rewritten once the articles are done), but I can't keep track of all of them because they were all automatically retargeted, so I'm just trying to find the relevant ones when I can. Checking redirs on the list would make it easy, but not quite as easy as you might think, because there were a lot of fairly unrelated ones (e.g. redirs for minor characters). Vaticidalprophet 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. So, to clarify, do you wish to add this page, and the three other expansion packs you created, to Category:The Sims 2 expansion packs? I've retargeted some of the redirects to the four articles that you already created.
On another note, I notice that some of the titles listed on Category:The Sims 2 expansion packs have categories, despite being redirects to the Sims 2 expansion packs page. For the four expansion packs that have standalone articles, I think we should move the categories on the redirect pages to the standalone articles. For example, the categories on The Sims 2: Open for Business (old) should be moved to this article. I know this technically is not a GA criterion, but it would help reduce duplication. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ye-es, the redirect categories should definitely be fixed -- my bad. I didn't know no-redirect moves preserved those. No-redirect moves are weird. Vaticidalprophet 20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will resume this review soon - I only have to review the rest of the reception and legacy section, do some spot checks, and check for copyvio/close paraphrasing . – Epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary reception:
  • 3rd paragraph: while the former proposed a housewares retail business - To clarify, this does not exist in the expansion? If not, that's a shame - this idea sounds cool.
    • Oh, this is totally a thing you could do -- and you could run that exact knight-themed one. Is there a way to make "this is totally a thing you could do" clearer? Vaticidalprophet 12:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably "while the former, taking advantage of the various clothing options, proposed a housewares retail business called "Bath Knights" where employees must dress in knight costumes" or something like that? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th paragraph: In particular, several found the expansion failed to clarify that a business's opening hours are determined by manually flipping an open sign to closed and vice versa - If the sources go into this, I think it may be good to clarify whether the businesses are closed by default when a player creates a business.
    • I'm pretty sure it does, though I honestly never liked running OfB businesses that much, so that's not firsthand :) I don't know that they make it clear, though. Vaticidalprophet 12:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6th paragraph: third highest-selling PC game of 2006 - Does this mean the third-highest-selling PC game (i.e. two PC games released in 2006 had more sales), or the third highest-selling PC game (i.e. prior to this expansion's release, two games held the title of "highest-selling PC game" in 2006, both of which were beat out by this expansion)? If it's the third-highest, I'd add a hyphen.
Later reception:
  • 1st paragraph: Since its release, Open for Business has remained the subject of critical attention. - You only mention one later review, though.
    • hm. I think 'critical attention' can be interpreted more broadly than only reviews and also include analysis more generally, but this is arguable. Vaticidalprophet 12:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for prose. I will do spot checks next, by tomorrow hopefully. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Reference number from this version.
Reliability queries (only one at the moment):
  • 5. Marchelletta, Courtney (3 March 2020). "Order of The Sims 2 and The Sims 3 Expansion Packs". Lifewire. - What makes this a reliable source?
Other queries:
  • Sources 11, 16, 17, and 18 (Kramer, Greg (2005). "Anatomy of the Customer". The Sims 2 Open for Business: Prima Official Game Guide. Prima Games. ISBN 0-7615-5320-7.) are all the same except for page numbers. Perhaps you could use {{rp}}?
  • Sources 13 and 14 (Kramer, Greg (2005). "Talent Badges". The Sims 2 Open for Business: Prima Official Game Guide. Prima Games. ISBN 0-7615-5320-7.) are also the same except for page numbers.
  • One source without a byline, source 29 (Staff writer (28 March 2006). "PC Review: The Sims 2 Open for Business". Computer and Video Games), has "Staff writer" in the author field. Other sources without bylines, like 27 ("The Sims 2: Open for Business for PC Reviews". Metacritic.), don't mention any writers at all. Is there a reason for that?
Spotchecks not done yet. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not enthused by the Lifewire source myself, but we mark them as "marginal" on RS/PS, and "what timeframe were the EPs published" turned out to be bizarrely hard to find a single source for -- given it's something very uncontentious (it's verifiable using the release dates of any one of them, but putting 8 citations for that seemed overkill) I think it's okay. I like rp more than sfn, but I'm still not enthused by it -- I don't think it's of much benefit to most readers (those who want the page numbers will look at the cite, those who don't won't appreciate them hanging out there), and I don't know how much use it is on this specific article, compared to something more academic/book-heavy. I'll double-check the cite, but I'm pretty sure the distinction was that this was specifically by an individual reviewer, whereas Metacritic is a generalized 'something'. Actually, I think I know exactly who wrote that despite him not being credited on the online version specifically, so I'll see if I can turn it up. Vaticidalprophet 23:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the Lifewire source. For {{rp}}, I was suggesting that because it's possible that some future editor might take it upon themselves to combine the sources without preserving the page numbers. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum re. Lifewire, I was finally able to find a better source for the EP release timeframe, so have swapped it out. (Another article in this suite does use Lifewire elsewhere, but that's in another very-basic-facts context, and overall it should be minimized now.) Vaticidalprophet 12:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet, sorry it took so long for me to do the reference spotchecks. I'll pick six at random:
  • 6 (Thorsen, Tor (16 September 2005). "Sims 2 preparing to Open For Business". GameSpot.) - Checks out. This supports the first sentence in the paragraph ("The Sims 2: Open for Business, the game's second expansion pack, was first teased in its predecessor The Sims 2: Nightlife in September 2005."). so you can move ref 6 to the end of that sentence. However, this is not a verification issue per se.
  • 15 (Adams, Dan (14 March 2006). "The Sims 2: Open for Business". IGN.) - Checks out.
  • 22 (Hite, Silas (2020). "Video Games". Silas Hite, Composer) - Checks out
  • 24 (Surette, Tim (3 March 2006). "Depeche Mode: Now in Simlish". GameSpot.) - Checks out.
  • 30 (Lu, Cathy (1 January 2007). "The Sims 2: Open for Business". MacLife.) - Checks out.
  • 34 (Kosack, Dave (23 February 2006). "The Sims 2: Open for Business Expansion". GameSpy) - Checks out.
Everything seems to be in order, so I'll be passing this shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images and copyright[edit]

  • This article has a single image, which has a valid fair-use rationale. Epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sims_2:_Open_for_Business&oldid=1205667237"