Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2

Namco[edit]

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

This article has been my passion project for nearly two years now. After it passed the GA review today, I am now preparing it for FAC. I decided to file a peer review for this so as to get some comments from a fresh pair of eyes before filing it for FAC immediately. The GAN was conducted by an experienced editor, so I hope there aren't any egregious errors with this for the time being. This is the second time the article has been filed for a peer review, the first can be found here. Thank you for reading. Namcokid 47 20:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: for quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar (this has been done for you). And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

Thank you for your work on this article, one of the essentials in our project. I will leave comments sometime soon. P anini ^🥪 21:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47, alright, I'm here. I'll publish my review of each second individually so you can work while I review, if you're present that is. You can ask questions while I'm floating around.

Lead

Just checking to make sure; did you translate the Japanese names properly, or did you use a questionable translator? If so, maybe seek out Nihonjoe. I won't ping him yet because you probably already verified this is correct.
- I don't know Japanese, so I fed them through Google Translate and edited them so that they'd make sense and aren't in pigeon english. I can try putting them in DeepL since that's far more accurate than Google's translation software.
"operator of coin-operated", "operated" is repeated twice here.
- I'm not sure what I could change it to. I agree it's repetitive, but "coin-operated" is the correct term for arcade games and they were an operator, so I don't think it's necessarily wrong?
Did it rename itself to "Namco" or "Namco Limited" as it implies in a couple of places? I think there should be a "more commonly known as Namco" somewhere if that is the case.
- The company's full corporate name is (Kabushiki gaisha) Namco Limited. Since sources almost always refer to them as just "Namco" without the "Limited", and that it isn't necessary to constantly use their full legal name, using just "Namco" is fine. Pretty sure you don't need to specify that "Namco" is what they're commonly known as.

Origins and acquisition of Atari Japan (1955–1977)

First paragraph, well written. Good.
"Coin-operated machine" appears for the first time in paragraph two, but is abbreviated to coin-op. It should be called by its full name first, instead of later down the line.
"Anime" also appears for the first time and should be linked.
- Done
Sega should be linked in its first appearance.
- Sega is already linked as Nihon Goraku Bussan, since that's what they were known as at the time. Changing it to Sega would not be historically accurate.

Galaxian, Pac-Man, and arcade success (1977–1984)

I'm not checking the sources, but are the "Namco games inspired The Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros." claims true? I checked their respective articles and found nothing about Namco but references to arcade machines.
- Yes, the sources used do say Druaga and Pac-Land respectively influenced Super Mario and Zelda.
But overall, this section is very well-documented in prose. Good job.

Panini!: Was going to wait for you to finish, but it's been a bit since you posted your first batch of comments so I made my responses. Namcokid 47 05:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namcokid47, ha! Looks like I got distracted during my review and completely forgot to finish ... I'll continue this in the near future. P anini ^🥪 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, I got so distracted with the mess that is Animal Crossing: New Horizons that I forgot about this a second time. Finishing up now. P anini ^🥪 14:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Success with home consoles (1984–1989)

"As he started viewing Atari as a competitor to Namco, he was hesitant to pour additional funds and resources into the company.[2] Nakamura also disliked having to share ownership with Warner Communications, fearing it could lead to him losing control of Atari Games and Namco going under.[2]" ref 2 is repeated twice here (stray ref)

Skimming through, I'm seeing no glaring problems with the prose. Good Job! I hope this isn't taken as a disappointment, this really means that I think the prose is good enough to go to FAC directly. I'm not saying the refs are yet though, according to Sandy's review below mine. Hope this gives you a boost of confidence, but I would suggest getting one more opinion. Maybe reach out to a member of WPVG. P anini ^🥪 14:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

MOS:CAPTIONS, sentence fragments do not use final punctuation, full sentences do, pls review throughout ... samples only ... Two mechanical rocking horses installed by Nakamura Seisakusho in 1955. (should not end in a period) Ditto for ... A Ridge Racer Full Scale arcade machine.
Good use of trans-title= but some are missing, samples ... Masamune (February 22, 2017). "VG人物：中村雅哉与他的Namco帝国". VG Time (in Chinese). UCG. pp. 1–3. Archived from the original on October 28, 2020. Retrieved October 28, 2020. A one-name author does not inspire confidence in reliability ... who is "Masamume"? ... and ... "ポストペイドシステムへ". trans-title? Samples only.
- I don't think an article having a one-name author makes it unreliable. Sites like Siliconera and GamePro, which are listed as reliable per WP:VG/S, often use one-name authors for their articles. As for the source, while it isn't listed on that page, they seem to be a book publishing company with an online presence, and articles are reviewed by site staff before they're uploaded, so I think it's okay. This is something I can raise at the FAC page or the talk page for VG/S.
This youtube account does not include the "Official" checkmark for verified accounts, so it is not a reliable source: https://web.archive.org/web/20200409172233if_/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8gHDiAf3-s
- The account is by Jeremy Parish, who is a very noteworthy gaming journalist that has written for countless reliable sources, including EGM, 1UP.com, and others. I do not see how his videos are of any less reliability/quality than the articles he's written. WP:VG/S also says YouTube is considered an acceptable source if the uploader is a company (such as IGN) or a notable and trustworthy journalist, which Parish definitely falls under.
Hardcore gaming is a submission website; individual authors will be questioned as to WP:SPS. http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/submission-guidelines/
- As said in its entry on WP:VG/S: "All content is edited by Kalata before publishing, and should be considered acceptable". As somebody that has written for them in the past, I can confirm they do proper fact-checking and make corrections before publishing. The information the articles used also matches up with other sources I've seen, so I would definitely consider it acceptible.
How is Killer_List_of_Videogames reliable ? (IMDB is not) ... and I can't get the pages to pull up to determine whether content is user-generated.
- Killer List of Videogames (KLOV) is considered reliable, again per WP:VG/S. Some information is user-submitted, but changes are reviewed by site staff before being published so I imagine fact-checking is involved. Again, as somebody that has submitted info and pages to them years ago, this is something I can confirm.
You can install User:GregU/dashes.js to keep your WP:DASHes in order.
You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep consistent date formatting.
You can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review WP:OVERLINKing-- there appears to be some, but this can be a judgment call.
See overuse of however and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing (also is almost always redundant) and User:John/however. Both are present.

The writing looks competent, but the sourcing appears to need work to bring to the high-quality requirement of FAs. My suggestions before approaching FAC are at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. Although the top of the essay focuses on convincing editors from my area of editing (medical) to engage FAC, the bottom portions of the essay will hopefully provide you tips for preparing for FAC. Hope this helps get you started, no need to reply to me on these items, good luck at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: I'm aware you didn't require replies to your posts, but some of them I felt needed addressing. Thank you for your feedback! Namcokid 47 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Be aware that when you go to FAC, a WikiProject claiming a source is reliable will mean ... nothing. FAC requires high-quality sources. In most of these cases, you will be asked to justify these sources as a) high-quality, b) meeting WP:SPS (which you must demonstrate explicitly), and c) not relying on what any WikiProject claims, rather demonstrating these things yourself for some of these authors. You must explicitly prove that they are "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]