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

Reassessment by: BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some fundamental flaws that were overlooked by a novice reviewer, Zppix, who then refused to reconsider their passage. A number of these flaws were enumerated in the article's first GA review nearly two years ago; most of these were never fixed. There's also little material that goes up to the present day, and some from the mid-2000s that has not been followed up on. The article could use not only an update, but also a trim of material that may have seemed important ten years ago but has proven not to be germane. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article does not reach the standard of a Good Article, and needs significant work throughout to get there. More complete comments will be given below.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose does not meet the "clear and concise" guideline, notably in the Corporate history section, and there are some grammatical issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   There is one bare URL (FN2) and one external link (FN72), and a number of references that have only a linked title. These and other references need improvement; among other things, it's difficult to determine what might be a reliable or unreliable source without the source's name.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   As noted in the GA1 review, there are significant unsourced sections, which may or may not be original research, but are not allowed at the GA level. The Subsidiaries section remains almost entirely unsourced, as are internal sections, including all of Arcade gaming, the first paragraph of Online gaming, and the latter halves of the second and third Other media paragraphs.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There is no predecessor company information in the Corporate history section, and no sense of how well the current company is doing overall.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Quite a bit of work needs to be done.

I'm going to start by noting issues with a few sections only. Once these are addressed, I will move on to others. Any issues remaining from the July 2014 GA review (Talk:Square Enix/GA1) will be noted.

• The original Square Enix was formed as the result of a merger between Square and Enix. Please give the full name here for all three companies: Square Enix Co., Ltd., Square Co., Ltd., and Enix Corporation. After that, you can use the short versions, but the full name should be given at least once.
• with Enix as the surviving company: the source is talking about the stock here, but on page 12 (FN9) it says "Neither of the two companies would be recognized as the acquiring company", so calling Enix the "surviving" company is a bit misleading.

• This starts with the completion of the merger, but to meet GA's broadness criterion, it needs to start sooner, with a short history of Square, a short history of Enix, and a short history of the merger, which was apparently initially planned in 2000 but was sidetracked due to losses at Square. It is not enough to have "See also" links; give a very brief summary of each company. Also mention at least the primary game franchise(s) each had.
• The GA1 review mentioned that the then-existing Corporate history section was a series of bullets without prose, and said that it should become prose, with the conversion elaborating if possible on how they relate to the company's overall status. I see no elaboration, and the section as it exists now is almost exclusively a series of bullet points in prose, which start "On [date], X happened". This makes for very boring reading, and there is no context: for example, the Taito acquisition was completed in 2005, yet there's a later sentence that mentions that all Taito games for "home consoles and portable systems are handled by Square Enix": why present tense (should be past), and why not back in 2005?
• The Eidos and Smileworks are each handled in two disparate sentences, rather than in a connected fashion.
• What happened with the suit Soft-World International brought against Square Enix? It's been nearly ten years; it should have been concluded or settled by now. It isn't enough to mention that there was legal action, it's important to note what happened with it, assuming it was notable. (If it wasn't notable or didn't affect the company, then maybe it should be deleted.)

• The "polymorphic content" information is taken from a 2004 source. Is this still true over a decade later, or has it changed since then?
• There's a tense problem in the second paragraph's fifth sentence, and it seems to have structural issues as well. Please revise.
• The final sentence of that paragraph needs a source, and the final "at a reduced price" is displaced (it should probably go before or after "under the Ultimate hits label", but if after then further modifications will be necessary).
• The final sentence of the last paragraph uses "has also begun", yet it's talking about 2007. This needs to be updated, as does whether Crystal Tools is still used (and whether it has been rebranded or updated). There seems to be some material along this line in the final Video games paragraph. It should be consolidated in a single place, though it can be referred to in another.

• The second paragraph strikes me as unimportant detail: we know virtually nothing about these particular divisions except that their leaders left, or they had a particular leader in a particular month. I'd advise deleting it entirely.
• "At present" is apparently based on a 2011 source. Please update.
• In the final sentence, I wouldn't call it a merger, since that sounds like a combining of corporations, not internal groups. I'd use a word like "combined" or something similar.

• I'm not going to cover this in detail, but the sourcing of this section is irregular, with entire paragraphs and ends of paragraphs being unsourced. See the Online gaming opening and closing paragraphs and the Arcade gaming section as examples of places that need fixing

• There should be some prose about this before the list begins.
• Almost completely unsourced.
• I don't think it's appropriate to give street addresses here

• I'm wondering whether this section is needed.
• Is this the only award Square Enix has ever won? I very much doubt it. Unless something more complete can be created, I'd suggest getting rid of this one mention.
• Similarly, a BBB rating from the beginning of 2010 is not appropriate to mention. If you have a current rating, it might be, but I'm not sure this is appropriate—what does a Better Business Bureau rating even mean in the context of a games designer and manufacturer? Is this the national BBB? An international rating? If it's a local bureau, then it should be removed as non-notable.

• I see one bare URL, one "[1]" external link, and a number that are only linked titles. The reference contents need to be improved.
• As was noted in the GA1 review, the five bulleted links at the bottom of this section do not belong here: either they should be moved to External links (but be sure they meet the qualifications) or should be deleted. Some of them may no longer be germane.

Even in what I've covered, there is a daunting amount of work that needs to be done on this article, even more than was needed in 2014 when the article was failed immediately. I am allowing the standard seven days for work to be done. If significant progress is being made by then, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great review @BlueMoonset:! I have begun, it should be not a problem fixing this up to proper GA standards. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you're already making significant progress. Once you've finished what's here, I'll continue the review: I didn't want to invest the time in an exhaustive review unless I saw an equivalent commitment to addressing the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hey @BlueMoonset:, I am still working on the article. It needs that table of subsidiaries filled in and referenced, and the article copy edited, sourced and updated. Doable, just need a few more days. If you could take another look, any specific new fixes you see would be helpful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777, please keep on going; you're making great progress. If you don't mind, I'd rather wait until you've finished all the work you're planning to do before I start a new assessment. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine @BlueMoonset:, I and @PresN: can probably finish our fixes without too much trouble; this article should yield some barnstars for quality review and fixing! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Time for another look @BlueMoonset:. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: just a friendly reminder, still interested to know what you think of the recent changes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it has taken so long to start—I have just gone through and done some copy editing in the article. Please check to be sure the changes do not affect the accuracy of the text. There are some places that I felt needed a bit more work than what I've done; they are listed below. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence needs work, not simply in terms of tense, but it also isn't as smooth and clear as it ought to be. It also isn't clear how far along the merger negotiations had progressed when the financial losses at Square put the potential deal on hold or scuttled it completely, and whether the later negotiations picked up from the previous ones or started afresh.

• The use of eight inline citations at the end of the second sentence is excessive. I have no objection to eight sources, but they should be combined into a single citation. (If you don't know how to do this, I can demonstrate.)

Please demonstrate, I have no idea how to do this.

Judgesurreal777, I've just done so: it's now cite number 64. Please note that I have just guessed at what part of the previous sentence each entry refers to based on the title or url—this feature helps people know which source covers which item—and I would greatly appreciate you revising these as necessary. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The third sentence needs to be revised; the "as of" clause, combined with "ongoing", is confusing.

• The first paragraph's opening sentence says "does not usually use other companies' game engines", but the third paragraph's first sentence includes "uses and continues to consider other companies' engines and programming languages". I think these need to be revised so they are less contradictory; the former sets up an expectation that is not met in the latter.

• First paragraph: using "got" seems not only informal but lacking info
• In the second paragraph, the use of "unveiled" does not fit. In general, this paragraph seems to have too much detail: the first two sentences could be condensed (is the code name necessary? where and when it was announced?), and the Crystal Tools wikilink duplicates an earlier link. Also, was XIV actually released on that date? If so, just say it was.
• The final two sentences of that paragraph could be combined, Crystal Tools and the MMORPG nature moved to the beginning before the game name (again, why is the announcement date important here?)
• The end of the third paragraph is another place where the multiple cites could be combined into a single multi-source cite

• The use of "revealed" in the second sentence feels odd to me. Perhaps "introduced" (or maybe "announced", if the system wasn't released that year) would be more appropriate?
• The final sentence does not work as is; please revise

• "two forays" doesn't seem to be accurate: in addition to 2001 and 2005, you have the Deus Ex and Final Fantasy XV movies and the newly released web series.
• I'm not entirely sure that the merger delay should be reiterated here, since it was mentioned in the Merger section; if you do keep it here, please revise it a bit so the similar wording remains similar after the Merger section revisions
• Is there anything more recent on Deus Ex than the 2014 rewrites?
• once again, "revealed" is not the right description for such an announcement; can you give any more detail about the XV movie here? Not a lot, but is it live action, animated, in production or only in development, and maybe a bit more?

• The six cites in a row at the end of the "Slime merchandise" sentence is again excessive. While the first two need to be kept separate, since they are used elsewhere, the final four are only used here and should be combined.

I believe that's everything, but I may notice a few more issues once you've made this new round of changes. I think we're very close to completing the reassessment. Thanks for your excellent work so far, and for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite the epic GA review/reassessment this is! I'll get to the new round of fixes as soon as I can @BlueMoonset:. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is probably going to take a bit more time, I have several other tasks going on a present I have to get to, a few GA reviews and fixes to do, so it may be a bit before I can get to all the corrections. It's nearly there! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Judgesurreal777: This GAR has been open for nearly 3 months now and the article has seen few changes made in the past month. Unless someone is willing to make improvements, I would suggest closing this GAR and demoting the article if it still doesn't meet GA standard. It can be renominated in the future. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The1337gamer, thanks for the reminder. I'm certainly willing to give Judgesurreal777 another couple of weeks, given how disgracefully long it took me to do the second pass, posted four weeks ago. Though you are right that it certainly shouldn't stay too much longer, and I'll try to keep a better eye on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have become very busy in life lately, so perhaps it would be better that it be renominated later, and this GAR closed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777, if that is your preference, I'll close the GAR as delisted. Once you've been able to do the work on the article as above, by all means please renominate it at GAN. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]