The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2021 [1].

---

Rockstar San Diego[edit]

Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the video game developer Rockstar San Diego, formerly known as Angel Studios. Rockstar San Diego is one of the best-known Rockstar Games studios and has produced highly acclaimed games, such as Red Dead Redemption (2010). It has a 35-plus-year history beginning as a work-fore-hire animation studio, turning into a video game studio, and being acquired by Rockstar Games. I originally wrote this article gradually as a learning exercise starting in October 2017; it became a GA in November 2019. Having exhausted all immediately available sources, I want to take on FA as the next step. Credit goes to the GOCE members Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978, GA reviewer Spy-cicle, peer reviewers Panini!, Rhain and SandyGeorgia, and FA mentor PresN. IceWelder [✉] 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I participated at the Wikipedia:Peer review/Rockstar San Diego/archive1, and will watchlist to go through after independent editors have been through. I am have been extremely busy IRL, and have not yet had time to check whether my prose concerns were addressed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I hope it is not rude to ping for this but I wanted to know whether you have been able to check for these issues. Inbetween the PR and now, there has been a GOCE batch, manual copyedits, and requested edits seen below. Of course, I'd gladly accept further suggestions to improve the article. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

Participated in the peer review but didn't say much.

Infobox

• Similar edits at Paper Mario with this one; you can cut "Rockstar San Diego's" because its what the article is about.
• I'd also find a way to cut out one of the two instances of "Rockstar Games". It can be a mouthful.

Lead

• "... and a studio of Rockstar Games that is based in Carlsbad, California." The "that is" can be cut to remove the repitition of is.
• I'd link computer animation
• "It began with a focus of..." I'd change "It" to "the company"; it refers to Angel prior and it seems like you are calling him a thing.

Early years (1984–1993)

• (also spelled Diego Ángel) would work better as a hatnote. I'm an anti-paranthesis person because they look unproffessional if used excessively in my eyes, so there could be other instances where hatnotes could work better too.
• "... Angel's wife invested in Angel Studios and Angel secured a bank loan." Although I'm a Christian, there's too much Angel here. I'd change the second instance to "the company".
• Refer to Hunt and Limber by their full names in their first appearances ("Hunt became the company's chief technology officer and Limber was its chief operating officer..." and then later "Brad Hunt and Michael Limber were among the founding partners.")
• "...which meant he would not accept any offer that came his way..." I would change "any" to "every" because it currently sounds like, "They didn't do any work, but they did work."

Entry into video games (1993–2000)

• "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for Silicon Graphics'..." Repetitive, -> "... Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's..."
• "... as a partner for the upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, which ultimately became the Nintendo 64." -> "...as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64."

Beyond this point, I got distracted in reading, which in my eyes means you did a very good job.

Miscellanious

• I don't believe stating "the founder of Angel Studios" in the quote box is necessary.
• Not necessary, but any "See also"'s?
• Are refs 7 and 8 the same?

Panini!^🥪 13:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Panini!:, should be all done. Refs 7 and 8 are separate parts of the same story (appearing on different pages, so I had to clip them individually). I see no viable see-alsos that are not already linked within the article (Rockstar North, Red Dead, and so forth would have been good fits). Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I currently have nothing outstanding so no QPQ is needed. Unless if I find something to do in the future. Panini!^🥪 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, yes I do, Paper Mario is at WP:TFAR. Panini!^🥪 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shooterwalker[edit]

Lead

• Can drop "The" from Columbian entrepreneur. (Columbian-American?)
• "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s; its first video game projects were Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996), for which the company created cutscenes." -> "Angel Studios began working in the video game industry during the 1990s, creating cutscenes for Ed Annunziata's Ecco: The Tides of Time (1994) and Mr. Bones (1996)."
• I know you mention Angel Studios in brackets right away, but it might add clarity to name the studio in context. For example, "founded the company as Angel Studios", or "As Angel Studios, the company began..." That way it would be less jarring when you start calling it Angel Studios later, and you could easily just call it "the company" or "the studio".
• "Angel Studios fully developed games in association with" -> "The company developed its first full games by working with..." or "They soon began developing full games with..."
• Also consider putting the cutscene sentence next to the full game sentence, changing the paragraph structure for better context.
• Is there a clearer word than "housed"?

Early years

• Consider naming "early years" to include something to do with art / animation, just as the second heading mentions video games.
• Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? If so, was he investing in his own studio? If it wasn't money, maybe there is a better word.
• "receive a job" -> "find a paying client"
• For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year...
• "was films and music videos" --> "was for films and music videos"
• "The studio was most successful with" --> "The studio's biggest successes came in 1992, with"
• "adaptation of its scenes for the movie" --> "adaptation of its scenes from the movie"
• "It further produced" --> "The studio further produced"
• "The agency Spear/Hall & Associates was contracted to handle marketing services for Angel Studios" --> "They also contracted the agency Spear/Hall & Associates to handle their marketing services." (passive voice to active voice)

Entry into video games

• "Angel Studios cooperated with the technology company Silicon Graphics to create demos for the latter's high-end computers and receive some of the computers in exchange." -> "Angel Studios collaborated on technology demos for Silicon Graphics computers, in exchange for high-end computers of their own."
• "He requested an appointment with the company the following day and three days later signed it as a partner for their upcoming Nintendo Ultra 64 console, later named the Nintendo 64" -> "He met with the company the next day and signed an agreement just three days later, making them a partner for their upcoming console."
• "The studio shifted its focus to the video game industry and in February 1995, it was announced as joining Nintendo's "Dream Team", a group of third-party companies that would develop games for the Nintendo Ultra 64" -> "The studio shifted its focus to video game development, and Nintendo announced them as one of the studios on their "Dream Team" for the Nintendo 64."
• "Angel stated he decided to stop seeking projects in fields in which the company had already succeeded if the field involved a "high-risk, capital-intensive business", even if it offered rich potential" -> "Around this time, Angel consciously steered the studio away from "high-risk, capital-intensive" projects, even if they offered rich potential."
• "Annunziata was pleased with the result and invited" -> "Pleased with the result, Annunziata invited"
• "As part of the Dream Team" -> "As part of Nintendo's "Dream Team""
• "Still in conjunction with Nintendo, Angel Studios worked with video game designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a Nintendo 64 vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie" -> "Angel Studios continued their work for the Nintendo 64, collaborating with designer Shigeru Miyamoto on a vehicular combat game titled Buggie Boogie"
• "For the first meeting with Miyamoto, Angel and some designers spent 45 days creating a "design bible", which Miyamoto rejected upon confrontation, asking the team to spend the next three months working on the game technology and to "find the fun"." -> "Angel Studios spent 45 days creating a "design bible" for their first meeting with Miyamoto, but he rejected it and asked them to "find the fun" over the next three months."
• "The company fit a game taking up two compact discs for the PlayStation version onto one Nintendo 64 cartridge, which had less than 10% of the original data storage" -> "The studio condensed the game's data to less than 10% of its original size, fitting the original version's two compact discs onto a single Nintendo 64 cartridge".
• If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired.
• "The Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98 exhibited Angel Studios' film Oceania, which was described as a "virtual journey", throughout 1998" -> "The studio's film Oceania was exhibited at the Virtual Reality Pavilion of Expo '98"
• "The June 1998 opening of the first DisneyQuest interactive theme park in Orlando, Florida, debuted Virtual Jungle Cruise, an adventure ride to which the studio had contributed"
• "The studio also contributed to an adventure ride called Virtual Jungle Cruise, which debuted at the June 1998 opening of the DisneyQuest interactive theme park."
• "He decided his employees should work on their own and find their own ways to produce a full-fledged video game, a policy that was considered a major factor for the product's quality. Some workers developed a sense of ownership of their respective parts" -> "He encouraged his employees to work independently and take ownership over the game's different parts, and this policy was considered a major factor in the game's quality."
• "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend known as XGirl. The game was planned as a launch title for Microsoft's Xbox console but was canceled" -> "The studio continued working with Microsoft on a game involving a virtual girlfriend. The game was planned as an Xbox launch title called Xgirl, but was cancelled."

Other notes

• At the end of the article, you have a list of games, but Oceania is described as a film. You should decide whether you want to include the studio's video work (e.g.: Lawnmower Man, Peter Gabriel), or just focus the list on games. Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue.
• I haven't checked any sources for accuracy. On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that.
• I'll come back for the last couple sections. On the whole the article is quite good, and don't let the notes detract from what's clearly on its way to FA. Great work so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Thank you so much! The issues should be addressed now. Some direct responses:

• (Columbian-American?) – Sources describe him as Colombian. I don't think that he has US citizenship.
• Does "invested in the industry" mean financial investment? – The source only says "invested". To avoid unclarity, I removed that part instead.
• For the first project, can we clarify the timeline? Second year, third year... – This must have been 1986-ish but the source unfortunately does not provide a year.
• If Ground Effect never came out, you could probably drop the planned release date, and make it clearer that the game was cancelled when the publisher was acquired. – This is never explicitly stated in the sources; the news just stopped after the acquisition and the game never came out. It is know that there were some shake-ups at Graphix Zone shortly after the purchase.
• Even some of the early game work was only cut-scenes, so this does create a tricky issue. – Good catch. I removed Oceania, though I believe the first two games are fine as they are proper games with Angel Studios providing additional work, even if that additional work was art and not code.
• On the issue of completeness, I know there were some behind the scenes labor issues for RDR2, and perhaps this studio is included in that. – The 2018 controversy centered around Rockstar Games more broadly, rather than R*SD alone. The Kotaku feature briefly mentions R*SD briefly in connection with this. I will look into adding some of these details soon. Red Dead Redemption 2#Controversies covers this comparably.

Lastly, I was taught to generally use 'it' for companies instead of 'they', which you use. Do you know whether this is MoS'd in any way? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to overstate the "it" thing, since the grammar is up for dispute, and this is a situation where I choose style over grammar. Grammatically speaking, a company is a singular genderless proper noun, so "it" is grammatically correct. But "they" is also grammatically correct, because "they" can also be singular and genderless. The spirit of "it" is to refer to an inanimate object, where the spirit of a "they" is to refer to an intelligent entity, which is why I prefer "they". People don't like "they" because they see it as ambiguously plural or singular, but in its ambiguity, it's fine to use it for singular. TLDR: I prefer "the studio", "the team", "the company" because it's clearer, and my distaste for "it" is really a matter of style. If someone with stronger feelings on it comes along, you should listen to them.

• "companies' combined expertise" -> "company's expertise" (not multiple companies?)
• "which was owned by" -> "a licensed game for"
• could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name?
• "Development of the sequel, which was titled Oni 2: Death & Taxes, was eventually halted" -> "However, Oni 2: Death & Taxes was cancelled during development."
• "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to. The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse." -> "Rockstar Games initially presented what Angel considered a low-ball offer. When he didn't respond, Rockstar then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse, and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted."
• Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? Becoming Rock Star San Diego is a big turning point, and it will also prime the reader to stop thinking of them as Angel, and start thinking of them as a subsidiary under the Rockstar brand.
• "Angel Studios began work on the game in 2000, while Capcom oversaw it, funded it, and announced it in March 2002" -> These are probably separate thoughts, and should be separated into two sentences.
• Maybe make it clearer that Rockstar bought the rights from Capcom, and not just abstractly.
• "a stealth game with an open world" -> "an open world stealth game"
• "The development team leadership, led by producer Luis Gigliotti, was inherited from the studio's Transworld Surf (2001)." -> This might be a little unclear as to how the leadership transferred, let alone why it's important. Comparing the teams between games might not be that important.
• "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? If it was after launch, does it make sense to place this sentence later, after launch?
• "In both cases, police detained artists; the situation in Washington, D.C., was quickly resolved in but the one in Cairo took significantly more time. After both teams returned with their photographs, the development continued. " -> "When police detained the artists in both Washington and Cairo, the situation was eventually resolved. But Cairo took significantly more time, and development continued once both photography teams had returned."
• "RAGE remains in development and is used in" -> the tense here is a little jarring, though I get that you're speaking to something that will persist for a long time. Maybe "RAGE would go on to be used..."?
• "Since the acquisition, Angel had been working"... -> "Founder and CEO Diego Angel had been working..." (more important to remind folks that the founder is leaving than to explain the timing since the acquisition)
• "The Houser brothers tried to persuade him to stay" -> add a comma for flow
• "settle in Colombia" -> "return to Colombia"
• "In Medellín, Angel created game development opportunities that ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area." -> "In Medellín, Angel tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area."
• "by January 2006" -> can probably drop this as it's implied, considering it follows on December 2005.

In the home stretch here. Take a stab at those and we can hopefully wrap up in the next day or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Re:

• (not multiple companies?) – This refers to Angel Studios and Rockstar Games, each with expertise on their own. I changed "the companies'" to "their" for hopefully better clarity.
• could we switch Rockstar Games to Rockstar for brevity, or is that going to make things confusing when Angel changes their name? – I chose to keep the full name because both "Rockstar"s are mentioned frequently, making confusion between the two somewhat possible. I hope this does not pose too much of an issue.
• Maybe introduce another heading after the acquisition? – Not sure whether an additional header is the best choice here as the section is mostly about how the acquisition came to and what happened immediately thereafter. Only the first paragraph does not strictly tie into this, though it discusses how the relationship between Rockstar Games and Angel Studios built up. Should I move that to the previous section? I could also rename the section something like "Acquisition and transition to Rockstar San Diego" to make it more obvious what it is about.
• "removed studio-wide vacations after launching a game" -> do you mean "the game"? – This refers to any launch, not a specific game. As in, after each release, all staff would get two or so weeks off, which Rockstar Games scrapped. I'm not sure where to put this but I moved it up to the actual acquisition.

Thanks again! IceWelder [✉] 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vacation part is now clearer, so that helps. The other stuff seems more clear now too. Do consider adding another heading, as it's one of the strongest and most helpful cues for the reader. I don't think there's any harm in breaking the acquisition out into its own section, as that section is already five paragraphs as is. But I wouldn't insist and you should take your cues from other reviewers when they come along.

• This is a style thing, but I find "controversy" to always be vague and euphemistic. "Labor issues and Red Dead Redemption" would be shorter and clearer.
• "Former Rockstar San Diego 3D artists Terri-Kim Chuckry and Garrett Flynn filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and over one hundred other ex-employees against the company on August 26, 2006, over unpaid overtime compensation." -> "By 2006, two former Rockstar San Diego artists filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of over one hundred ex-employees, claiming unpaid overtime compensation." (The timing is a good way to start the section, and we can be less wordy since the actual names of the claimants aren't as important in a class action.)
• Add "Even after the settlement, the wives", for better flow and context...
• The Rockstar quote is one where I think it's important to state it in their own words, rather than paraphrase, for readers to have the most accurate sense of their response. "...saddened if any former members of any studio did not find their time here enjoyable or creatively fulfilling..." is a good place to start.
• "; other key employees" -> a hard stop "." would be better here.
• "Take-Two Interactive's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, named it one of the company's strategic permanent franchises" -> considering the last sentence, it feels like you could improve the context and flow here too. Even as simple as "Speaking to investors, Take-Two's chief executive officer, Strauss Zelnick, announced that the game would become one the company's strategic permanent franchises."
• For the 2011 section, I think the timing is a little confusing that you jump from 2011 to 2018 in the first sentence, then jump back. I might move this sentence to later, closer to the release, or at least split this sentence into separate thoughts.
• The second sentence about two games would probably be appropriate to separate into two separate thoughts too.
• Without any context, the part about hiring for an untitled open world project feels kind of meaningless. I'd drop it, or find a way to make it more relevant, either explaining what happened to the project, or dropping the project to focus on the simple fact that the company was growing (which you could connect to them leasing a massive office space).
• "Martin left Rockstar San Diego in July 2019; he joined the Chinese conglomerate Tencent in December that year and opened a studio called "LightSpeed LA" for the company in July 2020." -> "In 2019, Martin left Rockstar San Diego to join Chinese conglomerate Tencent, opening a subsidiary studio called "LightSpeed LA" the following year."
• This last section is well written, but feels short. Not in the sense that it's one paragraph, but in the sense that it lists a lot of projects and doesn't really give much context about how they turned out, or their significance to the studio.
• The N/A in the tables isn't the worst thing, but it feels like the theme park would be as much of a platform as a console. Would make the table feel more complete.

The article was already in good shape and it's already in better shape. Keep it up. You're very close IMO. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. I think the lawsuit filers are somewhat relevant, even in a class action, and one of their names appears again in the case name, which I would like to retain at least for flow. I reordered the last section to make for the order of collaborations->expansion->collaborations->departure, chronologically for the most part. I also expanded it with a bit on the over-hours controversy you noted earlier. I'm not sure whether GameWorks and DisneyQuest fit into the platforms column as they were merely the place where the games were used; the underlying systems were not disclosed. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks to all your revisions. The prose is on the whole better and clearer. I'm hoping that other editors will take a closer look at the references, so I suppose my support is conditional on that. There's a few outstanding questions, like how much to expand the last section, or how to include the VR games in the table. But let's see what other editors say, since the article otherwise meets the FA criteria, from what I can tell. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Spy-cicle[edit]

Did a pretty thorough GA review a while ago, and glad to see it is making its way to FAC (also great to see a free image of Angel). Not sure if I'll have time to do a full review, but here are some intial comments.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• he company as Angel Studios in January 1984 after studying film in Chicago, where he grew fond of computer animation. The company... Maybe change the second use of the company to business/firm to avoid repetition, especially as sentence are back to back. This also goes somewhat for the body sometimes if you can repleace with studio/developer/it/firm, etc slightly more engaging and less repetitive
• Is it worth linking to "Kiss That Frog" to album it is from (Us (Peter Gabriel album))
• In the infobox "RAGE Technology Group" surely this should be spelled out in full "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group" since RAGE is not a common acronym
• "and continued with commercials for Nintendo, Polaroid Corporation, Asiana Airlines, and Cobra Golf, among others" So was the "educational video" a commerical as well? Continued makes it seems as if is but it is not clear or when they started doing commericals. Slightly awkward wording unless I'm missing something

  @Spy-cicle: Thank you! I fixed the duplication, linked the song (now a redirect to the album), and slightly reworded the commercials bit. Regarding the RAGE Technology Group, the division is known in full by that name (cf., for example, the Grand Theft Auto V credits). I am not aware of a source that refers to it as "Rockstar Advanced Game Engine Technology Group". Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh okay I understand thank you for clarifying the bit about RAGE Technology Group, I might be able to leave some more comments if I get enough time.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay should have some more time now, ping me in two weeks if I have not done a full review by then. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything more from you Spy-cicle? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ian Rose: Thanks for the ping I have a couple of comments but it is pretty well in good shape in my view.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done another scan through and few copyedits. The only two comments I can suggest now are:

• Could possible add an explanation (possibly in an efn) that the Agent project San Diego worked on is not be confused with other one Agent (developed by Rockstar North). Polygon ref looks good to use
• Could possibly replace a number of instance of "Rockstar San Diego" in the body with "firm/company/studio" to avoid repetition.

That is pretty well all I have to suggest. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I added a short sentence on Rockstar North's Agent and removed some instances of "Rockstar San Diego". It now appears, on average, 1.5 times per paragraph. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks, I have added an efn in the game section to avoid confusion have added a link. Happy now to Support, good job on this. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• The FUR for File:Angel_Studios_Logo.png needs improvement - it claims to identify Rockstar San Diego, but it's not their logo. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria, I adjusted the "Purpose of use" field to more refer to Angel Studios. Does this suffice? Related to this, does a non-free former logo run afoul of the NFCC? Or is this logo in particular PD-ineligible as simple text and shapes (of US origin)? I would remove the image in the former case and move it Commons in the latter. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's always going to be a bit of a judgment call. In my opinion the answer to both of the latter questions is no, but others may disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not see anything wrong with using the the logo as it stands, but I am not an image expert.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Spy-cicle, are you happy that the images are in shape for Nikkimaria to have another look at them? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gog the Mild: I am guessing you meant to ping nominator @IceWelder: instead (I just gave my view around one said image)?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I did. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: The images did not change much; I amended the rationale of the Angel Studios logo as mentioned above and uploaded a new version of that image that fixed some compression artifacts. If another image review is required, I'd be happy to have one. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

While I am somewhat familiar with this studio, and I have played their Red Dead Redemption games, I am not too familiar with its history or structure. Please consider me a non-expert.

• "The company soon began developing full" perhaps "The company developed full"
• "with the studio's work on Midtown Madness and approached Angel Studios with a long-term partnership in 1999," Perhaps "an offered them a long-term partnership in 1999"
• "Angel Studios was acquired by Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive in November 2002 and became part of Rockstar Games as Rockstar San Diego." Lots of the word "Rockstar" in this sentence. Perhaps, "Angel Studios was acquired by Rockstar Games' parent company Take-Two Interactive in November 2002 and became Rockstar San Diego." I think their name implies they became part of the Rockstar group.
• " Red Dead Redemption (2010), and the expansion pack Undead Nightmare" -> "and its expansion pack"?
• "Within a few days, he met with the company" Within a few days of what? I actually don't think that phrase is needed and could be deleted.
• "considered a low-ball offer and did not respond to." -> "and did not respond." or "and did not respond to it."
• "The company then presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse. When he did not respond, Rockstar presented an offer Angel said he could not refuse and convinced him that the studio would have the creative freedom he wanted." Is the repetition intentional, and there were three offers, or was the first sentence supposed to be deleted?
• "leading to crunch at the studio." -> "leading to a crunch"?
• "When police detained artists is both locations, Why were they detained?
• "In Medellín, he tried to create game development opportunities, but they ultimately faltered due to a lack of government support and talent in the area. He also opened a restaurant in the city with his daughter Carmen and her husband." I think this is off-topic for an article about the studio, and instead belongs in an article about Angel.
• Is there any information on what the company is currently working on? Anything about the company's history in 2020/2021?

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Z1720: Thanks! I made some changes and would like to answer directly to some points:

• Within a few days of what? – Takeda inquired Angel Studios' details from SGI, met with the company the next day, and signed an agreement three days thereafter. Over time, this context was reduced to "Within a few days", which I have now struck. Should I reinstate it with the full context?

• No, I think that would be too much detail. What is in the article is good now. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the repetition intentional – Good catch! That is indeed a leftover from a previous copyedit and should be fixed now.
• "leading to a crunch"? – I'm not sure whether this an English language quirk but I always understood that "crunch" in this context is uncountable. I believe the relevant section at Video game developer#"Crunch time" (particularly the sixth paragraph) uses it in the same way. Is this wrong?

• I think crunch is a singular noun referring to an uncountable unit of time, which is why I think the word "a" should be before the word. I would compare this to the word drive in "going on a drive". Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why were they detained? – The source implies that they were detained merely for taking pictures. How would you phrase this? "When police detained artists for their work in both locations, ..."?

• Specify that they were detained for taking the photos. Perhaps, "Police detained the artists at both locations for taking numerous photos;" Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is off-topic for an article about the studio – I removed the portion about the restaurant but feel like the game development one should remain as a way to show what Angel made of his experience at Rockstar San Diego. Would you agree?

• I don't know what "game development opportunities" means. Did he start a company? Were these opportunities with Rockstar San Diego? Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything about the company's history in 2020/2021? – Not that I know of. Rockstar Games has a high level of secrecy, though, so this is not surprising.

IceWelder [✉] 07:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's understandable, many game companies like to control the messaging and production in their studio. If this article is promoted, I suggest that you continue to monitor news outlets and publications for news on the company to keep the information updated. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Sorry for the late response. I added an example for the development opportunities (in this case, a master's program) and fixed the other two issues.[3] Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I can support.

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive links are not needed for GBooks, and generally the publication dates provided by that site are overprecise
• FN24: what's the specific article being cited here?
• FN23 has a misformatted page, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source in this context?
• What makes Siliconera a high-quality reliable source? Gamers' Republic? VG247?
• FN47: is there no independent source for this claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:

• Archive links are not needed for GBooks – Would it be an issue to keep them in? I like to have as much archived as possible, even if it is just meta information on Google Books.

• It looks rather untidy but I'm not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FN24: what's the specific article being cited here? – I cannot tell since I do not own the issue in question and can only view the snippet found via the Google Books search, which contains some of the credits for the film The Swan Princess. If this poses a problem, I would not mind removing it entirely.

• You could perhaps get the article via WP:RX? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I opted to remove it instead, given that it appears to just be a credit listing and not an edited text providing context. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I reduced Google Books' dates to years and changed Starlog's "pp." to "p.".
• Siliconera and VG247 are covered by WP:VG/RS's list of reliable sources. The Gamers' Republic website was part of an eponymous magazine published by Hearst Communications and edited by Dave Halverson, both generally considered reliable (the other two Halverson-edited publications (GameFan, Play) also appear on WP:VG/RS's list).

• What was the editorial policy of that magazine?

• I cannot immediately find the policy in the printed magazines (via Archive.org) and most of the former website is inaccessible due to the shutdown of Flash. I would assume its reliability based on Halverson heading it. I could put it before the WikiProject if required. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed the discussions linked from VG/RS regarding Siliconera, and am not convinced it qualifies as generally reliable - the determination seems to have been situational instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IIRC, Siliconera was originally a situational source but upgraded to general-reliable in the most recent discussion in 2015. Should I put the source before the sources board again? IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes please. I'm not seeing much in the way of explicit reasoning at that link - just voting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not too familiar with Starlog (as I only found it by chance) but it appears to have been long-running and staffed. Other FAs (e.g. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Thing (1982 film), and William Gibson) use it as well. I would not mind removing the source, though.

• I would consider it generally reliable for sci-fi, but the content it's supporting here doesn't seem to fall into that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I removed the source for now and might put it before the RSN in the future, but it should not hold up this process. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FN47: is there no independent source for this claim? – Not that I know of.

• In that case, does it warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say so, yes. It is a minor detail but it does not appear a controversial enough claim to me that it could not be cited with a primary source. IceWelder [✉] 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 00:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera and Gamers' Republic are now listed at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Based on the initial discussion for the prior, I have removed both uses of Siliconera from the article. IceWelder [✉] 19:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Similarly with your image review above. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine; waiting on conclusion in discussion around a couple of the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the current stage, it appears that Siliconera and Gamers' Republic will be classified as borderline-reliable and reliable, respectively. Of course, Siliconera has already been removed. Do you want to give the usage of Gamers' Republic an interim reassessment or do you want to wait for the discussion to be formally closed? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IceWelder, does this address the last of the source review comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gog the Mild. Yes, the reliability of Gamers' Republic is the last outstanding question in this source review (and, at the moment, the last of the FAC). I think the ongoing discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Gamers' Republic is already reflective of its outcome but I'm waiting for a formal reply from a reviewer on this matter. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Nikkimaria and sorry to bother you again. IceWelder seems to think that everything has now been addressed. ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• Is Diego Angel not notable enough for a WP:REDLINK? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. If anything, he would be a redirect to the company. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE) - RAGE isn't used again in lede, no need to put the acronym Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• US$5,000 - MOS:CURRENCY, no need to link to well known currencies Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As this is the 80s, is it worth using the convert template on this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds plausible. Added in both 80s revenue instances. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 6.5-minute (either six-minute thirty, six and a half minute, or 6:30. Decimal time isn't a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• video game publisher Rockstar Games - two links next to each other - any way to reword this? We already mention publishers earlier in the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The last ten years feels a bit short, considering the size of earlier subsections Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the content was written from restrospectives and there hasn't been much converage since 2010/2011-ish. Doubtful that there is much we can do about this at the moment. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• any reason why there's no table for cancelled games? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we have barely any information on most of these. Even with just Platform/Publisher, the table would be highly fragmented. I toyed with the idea of removing the list completely but I think the bullet points should suffice for now. Maybe there will be more information in the future to allow for a table or a ((Video game titles)) format. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you for your comments! See individual replies above. I will likely QPQ after my current exams. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. I realise there is some outstanding things others have brought up above, but in terms of prose, I have no issues Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all other points (aside from the separately ongoing reliability review for Gamers' Republic) have been addressed or discussed. Could you clarify which points you see as outstanding? There might have been a miscommunication on my part. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.