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 SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011 [1].

Thatgamecompany[edit]

Thatgamecompany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the indie video games Cloud, Flow, and Flower through FAC, so now we turn to the small company that made them. This should be the last FAC stop for this future FTopic. The article has had a thorough GA review by H3llkn0wz, who usually picks on my articles here, and a copyedit by JimmyBlackwing. There are no featured articles on video game companies, so I've had to wing it a bit. The links are all alive and archived, the image is rationale'd and alt-text'd, and it's all ready for your perusal! --PresN 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a WikiCup nomination, please review the rules at WP:WIKICUP and say so. Spotchecks not done yet, more review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll be submitting this to get points in the Wikicup. --PresN 00:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • First is done. I don't read German either, there's an English translation (the German is the translation, actually) further down the page; IS is a blog about 'innovation', especially in media. Run/edited by a group of four including a U of Dusseldorf lecturer/board member of Art Directors Club Germany. More importantly, when Santiago gave the interview she also linked to it from the official Thatgamecompany news feed. Long story short it's an interview, and the source verified that it did not misrepresent what she said. I'm citing her quotes, not what they said. --PresN 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first of these games is a remake of the developer's award-winning Flash title Flow" - this is a bit confusing. Specify that "the developer" is TGC.
  • "They also felt that it would be easier than Cloud to develop while they built the company; no members of the team had experience with managing a business or with creating a commercial game." - confusing. Why would it be/was it easier?
  • Dropped the 'also'- the reason is what it says in the sentence directly preceding: that Flow was more "fleshed-out" as a design than Cloud. --PresN 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Games' section I wonder whether it would be better to link in prose instead of using ((main)).
  • Tried it - I think it looks weird, as each of the three paragraphs doesn't connect to the previous one. They're basically summary-style sections of the main articles; if they were each longer I'd make them subsections. If you strongly think that it looks better without the ((main))s, say so, but I'd prefer to leave it with them. --PresN 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a very nice article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commented inline. --PresN 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am participating in the WikiCup. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WIKICUP rules-- WikiCup participants reviewing Wikicup nominations are expected to declare their participation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an intro paragraph for the released games and upcoming game in the games section (since the main's got converted to links anyhow)? I do myself prefer the main's or section titles, but the info being 1 paragraph long isn't ideal for that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "main"s got converted to links by a drive-through editor 10 minutes before you commented; they're back to where they were before. --PresN 19:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has an appropriate FUR and licensing, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Spotchecks of about six sources found no overly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in-order. 1-Two login-required links marked as such; the archive link for the second does not require one for some reason. 2-Added a source (NPR interview) that they were graduating around then, and fuzzed the language to no longer state the order that it happened. 3-Whoops, wrong source; the WSJ piece covers all of the details of those two sentences, while the given one covers... none. 4- Attributed. --PresN 20:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More