Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wizards of the Coast/1

Wizards of the Coast[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Agreement that the raised concerns have been addressed AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was reasonably promoted to GA status ten years ago. Since then, however, I believe the article has suffered sufficiently that it is no longer GA. There are numerous reasons for this, however, for brevity I note the following three, specifically:

Approximately 25-percent of all sources in the article are to the company's own website or press releases. While much of this content is relatively basic information, it's previously been demonstrated (e.g. here) that the company publishes significant exaggerations about it and its employees' accomplishments and even the most basic content cited to the company itself should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.
The article omits a major, mid 2000s abortive initiative [1], [2], [3] that was characterized by many sources as a "critical failure", though there are more RS about this than just about any other aspect of the company.
The article omits a major IP dispute that led to a protracted, federal lawsuit against Pokemon even though, again, there are more RS about this than pretty much the rest of the company's history combined (see: [4], [5], [6], [7], etc.).

Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These all seem fixable. I will see what I can do this week with the limited time that I have. BOZ (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you! This was a GAR in progress and I hadn't fully submitted it yet but I'll just backburner it until you have time to look at it further. Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that was my error then; I saw your edit to the article's talk page and found this page. I think these can be fixed, especially with some assistance. :) BOZ (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of time today so I'm adding in citations next to the press releases. I'm leaving up the press release citations for right now so someone else can confirm the new citations are a good replacement. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a first sweep through the following sections: Acquisition by Hasbro, 2000s–2010s Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Chetsford Per point 3, the article does mention the lawsuit towards the end of the "Acquisition of TSR and Pokémon TCG" section. I only compared random revisions back to August 2011 but it appears to have been included for a while. I was actually thinking of moving the bit on the lawsuit into the "2000 – 2010" section to improve readability. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed your work on the article in detail, but hopefully it resolved the bulk of the above raised concerns? BOZ (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sariel Xilo - I just read all your updates and revisions. You did an amazing job and definitely addressed all my concerns. Thank you for your thoroughness! Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that possibly something about Gleemax should be included, per Chetsford, but not TOO much - failed multi-million dollar projects are not really uncommon at large corporations. It also leads into the slightly sensationalistic murder of Melissa Batten, which I'm not sure is super-relevant.

For the Magic The Gathering section, it goes into great detail about the change in Core Sets, which is weird and not exactly super-relevant? Core Sets are a small part of Magic's overall sales from a corporate perspective: it's like talking extensively about ticket sales to preseason football games. They exist, but they aren't the important part. Overall sales of Magic would be much more interesting to talk about, as would good & bad years / expansions. (For example, Mirrodin block in 2004-2005 set sales records that weren't exceeded for some time afterward, implying a dropoff later.) SnowFire (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]