Talk:Square Enix/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 05:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like doing this, but I can't pass this article with as many flaws as it has. I'll summarize my thoughts below. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On the bright side, the prose doesn't look bad. I can't give it a "yes" because I haven't combed through it in detail on account of the other problems holding this article down, but it's definitely above "crummy".
 * However, this brings me to one issue: There is no prose for Corporate history. It's not acceptable to use a smattering of bullet points where it would be more appropriate to describe these events longhand, elaborating if possible on how they relate to the company's overall status.
 * Likewise with Subsidiaries.
 * I don't think the table's appropriate in Development organization. Not only does it place undue weight on the merger's early years and go into unnecessary detail; it's rather unseemly. I mean, even if you're to include it, at least partition it off to the side with text wrapping or collapse it.
 * The article exhibits a serious lack of referencing. The entire Subsidiaries section is unsourced, as are several paragraphs and parts of paragraphs elsewhere.
 * Furthermore, the citations that are present vary greatly in level of formatting, some of them bare links and some of them with odd features such as placing the italicized (it shouldn't be) "GameSpy.com" in an external link.
 * Speaking of external links, those five random ones at the end of References ought to be in the full External links section.
 * I expect an image could be found of Square Enix's headquarters. I imagine it would also constitute fair use to add a picture of one of the iconic, high-selling games they've created, whether a cover or a screenshot.

Finally, the term "stable" as applied to this page is misleading as it appears to have no major contributors lately. Why was it nominated, actually? Elevating this to GA status would not be an impossible task, but I can't pretend it fulfills that now. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)