Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legend Entertainment/archive2

Legend Entertainment

 * Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a video game company that had a good run in the 1990s, mainly in adventure games. They were heirs to the highly acclaimed interactive fiction studio Infocom, and showed early signs of impact with this successor company. But they were always lesser known compared to Sierra and LucasArts, who competed in the same space, before the adventure game market collapsed in North America in the late 1990s.

A lot of these types of articles slip through the cracks because the subjects were effectively "gone" by the time the internet hit mainstream. But I see these types of subjects as essential to Wikipedia's mission to preserve knowledge, as readers would otherwise have to cobble the story together from various online and offline sources. I've done the work of assembling those sources, and I believe the article is very well-sourced, thorough, and complete. I also recently completed a peer review to get it ready for FA. (Big thanks to IceWelder and Urve for their reviews.) The last FA was closed on a procedural issue when I jumped the gun, but I'm confident the article meets the FA criteria as is. I'll continue to work on this to help it reach even higher standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from IceWelder
I haven't found the time to re-review the article yet. Please ping me if I don't by Sunday. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Most of my concerns were already resolved during the peer review. I did a few quick fixes just now that were faster done than spelled out. These are my remaining thoughts: I have performed a source review and found that most of the sources are reliable. Outliers are the unreliable TechRaptor (part of ref #5), which should be removed/replaced; and the questionable Adventure Collective (ref #7), although it likely still passes as it appears to be a legitimate interview. I have performed several fixes on the cite templates themselves and repaired the publication dates of two misdated GameSpot articles. I have not performed spot checks for verification due to time constraints.
 * Content
 * The infobox lists American Systems Corporation as Legend's parent for four years but the article does not make clear whether the company had a controlling interest in Legend. Please clarify whether is this was a minority or majority holding. In the former case, it should not be considered a parent.
 * Of the many designers noted in the History section, why are Meretzky and Lindner specifically pointed out in the infobox as key persons? For example, did Lindner have a greater impact on the company than Mark Poesch?
 * The first sentence of the lead reads that Legend is "best known for their complex and distinctive adventure titles". This rather bold statement does not appear to be explicitly mentioned/sourced in the article body.
 * I still question whether the article really needs the accolades column in the games table. As I stated in the PR, the individual qualities of the awards are not clear, so a listing like this might incorrectly represent the quality of the games based on a few hand-picked awards. Removing the awards column would also make the table much more concise and accessible. Please reconsider whether such a column is necessary.
 * The external link to korseby.net feels superfluous as it is just some game reviews, and I believe that it should be removed. The inclusion of waitingforgo.com should also be reconsidered; in my opinion, MobyGames should suffice.
 * Sources

Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried to address all of these. The "parent company" thing is a little ambiguous. The best I could find is this article that suggests ASC provided most of the funding, which is elaborated in a (questionably/situationally reliable) interview at the Digital Antiquarian. The list of key people includes anyone at Legend who has a Wikipedia article (and meets the WP:GNG), and Mark Poesch doesn't quite appear to make the cut (though he does get mentioned as a director at the company). I am not too picky about infoboxes and find that readers get more from reading the actual information in context. So I'm fine as long as the article WP:PRESERVEs information about these people/partners in prose, if you still want to adjust the Infobox for precision and accuracy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think the infobox is fine. Also thanks for your other changes. I would still like to know your stance on the accolades column, since I see you've kept it just now. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My preference is to err on the side of WP:PRESERVEing factual information there. Adding a column to the games list seemed like an efficient way to present it. There are other ways to present it, but this seemed better than a stand-alone list (deprives readers of context, which only comes from comparing the list to the article), versus in the prose itself (calling out each one individually starts to clutter the narrative). Just in case you're suggesting we remove it completely, I generally don't think it's a good idea to start removing WP:VERIFIABLE accolades from third party sources. In this case, it would prevent readers from understanding what this studio contributed to the industry and artform. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this insight. I usually advocate for listing such quantities of awards only the games' separate articles, not the developer's. It is generally uncommon to list any product-specific awards on the developer's article unless contextually relevant or impactful (as in BAFTA, TGA, AIAS, etc. awards), otherwise the scope can get wildly out of hand. However, if you believe that the list in its current form is for the better of the article, I shall not stand in your way and am happy to support the nomination. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 09:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I figure this one works because it's a relatively short list. Thanks again for the review, and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Review Support by David Fuchs
Forthcoming by this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping on this, and take your time. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * General and prose:
 * The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc.—this line feels weirdly placed considering the next subsection specifically talks about being the first to take advantage of the compact disc, and talks about the shift from traditional text adventures to point-and-click games. Feels like you're giving us a short version of information you then repeat immediately afterwards.
 * Consolidated this into the following section. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on the quotes from Bates; at times, they feel like they're excessively privileging his POV by being quoted verbatim, and they have the side effect of feeling kind of awkward in the prose since it has to fit around his constructions rather than summarizing the information.
 * I removed some of the quotes and re-worked others. Bates was the head of the studio, so I tried to emphasize areas where he was thinking on behalf of the company in a business/strategic role. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the specific mentions of what awards CGW gave to Eric the Unready, especially since it's repeated in the table at the end of the article.
 * Consolidated this for flow. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On that topic, I find the games table a bit tough to read. I would place all the awards in a single cell for each game, and divide the large Legend Entertainment publisher and repeat it for each game so that you can easily scan left-to-right and figure out what games belong to what entry on the right.
 * Tried to fix this. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Media :
 * Images appropriately sourced, tagged, and licensed.
 * References :
 * Checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 30, 35, 37, 40, 60, 66
 * There are some refs to books that don't have page numbers, e.g. refs 1, 4, 12, etc. While they do link to the Google excerpt or book overview, they should still include the page numbers.
 * Ref 6 gives Bates the quote ...told investors that "there was still life in the adventure genre, but that it needed more than just text" but I think the quotes imply this was literally what he said verbatim to the investors, when the interview is years later Bates talking to another publication.
 * Not sure refs 15 and 16 adequately support "became one of Legend's most critically acclaimed titles".
 * Did not otherwise spot issues with close paraphrasing or improper attribution/failed verification.
 * There's no source for co-development support note [a] on Terminator 3. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you going to attend to these? TBH I'm close to archiving this as it seems to have stalled but if you can get right onto it there might be cause to leave it open longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know his this completely slipped my mind, but I'm eager to still bring this up to FA and finish this up. Working on it immediately. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * : Worked through these one at a time. I added some responses in-line, just for your own clarity. I do get different advice on how to format the table, but hopefully that's an improvement from what was there before. Thanks for the review and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No no, I wasn't just completing the problems for you before I had an edit conflict with you that solved everything I just did. I wasn't here at all, actually. Panini! 🥪 17:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The attempted save is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support with the above addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator
This has been open for a month, and I wanted to see how the process was doing. Willing to work on this more if need be, but I feel confident that it's close to done. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that it has a second general support I have listed it for another general review and for the sourcing to be checked. Let's see if either gets picked up. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Will do. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is more of a negotiable question, as I don't know the firm answer, but is GOG.com (what looks like a distribution platform ala Steam to me) a great source? Open question
 * " Robinson, Spider (December 7, 2000). "An essay on the making of the CD, "Belaboring the Obvious"". Archived from the original on November 14, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2021 – via Spiderrobinson.com." - yes, this is self-published, but you could put (self-published) or use the website it comes from. (Is okay from a reliable perspective as Robinson is a reasonable source on this topic)
 * Recommend checking on worldcat to see if Computer Gaming World, Compute, etc. (all of the magazines, periodicals, etc) have ISSN or OCLC identifiers. Useful for identifying exactly which publication is being cited, especially since some of those older computer/video gaming publications have similar names

Spot checks:
 * "who created a new division called Random Soft to enter the multimedia software industry" - checks out
 * "This led to new opportunities for Legend, working with publisher Take-Two Interactive for Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, and working with Accolade for Star Control 3" - checks out
 * " In 1998, Legend released a game adaptation of John Saul's Blackstone Chronicles, which ultimately became their final adventure game release." - checks out
 * "By the end of 1992, Legend were able to buy back American Systems Corporation's stake in the company" - source only says that they intended to do so, not that they did
 * "The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc" - checks out

No copyright issues detected. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. GOG is appropriate in some circumstances, but this was easy to change with more independent sources. I tweaked the reference template for the Spider Robinson comment, but if I'm doing it wrong, I might need you to spell out the exact form to present this. I also tried to add a few ISSN/OCLC numbers where I could find them. The buy-back seems to be supported by the source, which refers to a purchase agreement. Hopefully with those changes, we're good enough to pass the review. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Passing source review - the new formatting for the Robinson cite works. AGF that ISSNs, etc. are included appropriately. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM
That's all on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "based on Demons Don't Dream" could say who wrote this, likewise Gateway.
 * "Infocom had stumbled" bit colloquial.
 * "notably experienced developer and author Steve Meretzky" could you expand on why you call him "notably experienced"?
 * "adventure game engine at" put "game" into the link.
 * "in the company,[9] and the company" repetitive.
 * "the company was selling enough games to easily sustain themselves" singular company so presumably that should be "itself" rather than "themselves"?
 * Is there a reason why the portrait images aren't ?
 * "would continue to" -> "continued to".
 * "less than 25,000" fewer.
 * "seemed to" according to whom?
 * "Writer Steve Meretzky also" You've already introduced him so just "Meretzky also" is fine here.
 * There seems to be a lot of repetition of first names for unambiguous repeats of people, typically we just use surnames in subsequent namechecks.
 * Table could use a caption.
 * In a sortable table, usually linked items are linked every time because after a sort, there's no guarantee the linked item will appear first.
 * ISBNs could be represented consistently.
 * I was able to incorporate your suggestions. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

 * Can I have some seratonin? Shooterwalker (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)