Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive1

Namco
I'd love to get this to FA someday, but I'm not sure what else to add to the page. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Namcokid47 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. How much feedback are you willing to accept and integrate into the article? Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as possible, really. Namcokid47 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Well, here's my general broad strokes feedback first and then I'll give more specifc feedback later.

1. The article is to detailed. Generally speaking, articles in Wikipedia are meant to be written as summaries of notable details about the subject. Not a 1/1 recreation of everything that happens with it. That kind of thing is meant for history books, not encylopedias. This is especially true for articles having to do with longstanding, well established companies. Well there are only a few FA class articles on companies, it's clear to see none of them are that detailed. For instance take a look at both Odawalla's and Cracker Barrels' articles. Both feature specific key points in the companies history that are written about in concise summary form. Therefore, sentences like "As soon as he saw it, Nakamura recognized it as a sure-fire hit, and offered to sell the game in Japan. To his disappointment, Atari only allowed Nakamura Manufacturing to distribute the game in the country and was forbidden from exclusive manufacturing rights" are way to detailed and just lose the readers attention. It's also clear that sentences like that in the article were just copied almost verbatim from the articles and books they are cited from with only one or two words changed. Again, good articles summarize the source material. Not act as a 1/1 or 1/2 recreation. It should be almost impossible to tell the article from the source material. Otherwise, use direct quotes.

2. Is this an article about Namco (a company) or an article about people (Nakamura etc) in the company and their personal feelings or actions about things related to the company? The disappointment Nakamura felt might be relevant in an in-depth history book, but it's not really relevant the article. He has his own article anyway where that stuff can go, but even if he didn't he's not the focus of the article. Despite being mentioned 57 times in it. Which is way over kill. So ax things like "Nakajima soon hired an attorney named Dennis Wood." Knowone cares who David Wood is that Nakajima hired him for some reason. They want to hear about the company. Otherwise, they would read a history book or visit Nakjima's page if he has one. Same goes for specific dates and locations. It's not relevant that Nakamura sued Nintendo in the Kyoto District Judiciary. Anyway, did he sue Nintendo or did the Namco? Again, the article is about the company, not the people in it. Same goes for the whole paragraph about Steven Drake stealing money from the company. Not only does it not make sense how that part even fits into the wider section, you devote a whole paragraph to it while Pac-Man, probably their most important game, is only mentioned a few times in passing. Again, is this an article about a company and importance or about people?

3. The way the sections are setup is convoluted and nonesensical. So, 1. The headings should only cover one subject each and sub-headings should be directly related to the topic in the parent heading. Otherwise, people will get confused easily. So there shouldn't be sub-headings like "Atari Games, rifts with Nintendo and other ventures (1985–1989)." There's also two sub-headings dealing with acquisitions when their should only be one. 2. These problems come from writing the article in a linear, time based fashion when it's organized based on subject (or both? It's hard to tell). Ultimate the article should be written from the framework of subjects and organized that way. Know one remembers exact dates of events or organizing them in their brains in that linear of way. Plus, there aren't clear start and end dates to any of these events and the article shouldn't be organized like there is. For instance "Atari Japan acquisition (1970's)." Is pretty vague. Just state the year it happened in the prose about the event.

As an alternative I suggest the article be organized by key events and other things that should be noted. As I outline at the end of this message. This would have multiple benefits. Including, 1. It would be easy to find key topics related to the company 2. Sections could be written in a more concise way that would allow for the addition of more images etc and it be clear what paragraph the image is clearly related to (the Pac-Man image is next to a paragraph that's only half actually about Pac-Man and it's even clear how it relates except being the same character). 3. It would allow for more details to more easily added about key topics and also for more notable things to be spun off into their own articles. For instance Namco theme parks. Which are only mentioned in passing and the current written style doesn't allow for expansion on. Or the Namco Super System. If you look at most, or all, of the FA articles related to companies or similar topics none of them are organized by year.

4. Section and Paragraph length should really be chopped down and kept in check. This goes back to point one about summarizing source material instead of 1/1 recreating it, but it's also related to writing style and formating. Each topics should really only be three or four paragraph each and each paragraph should kept down to 6 to 10 lines of text. The most concise way to do it is like 3 paragraph of 6ish lines each. The whole article should be something like 5000 words I think. Otherwise, things should either be condensed or the topic spun off into their own articles. Some paragraphs in the Namco article are going on 14 lines. That's to many. If you do a better job summarizing it shouldn't be an issue as much though.

Here's roughly how I would order the sections of the article. I think it's important to have subsections about key games and other notable things like their alliance with Microsoft. Versus, "let's just mention them in passing and discuss the CEO's feelings about things in more detail instead."

1. Early history 2. Establishment 3. Acquisitions 3.1 Atari Games 3.2 American arcade chains 3.3 Nikkatsu 3.4 Monolith Soft 4. Other ventures 4.1 Namco Super System 4.2 Wonder Eggs amusement park 4.3 Alliance with Microsoft 4.4 Game school 6. Notable games 6.1 Classics 6.1.1 Dig-Dug 6.1.2 Galaxian 6.1.3 Pac-man 6.2 Modern 6.2.1 Ace Combat 6.2.2 Katamari Damacy 6.2.3 Klonoa 6.2.4 Mr. Driller 6.2.5 Ridge Racer Adamant1 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC) 6.2.6 Soul Calibur 6.2.7 Splatterhouse 6.2.8 Tekken 6.2.9 Time Crisis 7. Merger with Bandai 8. Legacy
 * I'm really disappointed with this feedback you've given me, as I feel a lot of this is very unhelpful and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, all of which I'll explain below.


 * 1) First off the bat, I take great offense that you accuse me of plagiarism from the sources I've used in the article, it is absolutely ridiculous. I also heavily disagree that this page is not meant to document everything about the company, I fail to see how that makes sense — if the information is from a reliable source and applies to the subject in question, I see no reason not to have it, even if it is only a passing mention.
 * 2) Why shouldn't Nakamura's actions be documented in the article? He was the president and owner of the company as a whole, and all of those actions relate to Namco directly and not just himself, so I don't understand how that's an issue. It's not like the article goes in-dept about Nakamura's family or hobbies or whatnot, that's what his page should have.
 * 3) While I agree that the article headings could use work, I think calling them "convoluted and nonesensical" is a big stretch.
 * 4) The reason info on stuff like Namco's theme parks and arcade centers is only mentioned in the page is because there's just not a lot of (reliable) information on them. If I do eventually find stuff on them I will obviously expand them and potentially make them their own paragraph, but for now I think just keeping them as a sentence or two is okay.
 * 5) Also gonna agree here, I'll try trimming down some of them.
 * 6) The section structure you suggested is my biggest gripe. There is zero reason something trivial like Klonoa or Katamari Damacy need their own section, it's like with the Sega page on how there aren't individual sections for stuff like Yakuza or Phantasy Star or whatnot.
 * A lot of your sentences were also hard to follow as they contained a lot of capitalization, spelling and grammatical errors that just made then difficult to read. I think you did give some valid criticism and I'll use that while editing the page, but a lot of this I fail to see how it would make the article any better (in fact, I would argue that it would downgrade the quality, as a matter of fact). Namcokid47 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

1. That's always the response people have to feedback they receive on something they put a lot of work into. So I was totally expecting it. A big part of asking for and receiving feedback on things though is because other people might see ways to better improve things that we don't. Therefore, just because you don't think my suggestions make sense, doesn't mean they don't. Further, feedback where people pat you on the back and tell you how great the article is, without actually critiquing it, isn't really feedback in my opinion. If you just wanted people to tell you to add more stuff to the article, you should have probably asked somewhere else or not all. You said you wanted to the article to be an FA article someday and I told how it could be one, by including actual examples. It's on you if you take offense to that.

2. I didn't accuse you of plagiarism. I said you needed to summarize things more. "As soon as he saw it, Nakamura recognized it as a sure-fire hit, and offered to sell the game in Japan.[4] To his disappointment, Atari only allowed Nakamura Manufacturing to distribute the game in the country and was forbidden from exclusive manufacturing rights" is not a summary of the event or even more importantly the source. It's almost a 1/1 restatement of it, your words or not. Plagiarism and summary are two different things. Obviously it's not plagiarism because you cited the source. Look up what summarizing is and how to do it though. There's things all over Wikipedia about it. It's a skill that you learn over time and it's perfectly fine if your not that good at it, but ultimately if you want it to be an FA level article it should hard to tell the details in the article from the source where they obtained from and the details should be extremely compressed. Stating Nakamura's feelings isn't. It's also worth mentioning that saying what someone's mood is is extremely specific to the point where it's either your personal opinion and shouldn't be included, or it's a direct quote from the citation and should be in quote form. You can say your not plagiarizing, but if your using the same exact wording to describe something that the citation is without quoting it, that's essentially what your doing.

3. I didn't say Nakamura's actions shouldn't be stated in the article. I said his feelings shouldn't be, unless directly quoted, and that if his actions are discussed it should be a lot less and in less detailed form. Those are completely different things. There also shouldn't be multiple paragraphs of his actions etc in the same section that only cites a single source. Since it should be a balanced retelling of what happened. Especially when it comes to biographical details. There's extra rules about impartiality when it comes to that kind of thing. "Atari sent Nakamura Breakout in 1976, which was a commercial success in North America.[4] As soon as he saw it, Nakamura recognized it as a sure-fire hit, and offered to sell the game in Japan. To his disappointment, Atari only allowed Nakamura Manufacturing to distribute the game in the country and was forbidden from exclusive manufacturing rights" could better be rewritten to something like "Atari sent Nakamura Manufacturing (again is the article about the company or Nakamura?) breakout in 1979, but when the company offered to sell the game in Japan Atari only allowed them to distribute it in North America and forbid them from having exclusive manufacturing rights to it" or something like that. Much clearer, less repeated words, less needless side details, and less words over all (36 versus 59), but still imparts the same information. That's all I'm talking about. It shouldn't be that hard.

3.1 The point is, talk about Nakamura, but at least make it clear when your talking him specifically or something dealing with the company and it's actions. Also, don't mention him when it's not necessary. Look over the articles for Nintendo, Starbucks, and Walmart. See how they mention their founders/CEO/important people etc. Look at how many times they do it and in what context. Like I said, the article is about Namco. It's not a story about Nakmura and his adventures as the founder/CEO of the company. Just like the article about Nintendo isn't ultimately about Fusajiro Yamauchi. Yes he's mentioned in it, but it's a play by play of his feelings or thought's about everything related to the company. Neither is Sam Walton on the Walmart article and it doesn't go into anything having to do with him in detail at all, in relation to the company or otherwise. Except once briefly when it mentions his charity work. In fact, he's only mentioned 16 times in the article and a lot of times it's about his relatives. Despite the article being way longer and the company actually being named after him. So, again, it's not the mention of Nakamura that's the issue, it's the specific way your going about it.

4. If you think Klonoa or Katamari Damacy don't need their own sections, fine. I don't really care. It doesn't mean the fundamentals of the way the article is structured can't be improved though. Look at the Nintendo article and how it's sections/sub-sections are organized versus Namcos. Yes, compared to that Namco's sections are convoluted. What's better about Nintendo's sections? Specific years and single topics for each section. It also has both a history section and a separate products section. All things that make the articles structure way more understandable. So....Even Sega's article goes beyond just having a History section that it throws everything into.

5. Don't make the theme park thing it's own section either. I could care less there as much as Katamari Damacy getting it's section. The point was that "other ventures" should be it's own side section to the main article instead of being weaved into prose history book style. That's all I care about. At last have a single section called "other ventures" where that is specifically mentioned as a stand alone paragraph. If you can't even do that much, then it's probably not notable enough to mentioned in the article in the first place, like I said before not everything a company does is worthy of inclusion, but it least shouldn't be woven in with "Atari Games, rifts with Nintendo" block style like we're reading a chapter of a novel. There's something important your missing there to. Maybe you can't find reliable sources for the theme parks, but that doesn't mean other people couldn't if the information was stated in a concise, separate way on it's own. That's the benefits of different sections even if it might be a stub. It gives someone else a chance to come along, research it, and add onto it if they can. You can't do that the way it's currently written about though. Again, do you want the article to be better or do you just want people to pat you on the back about how great the article in it's current form, which you wrote, is? Also worth mentioning, the Sega article might have a separate section for Fantasy Star, but it's still just a good article. If you want Namco to FA class at some point, I still think adding sections for specific games would be worth doing. At least Pac-Man if nothing else, but most articles about companies that create things have sections about the things they created. Look at Blizzard Entertainment's article, Valve (history and products sections), Rockstar Games (history and games published), Electronic Arts (history, collaborations, etc sections), BioWare, Capcom, etc etc etc. Every suggestion I have made is based on how articles are actually written (including FA ones) and the Wikipedia guidelines. Not my personal feelings. Feel free to disagree, but your the one that wanted feedback. Adamant1 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, what are you talking about with the Sega article having a section for Phantasy Star? It doesn't.   Red Phoenix  talk  03:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW, number of times founders mentioned in FA company articles: Cracker Barrel (5), BAE Systems (0), Odwalla (0), Panavision (3). Number of times founder mentioned in Namco article (64). Id say that's overkill in the Namco article by an extreme magnitude. Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix talk
Hi there. I think you and I are running the same gauntlet a little bit, in my case with Sega, which is also being patched together for a (second) FAC. Because of that, I feel like I've got an idea of what a video game company article should have. There are so few company FAs, and none of them are entertainment companies. But, having done a lot of this process already, hopefully I have a lot of helpful feedback for you.

Disclaimer: I didn't fully read Adamant1's feedback, but looking at some of it, I didn't fully agree with it, either. That being said, feedback is exactly that, just some thoughts in response to a query. Feel free to take my opinions as you will, and I merely hope it will be helpful.

I'll try and come back with more later. If you have questions or points of interest for further discussion (yes, including respectful disagreement if you feel), ping me and I'll be glad to continue. Red Phoenix talk  03:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick question: Since I'm unfamiliar, is Bandai Namco Entertainment Namco as it is now? Is Namco an active subsidiary of a holding company (as Sega is with Sega Sammy Holdings) or is it basically now that Bandai Namco Entertainment is Namco and Bandai completely fused together?  This would matter for setting an article scope.
 * Follow-up question: If it is the second, which I suspect it is, then structure will have to be a little unique - it doesn't make sense to talk about corporate structure about a corporation that no longer exists in that name, after all, and it'd be better subject matter for Bandai Namco Entertainment.
 * Under this assumption, "Namco" specifically ends in 2005 with the merger and formation of Bandai Namco Entertainment, so that sets our scope.
 * I don't think key games necessarily need their own sections - after all, Namco made a lot during their active years and were a powerhouse in the arcades. But, I do think a section to cover what kinds of products Namco made and sold before merging with Bandai would be helpful to the reader, and this could in turn touch on key products in a few sentences.  An example of how I might do this would be the Products section in Tectoy, a GA.  Three paragraphs of prose, all sourced, touching on key products to give readers ideas of what the company made.
 * I'm all in favor of a Legacy section, too, if enough retrospective feedback could be found - retro video gamers have strong feeling about companies of the past, it seems, and I imagine there would be coverage reminiscing and touching on both positive and negative qualities of Namco.
 * Source-wise, be mindful and double check any fact sourced to The Ultimate History of Video Games. I was warned, and enough research in Sega-based topics has proven right, that Kent's prose has a lot of errors in it.  It's still a good reliable source, and its direct quotes are amazing, but be wary and add more sources to support what Kent says wherever possible, because there are known accuracy issues there.
 * Contrary to what Adamant1 said, I'm going to tell you it's not detailed enough - at least in certain areas. 1989-2004 has very little about the 90s in there, a whole decade.  Companies have different impacts in different decades, of course, but surely there's a little more to say.  FAs are expected to be exhaustive of every reliable source possible, to cover all major aspects.  I wouldn't worry about history depth until you get to the point where you need a spinout article to talk about it.
 * Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. I think the reason I didn't really agree with Adamant1's feedback is that he kept making comparisons to other companies that make completely different products, and as such having completely different page structures - I found it rather unfair for him to keep comparing Namco (a video game company) to stuff like Cracker Barrel (a fast food franchise), as neither have anything in common with each other aside from both being companies. To address your points:
 * I have always thought that Bandai Namco Entertainment was a company spun-off from Namco that simply owns all of their game franchises and products, and isn't the original Namco company from 1955 with a new lick of paint. I could be wrong, but that's what I've always believed based on the numerous articles and sources I've seen regarding the merge.
 * I agree with this point completely. As much as I find them very important, I don't see the purpose of stuff like Galaxian and Pac-Man needing entire sections for themselves, it's like how the Sega article doesn't have sections dedicated to Sonic the Hedgehog or Yakuza. A Product section also sounds like a good inclusion, and shouldn't be hard to add due to Namco's vast array of other products (ex. arcade cabinets, anime, toys, board games, theme parks, entertainment centers, films, speech impairment devices, cafes, casinos, etc.).
 * I'll still need to find stuff, but I'm sure that such sources exist. I'll keep my eye out for them.
 * Will do. I found some other reliable sources that verify a lot of this info, so I'll add it in if needed.
 * Definitely agree. Surprisingly, there's really not a whole lot of info regarding Namco (that I could find, anyway) about their history throughout the 1990's, other than the brief partnership with Sony and the release of stuff like Tekken and Ridge Racer. Sources likely exist that have more info on this, but I haven't found anything yet. I'll look again. I would also suggest that a potential "History of Namco" page could be made if the History section ends up being too long, in a similar format to the History of Sega page. Namcokid47 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't say I had a problem with the article being detailed as far as it covering a wide range of subjects. Otherwise, I wouldn't have suggested adding more about details about NAMCO theme parks. What I take issue with is the places where Namcokid47 didn't summarize things probably. There are some sentences in the article, like ones taken from the book that's over cited, where it's almost a direct quote with only one word in the sentence changed. There's also some almost direct quotes from articles and blogs that should either be summarized (I.E. less detailed then the source. Not the subject. Which is key) or directly quoted. No where did I say the article should "simplified" though. Shorten an article by summarizing sources better is completely different from shortening an article by chopping out important details (which I never advocated for). There's also the issue of giving undue weight to any single subject in an article. Subtopics should be discussed proportionally to each other and not everything a company does is notable anyway. If that means removing some more minor topics or "tightening up" certain paragraphs, so be it. No section, paragraph, or sentence should stray to far off from the main subject of the article and sometimes they do. In a few sections you start to lose what the main point is if you read down a few lines. It shouldn't be that way. If remedying it means summarizing things better, cutting things out, or doing something else, I don't really care as long as its dealt with. Otherwise, it's not going to be readable, let alone an FA article. The same criticisms would apply to any type of article.


 * Second, just because this is a video company article doesn't mean it would somehow not be beholden to the normal standards and guidelines of what makes a good article. The FA company articles aren't FA because they are good company articles. They are FA because they are good articles. Those are completely different things. There are no special rules for company articles. Let alone video game company articles. Articles should still be clear, concise, and stick to the main topic, no matter what the subject. I don't really care if you disagree with me, but if it where me I much rather use other FA company articles as a guide to how write this one well instead of relying on instinct, hurt feelings, a false believe that video game company articles are somehow special, or an article that isn't even FA and might never be (in the case of the SEGA article).


 * Third, the fact that there are plenty of video game company articles written similar to this one but none of them are FA, whereas there are other company articles written differently that are, should tell you something. If this was the best way to go about it and video game company articles are just special and shouldn't be judged by any other standards, why are none of them FA then? The answer seems pretty obvious.


 * Forth, no company article, FA or not, video game company article or not, discusses the companies CEO and his personal feelings in exponentially more detail then their most well known products. Articles should be judged on their own merits anyway. If he's mentioned to many times and in to much details in relation to the rest of the article, it's to much. And he is IMHO. I don't care about your hurt feelings (as far as you being offended by my feedback) or how you think your article is somehow special because it's about a video game company (that your obviously not neutral toward IMHO). I stand by my critique of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey man, slow down a bit. No one's attacking you or your critique; there was some disagreement but that's all.  Let me be brief and to the point responding to your four concerns above:
 * I haven't even gone into detail about the prose yet; what I put up was just while I had about half an hour last night. I will have suggestions as I read into it, the primary being that more sources will be needed - i.e. my concern about overreliance on the Kent book for my reason above.
 * No one said a video game company article was special, but articles in certain subject areas tend to have certain structures. And where being a different industry matters is where the coverage in reliable sources lies.  More coverage on certain topics should mean more coverage in an article.
 * I actually took a lot of my inspiration on a structure from reading those other company articles. But there are so few FA company articles on Wikipedia as a whole.  They're not fascinating for most people to write about, apparently (save for the occasional paid or COI editor).  That's your answer.
 * Again, haven't gotten into Nakamura yet because I haven't detailed the prose. We will talk about making sure the good and the bad facets are covered with a respectable amount of due weight.  I do concur, though that Nakamura's feedback will have to be used selectively.
 * This morning I did a full read-through of your comments. I don't agree with all of them, but there are some salient points in there.  Before any of the prose can get reshaped, though, I strongly think more sources will be needed.  Right now the article is leaning too heavily on a couple of sources, which is part of what leads to the lack of summary.


 * To that end: if you don't have a sandbox for work on this, I recommend one, at least to compile your sources and as thinkspace.  Before we can detail the prose, we need to tackle the following research projects:
 * Do the sources define Namco as being separate from Bandai Namco Entertainment? Let coverage in reliable sources be the determining factor.
 * A few places that have worked out well as sources for me: I grabbed 180 back issues of Retro Gamer for $25 on their app, and you have to do a lot of searching but it's like a treasure trove. There are articles and interviews with past video game developers, company executives, product developers, the works.  It's a great source, if you can get your hands on it.  There are also copies of older gaming magazines on the Internet Archive.
 * Especially for arcade companies, where coverage is a lot lighter than console developers, some of those key games will give you some insight on researching the company as a whole. For instance, relevant to Namco, I learned while researching Sega's Daytona USA that they built that game to demonstrate their new arcade system board (the Sega Model 2) and mandated it had to be more visually impressive than Ridge Racer.  So, research on Ridge Racer will likely turn up how technologically advanced Namco's arcade hardware development was at the time.  That's just one example.  Be mindful of OR as you traverse this, because we're not trying to assume anything; only that coverage of these more notable games will likely turn up company information.
 * Why the merger? That's not explained why Namco and Bandai were looking to merge.
 * Red Phoenix talk  12:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have never said that Namco was special because they're a video game company. I have also never said that you critique "hurt my feelings", I said I didn't agree with it because a lot of them I disliked because they don't make sense. I also didn't like the multiple comparisons between companies that don't have relation to one another who make completely different products and your snarky comments. Namco and Sega aren't above everything else because they're video game companies, but because of the products they have created the page structure will be a bit different for them compared to stuff like Panavision, for instance. Some of your points I agree with, too, such as the large number of instances of The Ultimate History of Video Games and that a lot of the paragraphs could be broken up. Namcokid47 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)