Talk:Eidos Interactive/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's rough, please go easy on me. Thanks. (Also see above talk section) IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review still in progress, slowed down a bit by real-world stuff. Sorry! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, reminder ping @David Fuchs:. IgelRM (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some comments to start.

Prose
- I find the structure of the lead a bit weird. It starts off giving an overview of the company, but gives dates for acquisitions and its dissolution, and then the next paragraph is covering the same timeframes and including the same dates. It comes off as clunky and repetitive. I would restructure it to be much more high-level of an introduction and just give the history chronologically.
  - Yes, it is partially due to the moves figuring out what is the actual main topic (Domark, Eidos Interactive, SCi/Eidos, Square Enix Limited). Rewrote a bit.
- For their first game, they designed the adventure game Eureka!, hired the Hungarian developer Andromedia, and brought in Ian Livingstone as its writer. If Andromeda and Livingstone are part of the Eureka project, they should be before, not after mentioning the game, since as part of a list it sounds like it happened afterwards.
  - Reworded the sentence. (The German translation of RetroGamer is on GBooks [1]; [2])
- ~~so Domark got into contact with Leisure Genius not at all clear what Leisure Genius is. A developer, another publisher?~~
  - Apparently a C64 games publisher: [3], [4]. Aforementioned RetroGamer translation only got: „Es gab ein Unternehmen namens Leisure Genius, das sehr erfolgreich Brettspiele in Videospielform umsetzte. Beispielsweise Scrabble.“
- I've got issues with the prose throughout; it's often indirect or fluffed, and that makes it hard to figure out exactly what occurred.
  - - Changed the wordings based on what RetroGamer offers.
  - For example, The team at Leisure Genius believed a conversion of Trivial Pursuit was infeasible and thus gave way to Domark what does "gave way" mean? Did they hand off the project? Did they consider it and say they'd pass?
  - Domark brought in a German programmer who had previously brought them to the Amiga what does "brought them to the Amiga" mean?
- ~~We went from flying high on expanding the business in 1992 to financially struggling in 1994, two sentences later. What happened to get to that point?~~
  - I don't literally see financially struggling in RetroGamer, it implies they needed help on the business side. Changed wording.
- The section of "Transformation into subsidiary Eidos Interactive (1994–2005)" gets rough. The second paragraph is just a "In Date X, Y happened" format that needs to get broken up somehow. Even just some context for the purchases or changes in roles would help this make contextual sense about why we're being told it as the reader.
  - Tried what I could find. The Next Generation source accuracy seems doubtful considering cpcrulez interview.
- Ars Technica interviewed former Core Design Studio Manager Gavin Rummery in 2015, who said the studio pitched a Tomb Raider remake for the game's 10th anniversary to SCi in 2005. Unless this is contested, it's weird that there's so much background for the context of this interview, rather than saying "Core Design Studio Manager Gavin Rummery pitched a Tomb Raider remake" and going from there.
  - Tried to be careful because it's a difficult topic and a retrospect interview, but just reworded.
- On 4 September 2007, the board of SCi Entertainment stated that the company has been approached with a view to making an offer, which has been subject to speculation A view to making an offer for what? Buying the company? It's presumably that given the following sentence, but it should be clear here.
  - Changed wording.
- ~~If personnel aren't being named except when they're leaving (such as Bill Ennis and Rob Murphy) they probably shouldn't be mentioned at all.~~
  - Changed wording to "and management team".
- In February 2009, Square Enix reached an agreement to purchase Eidos plc for £84.3 million, pending shareholder approval, with an initial aim of fully buying Eidos Interactive on 6 May 2009 I might be missing some of the corporate name wackiness here, but Eidos Interactive is below Eidos plc, correct? In which case fully buying the former is a foregone conclusion if buying the latter?
  - Oops, believe I changed Interactive to plc to be more accurate and forgot to change the latter mention.
- On 20 May 2022, Embracer Group stated that the announcement of this acquisition got an "overwhelming and positive response". It's nice that the company said that it heard great things about its merger, but I don't think it's relevant for Wikipedia to note that.
  - Media websites reporting on that might be notable again in of itself, but yes. Changed wording.
Media:
- Media used (logos) look fine, appropriately licensed and tagged.
References:
- ~~The final paragraph of "Founding of Publisher Domark" has no citations at all.~~
- Same RetroGamer citation as the whole section. Added a Tech Monitor article to Further reading to remedy a bit. Maybe could be integrated directly.
- ~~The company continued to managed its own Western Studios and Eidos Montreal retained its name. unsourced~~
  - Quote source added.
- A lot of the list of studios need inline citations for their dates of operation/founding/acquisition, etc.
  - Mostly done?
    - Meaning? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - One ref for every sub, but probably to consider further what to do with the table (found primary sources for 2008-2009 operations).
- Reference templates need cleanup for consistency; for example, you've got Gamasutra.com in one, but Gamasutra in another; whether sites are given by their URL or their title varies; MCV is written out a bunch of different ways, and in the further reading section it's formatted two different ways on top of that. Some sources are missing date/author info, etc.
- Done, I cannot find the author of some MCV articles unfortunately.
- ~~What makes Thunderbolt and Telecompaper reliable sources?~~
- Spotchecks not yet done.
  - Replaced Thunderbolt with GI.biz, was tertiary source anyway. Check Telecompaper, looks like a reliable business journal. GScholar
- ~~Current ref 67 is to a Youtube video and should either have the timecode added, or just removed (you've already got what appears to be two other sources for it?)~~
  - The YT video is specifically for "became part of Eidos-Montréal". Added timecode.

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 08:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copy-editing, replying in-line above. IgelRM (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Spotchecked statements to current refs 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 21, 23, 25, 30, 35, 41, 42, 48, 52, 60, 63, 68, and 76:
  - ~~Ref 7 is used to support The new company was floated on the London Stock Exchange as Eidos that year which doesn't mention trading on the exchange in 1995.~~
    - "Through a series of mergers, Eidos was created and floated on the stock market in 1995." The SEC 20-F explicitly says London if that works as primary source?
  - ~~Ref 15 should cite the original Dallas News article instead of Blue's News.~~
    - Done, visual edit copy pasting from Ion Storm missed the ref somehow.
  - Ref 21 doesn't fully support In 2003, Eidos founded Beautiful Game Studios inside their headquarters, which continued its Championship Manager series after splitting with previous developer Sports Interactive (doesn't mention the split with Sports Interactive).
    - Done, copied from Sports Interactive.
  - Ref 24 doesn't fully support the last paragraph of the Eidos Interactive (it mentions the £23 million loan, but doesn't say Elevation Partners is giving them the money; it also doesn't cover the losses in the first sentences.
    - Good spot. Removed, probably the exact amount isn't relevant enough.
  - I don't see where Ref 68 covers the founding of current Square Enix External Studios in 2008, nor its name change as Eidos Game Studios?
    - 2008 was taken from article prose, linked the reference. Maybe a bit synthesis: "the project [True Crime; Sleeping Dogs] is being managed through Square Enix London Studios, which also worked with Rocksteady Studios on Batman: Arkham Asylum and Avalanche Studios on Just Cause 2.", "Square Enix London Studios is an entity that was set up in 2008 by Eidos" (GameDeveloper) and "Square Enix External Studios have been responsible for multiple games including RPG Shooter OUTRIDERS®, the Just Cause® and Life is Strange® series, and titles such as Batman: Arkham Asylum® and Sleeping Dogs®." (PR) Eidos Game Studios could be sourced via game credits or PR but probably not relevant enough.
      - If it's not easy to actually source and it's so minor, I would just leave that content out. You can refer to the organization without covering every minor name change it went through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. External Studios is also mentioned on the main Square Enix article. I left out Eidos Game Studios from the names.
  - Refs 68/76 don't cover Square Enix London Mobile's closure in 2022.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IgelRM (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]