# Talk:Square Enix Montreal

This review is transcluded from Talk:Square Enix Montreal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll give this a review. Wizardman 18:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's what I found:

The Go series link in the infobox can be removed, since it's just redirecting right back to this article.
"And they viewed the critical response to Deus Ex Go" Don't start a sentence with and.
i'm not a fan of starting them with but either if you can changed the sentence in that one as well, though that's not a deal breaker.
Not much to modify, article's on hold until fixed. Wizardman 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Wizardman! Done. It should be okay to start a sentence with "And" as long as it isn't a fragment, but no complaint here—I found a better rephrase anyway. czar 08:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks good now. Using and for a sentence beginning isn't technically an MOS violation, it just looks wrong to me and ruins article flow. Anyway, the article passes as a GA. Wizardman 15:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The more I read through the sources, the more it seems that Onoma should just be its own article. London Mobile is not discussed in reliable, secondary sources as having been merged into Montreal prior to the Embracer acquisition. They share prior IP/history but it's ultimately a distinct entity. czar 18:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Square Enix Montréal already had the current corporate structure when the proposed acquisition was announced back in May, so the name change alone should not trigger an article split. You could argue that the former Square Enix London Mobile could be its own article, but I doubt that it would be notable. Onoma's website clearly says that both studios now have this name. I'm sure reliable sources will catch up. IceWelder [✉] 19:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I also don't think the website stating "Onoma was later joined by SELM" is enough, most of what is written appears conjecture  (The current article doesn't even source the mentioned studio page). The information here appears redundant from the SEE page with original research added.
The changed subheading "Embracer acquisition" gives the section undue weight, WP should not be an acquisition wiki. Also I feel the style of article reads more like an essay like some "good articles", with opinionated conclusions made. IgelRM (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Moot point now that the "new" studio is being shuttered after a month. It didn't have a chance to be known by its more recent name. czar 04:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree on this one. For a defunct company, a name used for almost 11 years and featured on every game release clearly outweighs one that did not last 30 days. I'm mostly happy with the current state of the article. IceWelder [✉] 06:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)