# Talk:Rockstar Lincoln

The image Image:Rockstar Lincoln logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rockstar Lincoln/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sparkl (talk · contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Pass, see below.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Pass. The lead is a brief overview of the studio (no mention of the workplace incident though). Neutral terms such as "reported" are used.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Standard bibliography and reflist.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
See below.
C. It contains no original research: 
See below.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig finds nothing other than video game titles.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Addresses the history of the company in a fair manner.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
I'll give this a weak pass. Information such as pet fish and tanks, and where heads of the studio relocated are just there to provide context.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Nothing prominent. The workplace controversy is described as plainly as possible, and provides a response from the studio.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit wars or content disputes present.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Rockstar Lincoln Logo.svg had valid threshold of originality tag.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
No images included, but that's fine.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Opening comments
I will voluntarily dedicate my time into reviewing this article by this weekend or earlier. I am still in school though, but I will try my best to review it as soon as I can, copyediting as I go. This is also going to be by first ever GA review, so I apologize if some of my findings were out of place. Sparkltalk 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


### History
After Hewson shut down Hewson Consultants and co-founded 21st Century Entertainment in 1991, he met with Marsden in early 1992. Marsden and Cooke established Spidersoft on 5 May 1992. I'm a bit confused here. Did Hewson met with Marsden or did Cooke met with Marsden? I also suggest these sentences to be joined together.
Reworded this slightly. Marsden met with Hewson leading up to the formation but performed that formation with Cooke. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
As the publisher increasingly focused on pinball games, the business became "formulaic" and Hewson lost his passion for it. Lost his passion for what?
 Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
In October 1999, it employed twenty-four development staff and was in the process of hiring fifteen people for quality assurance. Who employed twenty-four development staff?
 Fixed. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


### Culture
I'm not sure if this is needed for GA, but the "Culture" section seems too short to be comprehensive. Consider merging it with the "History" section.
 Done. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


### Games developed
No sources here, but that's fine as the games are sourced to themselves.


#### Sources
Noticing a lot of archived links here, but that's not too big of a deal.
This tends to happen with older topics. The sources are better dead and archived than completely gone. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There are some sources here that are made by contributors, but that's also not a big deal as long as it's an actual published news piece from a reputable site of fact-checking.
Modern labels on old sources can be misleading because old titles are often not carried over to newer systems. In the case you cite, Matt Martin was actually an editor for the site until 2013. The most recent site redesign was introduced this year and "Contributor" seems to be the fallback. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll give the sources a pass. This is not mandatory, but I would like to receive an explaiantion of sources like these: [1], [2] since I'm wondering if these are primary and reputable.
This Is Lincolnshire was the website of the Lincolnshire Echo newspaper. The newer name is Lincolnshire Live.
The Tower of Pin was a long-running site for pinball game coverage largely authored by Sam Gabrielsson. It had a good reputation within that niche but I included it mostly because it was the only one with a more precise date for 21CE's demise. If you think the source is untenable, I'd be fine with removing it from the article. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


#### Spotchecks
I think this is how reviewers check for original research. I'll randomly pick sources to verify soon.

Ref 8: Y Trivial mention in newspaper, but Verified.
Ref 13: Y Verified
Ref 19: Y Verified
Ref 21: Y Verified.
Ref 22: Y Verified. Copyedited the workplace controversy.


### Closing comments
Alright IceWelder, here is the review. Since this is my first time reviewing for GA status, I actually chose this article because it was short and simple, and looked really good even before reviewing it. The tables in the "Games developed" section are organized and formatted neatly. Once the small issues above have been addressed, I will pass the article. Sparkltalk 22:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Sparkl, great review! I have made some changes to the article that should satisfy your comments. I also left some replies above. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Nice work IceWelder! All of your comments are very insightful. I am very happy to say that my first GA review will be a one that  passes. Sparkltalk 11:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@IceWelder,  I see that you reverted my simple, helpful edit of "Lincoln" to "Lincoln, England".   While you may know that Lincoln is in England because, as you said in the page history, the same sentence mentions that the company is British, that does not automatically convey to everyone in the English-speaking world that the company is in Lincoln, England as opposed to a possible Lincoln, Scotland, Lincoln, Wales or Lincoln, Northern Ireland.  It would be like saying the company is a "US-based company, in Portland." Is that referring to Portland, Maine or Portland, Oregon? I would wager that most Britains would not know. While every British school child probably knows there is only one Lincoln in all of the UK, I cannot see why it is so terrible to leave that distinction in the prose since it is not redundant but actually more indicative. I would recommend that you change "British" to "English" or add the ",England" back to "Lincoln". As "British" is more appropriate for the cultural context, adding the geographical context of ",England" makes more sense.  Jyg (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no towns called "Lincoln" in Scotland, Wales, or Nothern Ireland. See Lincoln.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle Correct, there is not. But, there might be. How a simple effort to provide a universally comprehensible, convenient and instant disambiguation can be considered so offensive defies reason. But, by all means, enjoy your tiny kingdom -- of this article, that is. Jyg (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
"enjoy your tiny kingdom -- of this article, that is" — one thing's for sure, few editors are going to take you or your suggestions seriously with an attitude like that, nor with extreme hyperbole like "so offensive". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
My "suggestion" was not being taken seriously from the moment I submitted the change. The resistance to it has nothing to do with my attitude. Nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it is appropriate to add ",England" despite the sentence already having "British". The history page of this short article of little consequence is riddle with reverts. The case was closed the moment someone other than those who have the time and will to control this tiny kingdom found someone else making an edit.   If you have ever wondered why academia does not trust Wikipedia, you will find that dynamic at the top of the list. Jyg (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
"Riddled with reverts" is an interesting way to say that your edit is the first to be reverted on this article in the last 28 months (and only the 15th revert in its 15-year, 300+ edit history—at least a third of which were vandalism). You may have actually had a point with your original suggestion per MOS:OL, but you've derailed your own discussion with a nonsensical, bad faith rant. And I think you'll find that WP:WINARS and* WP:CW describes academia's mistrust of Wikipedia much more accurately than whatever "dynamic" you're referring to. Take care. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC) (* scratch that, just WP:CW ☔)
@Rhain The riddling is across all the Rockstar related pages, not just this one; mostly by IceWelder. I will take your accusation of "rant" and raise you "a self-congratulatory overuse of Wikipedia acronyms". Yes, please, take care. Jyg (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt you meant "all the Rockstar related pages" when you said "this short article of little consequence", but in any case, IceWelder has done incredible work maintaining all of these articles, keeping the vandalism away and the guidelines in check, so for that I'm thankful. If you genuinely believe the use of two "Wikipedia acronyms" (of two very similar explanatory essays) constitutes "a self-congratulatory overuse", then I suppose I have little else to add (lest I accidentally pat myself on the back even more). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)