Talk:Don't Nod

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dontnod Entertainment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 03:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "where once they had to pursue publishers themselves" - should be reworded to something like, "whereas they had previously had to pursue publishers themselves. Currently wording (i.e "once they had") seems inappropriate, it makes it sound like they have a much longer history and 'once' was a very long time ago.

 Done

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article's length is not a problem per se, but I see two areas needing expansion. Firstly the single sentence paragraph in 'History'. You can expand this with at least a sentence on each upcoming game. I see plenty of information in the 'Development' section of Vampyr that you could choose from. And is there any update on Life is Strange 2? What can you tell us about the production? There must at least be a source out there commenting on whether the developers had intentions to make a sequel to begin with or whether this is just a reaction to how popular the original was. Also when did development on Life is Strange 2 begin? Secondly the lead looks like it could use a little expansion. Perhaps mention the companies their titles have been published by, but feel free to choose from any of the information in the body or even infobox. It's just looking a little thin.

Did everything but the lead expansion. I fear that it might compromise the flow of the existing paragraph. If I start another paragraph, that would only last one line or two, which doesn't seem necessary.Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 13:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Freikorp (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The infobox image is all good. Have you considered adding one of the free images of Life is Strange's directors winning an award to the article? As I'm sure you're aware Commons has several.

 Done Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 10:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Is there any chance you can mention who is in the photo, or at least one person? Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 13:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Looking forward to promoting this once the issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy for this to pass now. Congratulations. Don't feel obligated, but I have a peer review I'm looking for comments at if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Shareholders and financials

With Dontnod entering public trading, I found a very interesting information on here. Scrolling down to "Shareholders" section, it can be seen as PhD Kostadin Yanev owns 58.5% of Dontnod. Should it be reported in infobox ("Owner" parameter)? Then for proof, I tried to match infobox CD Projekt data with the site (here), and numbers match. Unfortunately "Financials" record card is not available for Dontnod (due to their short presence in the public trading, I suppose), but it will be probably available in the future. Should we use? Lone Internaut (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Inadequate idea. Lone Internaut (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: Founding date, again

The company's "studio" page on their website, which we still cite, continues to say that Dontnod was founded on 1 May 2008, even after the website was revamped. The date we currently have (28 June) is based on a Tweet made by the company. The company incorporated on 2 June. Which date should we use? Lordtobi (✉) 08:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cognissonance Lordtobi (✉) 18:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should go with the website, it says directly it was founded on 1 May 2008. It's not our fault they make it so damn confusing. Cognissonance (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

DONTNOD Eleven

"Reverted good faith edits by IgelRM: Apart from this introducing unsourced information, do we really need to mention BSP? The project has nothing to do with this Dontnod and Dontnod Eleven assuming the name is the only crossover between them" @IceWelder: (continuing from Talk:Dontnod Eleven‎)

I don't think "also run by Guilbert" is fitting, I can only find that he was the President. I don't think "independent entity" is fully accurate because of the apparent share acquisition. I think it is relevant enough to mention BSP as it appears some development team responsibilities were shared. What part was unsourced?

Further reading: Mobygames; Societe; Document de base

IgelRM (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The MCV source we use actually says it all:

In July, another games developer – Hesaw – changed its name to Dontnod Eleven. Guilbert happens to hold a leadership role at both companies, although they are separate businesses.

President is, indeed, a leadership role, although MobyGames is not reliable. The independence part was also true for the time being. The document du base would suggest that they acquired the studio in March 2018 a/k/a 2 years later. The annual release says that it was integrated on July 1, 2018. Would be cool if we had a secondary source for this. IceWelder [✉] 17:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I missed that (maybe that quote can be added to the reference). So can we change it to "in which Guilbert held a management role"? I didn't consider the time span, but they already used the DONTNOD name in 2016. Since it appears the "independent" part is outdated, I think we should reword that part even without a secondary source. Also I still would like to mention BSP as the name sharing should give it relevance and the reason above. Btw thanks for thoroughly reading the linked sources. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Found a suitable source in Jeuxvideo.com (in French), which disects their financial statements and note that Dontnod Entertainment had been absorbed. I included a sentence on this in the article. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)