Talk:FuncoLand/GA1

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going to take this one. Expect comments over the next couple of days. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Images: NFUR is acceptable. What is the source for the data used in the graph? (Maybe cite in the image caption).
• Clearly stable (last revert is a year ago).
• Sources are a bit primary- and newspaper-heavy. I couldn't find super much more scholarly on a quick search, but at least this is a scholarly paper that tells you the market share of Funcoland for console games in 1999.
• More to the point, possibly best not to use anything but the externally audited financial reports from the annual reports without backup by an independent source.
• All major points covered. No neutrality concerns.
• Suitably formatted references.
• No copyvio detected by Earwig; comparing with the sources gave nothing terribly concerning, although the "most video games last for decades" is perhaps a bit too verbatim for a non-quote.
• Almost no prose/mos concerns; see below for some comments.
• The "history" and "store expansion" sections are a little excessive in the amount of detail provided. Can you summarize this a little without verging into original research by synthesis?

Overall I'm really impressed by the article, great research work. Slightly too much in some sections, especially if the sourcing is primary. @Cat's Tuxedo: I'm looking forward to seeing your responses! —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Name: Just to check that I understand it right: There were two companies, Funco and FuncoLand? I don't quite understand the difference or why the page is under one name instead of the other.

Funco is the company, and FuncoLand is the retail chain operated by Funco. Adjusted the lead for clarification. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better.

• Lead: Will look again later when I have checked the rest of the article.
• Origins and early history: 1,100 Nintendo games, which he leased to video rental shops in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area Looking through the sources 6 and 8 (BTW thanks to whoever provided all these clippings, excellent job for verifying the article) I can see claims of leasing to video rental shops and of selling to local shops. The "leasing to local shops" seems likely but I can't see it in the sources.

Looking over them, neither source states they were necessarily rental shops either. Guess that was an assumption on my part. Anyway, tweaked that a bit, but I can't say I know for sure what to do about the leasing/selling discrepancy. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more with local, which isn't clear from the source.

Took that bit out Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• in the daily Minneapolis newspaper From my memories of living in Minneapolis more than a decade ago, I assume the Minneapolis newspaper is the Star Tribune, but your source just says a daily Minneapolis newspaper, which is slightly less clear to me.

Tweaked the wording to match the source. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

• What is the TwinWest chamber of commerce?

From what I gather, TwinWest was, at the time, Minnesota's third-largest chamber of commerce, with members doing business in a number of communities across Hennepin County. Apparently they merged with the Minneapolis Regional Chamber just a couple of years ago. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this really is a notable award then, or just promotion of its members by this CoC?

In that case, removed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Downturn and comeback: lowest point of $3.871⁄2 per share is kind of contradicted by trading at $2.621⁄2 per share on January 11, 1996 in the following paragraph?

Fixed the wording to make it clear that this was its lowest point at that particular time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

• Generally I am a bit concerned at the level of detail in the History section. I'm not sure we need to know all the stock prices and sales numbers and when exactly the company was performing better or worse than analysts expected.

Admittedly, since this is the one time I've done an article for a retailer, I was overzealous in throwing in any and all reported developments I could scrounge up. I acknowledge that those given matters would probably be more appropriately placed in the financial performance section, so making those adjustments. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the new sectional organisation I am less concerned.

• Business operations: most video games last for decades Looking at the source, this might not be a quote. I don't think the source is good enough to claim "video games last decades" in wikivoice; it probably does depend on the type of media used for the video game?

Removed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK

• Store expansion: Funco attributed this rapid growth might be better to explain that this was in the annual report, written as marketing material for shareholders than to write that "Funco" said this.

Amended Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK

• The times and places for new stores do seem slightly overly detailed. They are also sourced mostly to the company reports, so essentially to primary sources.

As with the history section, I didn't have much in the way of adequate frames of reference as to what constitutes an evenly detailed section on a retailer's expansion, so I might need a pointer or two to determine what details would be most essential. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably cut most of the announcements and keep only the actual store openings.

Done Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Financial performance: if this is a section, it should have some text in it. Perhaps just make "financial performance" the title of the table (say, use it in a centered top line?)

Per a previous motion, moved chunks of the history section to this one, where I'd think it'd be more appropriate. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much better.

• In the table: 8,792.599 thousand dollars looks a bit weird when you could just say 8,792,599 dollars.

Fixed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK

• Litigation: why is this an extra section and not part of history or corporate?

Per these guidelines, matters concerning legal action get their own section. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the lawsuit is with shareholders, I'm not sure this is totally applicable here, but I'll accept your judgment.

The lead section does not summarise the entire article. We don't have anything about IPO and stock performance, store sizes/locations, testing, e-commerce and mail orders, fastest growing business with 406 stores, for example. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now, promoting. You could consider figuring out whether you can right-justify the cells in the table, but that is totally optional. —Kusma (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]