Talk:Wikinews interviews Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz of Heaven Sent Gaming

Original reporting notes

They have agreed to sending videos that are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence

Interview was requested by Anonymous IP 128.199.137.61, on Wikinews:Request an interview, it was accepted by and carried out by User:Gownirony. Questions were gathered at Wikinews:Questions for interview with Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz of Heaven Sent Gaming.

E-mails sent to scoop.

Interview details

My voice is too decrepit to preform the interview over Skype or anything like that. I will be forwarding this, and the responses below, to scoop@wikinewsie.org, They requested it, maybe if they are interested in carrying out a Skype interview they can do that; but I think me putting the video together will be more than adequate. Plus a short slideshow in the video, related to the answers, will be interesting.

Statements and various notes directly pertinent to this interview, can be sourced in the following locations:

• Online entertainment is a booming market, and plenty of players are making their play; back in March of this year The Walt Disney Company bought the multi-channel network Maker Studios.

• "Disney to buy YouTube network Maker Studios for $500 million" — Reuters, March 24, 2014
• "Entertainment and Media Industry Market Research" — Plunkett Research, Ltd, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

• Mario Lucero and Isabel Ruiz, the founders of Heaven Sent Gaming, a small entertainment team from Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

• ""We are an entertainment team from Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. We create comics, games, music, novels, video, and web entertainment. Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States" - In Sidebar" — Heaven Sent Gaming, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

• They have been responsible for several publications, spanning across multiple media formats

• "Heaven Sent Gaming - START" — Heaven Sent Gaming, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

• one successful example was aywv, a YouTube channel which was "#1 in Gaming Worldwide 2009-09-28 -until- 2009-11-17", and was "networked with / claimed by" Square Enix

• "aywv - YouTube - About" — Heaven Sent Gaming, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

Removed the Square-Enix information, but for those still interested, here's the source.

• "YouTube Statistics for Aywv" — Social Blade, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

• Heaven Sent Gaming was also the subject of a referential book, released in 2014, entitled Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming.

• "Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming (伝説のインターネット - ヘヴン セント ゲーミング)" — 黄金円; Golden Yen; Shigimori Shizuka; Tommy Greenwald, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

• Accepting Bitcoin donations, since 2009, they have been long-time advocates of cryptocurrency.

• "Heaven Sent Gaming - Bitcoin" — The Bitcoin Wiki, November 5, 2014 (date of access)

• They both sent notes stating that the original story that Thad's World Destruction: Before Destruction (TWD) centers around was written by Kevin Garner, Mario J. Lucero, and Byron Alvarez in high school.
• Their notes state, "You don't want to be caught off guard, web start-ups should follow business know-how. Including diversifying your portfolio, in other words, don't put all of your eggs in one basket. That includes not relying on a single form of income, there are several web advertisement networks, Google AdSense is a large one, but there are plenty of others out there; AdBrite, Project Wonderful (comics), Speechbubble Media (comics), Intergi (gaming), etc. Even on a site like YouTube there are alternatives to AdSense, even major performers on YouTube make use of them, especially since ad views are dropping due to services like AdBlock; those alternatives include getting sponsors, requesting donations, or running a campaign on something like Patreon." There is also a correction in the notes stating that it was not a congressional panel, it was a Senate committee that Seth Rogen spoke at, and the opening statements by Seth Rogen can be found at C-SPAN.

• "NOTES FROM INTERVIEW WITH WIKINEWS" — Heaven Sent Gaming, November 5 2014 (date of access)

On-the-spot notes

In order to focus on their opinions and backgrounds in business and the arts, they were informed to answer the questions under the premise that people know who they are; this also ensures that they skip formalities, to get more informative and relaxed answers, and that the interview isn't about them pitching themselves or their products. Gownirony (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Details from broadcast report

Took a while longer to receive the video and audio files, that's my fault. I requested a multi-camera set-up, and seperate audio files. They graciously accommodated on both notes, and recorded on September 27th, 2014. I have received the audio files, and shall begin the transcription process ASAP. Their videographer was kind enough to edit the footage for Wikinews, once he has completed editing and sends me the files for conversion, I will submit the interview for review. Gownirony (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Finished transcription, will upload the rest of the audio soon. Gownirony (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2909932 [Not ready]

Revision 2909932 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: It is not the reviewer's responsibility to transcribe content Verifiability: Not ready: It is not the reviewer's responsibility to transcribe content NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is laid out as an interview with placeholder content, and thus utterly unpublishable. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 2909932 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: It is not the reviewer's responsibility to transcribe content Verifiability: Not ready: It is not the reviewer's responsibility to transcribe content NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is laid out as an interview with placeholder content, and thus utterly unpublishable. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

External links

There are some external links here and there in the body of the article (we only allow wikilinks in the body). --Pi zero (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm

>>>>In order to focus on their opinions and backgrounds in business and the arts, they were informed to answer the questions under the premise that people know who they are; this also ensures that they skip formalities, to get more informative and relaxed answers, and that the interview isn't about them pitching themselves or their products. This interview covers what its like to be a new media start-up, personal questions for the founders, Christian media, and information for fans and the general public to understand their artistic and publishing history more.<<<<<
That has an odd feel to it....not sure what is/isn't appropriate in there....might deserve a re-think.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 3001250 [Not ready]

Revision 3001250 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Usually with an interview like this, the verification consists almost entirely of checking the transcript against the audio, which takes a while but is generally straightforward. I generally clear everything else up first. Unexpectedly, though, I didn't get to that phase. I don't understand how I'm meant to verify most of the material other than the transcript — most of the second paragraph, and the several notes inserted after various questions. There's reference to "notes", including one quite long direct quote therefore; what notes are referred to? I didn't find them in the documentation. The second paragraph also contains a direct quote, but I'm not sure what it's a direct quote from, and if that information is available here somewhere, I missed it. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3001250 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Usually with an interview like this, the verification consists almost entirely of checking the transcript against the audio, which takes a while but is generally straightforward. I generally clear everything else up first. Unexpectedly, though, I didn't get to that phase. I don't understand how I'm meant to verify most of the material other than the transcript — most of the second paragraph, and the several notes inserted after various questions. There's reference to "notes", including one quite long direct quote therefore; what notes are referred to? I didn't find them in the documentation. The second paragraph also contains a direct quote, but I'm not sure what it's a direct quote from, and if that information is available here somewhere, I missed it. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 3007748 [Not ready]

Revision 3007748 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Broadly, I'm not feeling at all good about this article. There's content here that probably would have made quite a good article if it had been presented substantially unadorned about a month ago. Instead, it has sat around getting old in a way that feels a bit disrespectful to the very important news principle of freshness, and is packaged along with a bunch of peripheral commentary a bunch of which appears to be undocumented and a bunch of the rest of which is corrections to the interview given later by the interviewees, which only enhances my discomfort that this has a vague feeling of publicity about it. Re documentation: When you report something, you need to provide documentation, and you should be trying to make it easy for a reviewer to find what they need in the documentation to verify what you reported. If necessary, explain to the reviewer where to find the information: you could write such explanations here on the collaboration page, or you could use html comments to embed notes invisibly in the article text itself<!-- like this -->. A concentration of verification awkwardness here is the second paragraph, which I'll discuss here; notes added after various answers to questions may also contain some such difficulties, which hopefully the reporter can identify and address as appropriate. Online entertainment is a booming market, with plenty of players attempting to make their play. This particular group has had successful publications. One such success was aywv, which was "#1 in Gaming Worldwide 2009-09-28 -until- 2009-11-17", and "networked with / claimed by" Square Enix according to the site Social Blade. Heaven Sent Gaming was the subject of an unsolicited book, released in 2014, entitled Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming. Accepting Bitcoin donations, since 2009, they have been long-time advocates of cryptocurrency. Breaking this up into parts: Online entertainment is a booming market, with plenty of players attempting to make their play. Oh? I tend to think this is probably true... but was no attempt made to provide some sort of evidence to support this? It sounds a bit like the sort of facile generality that might be casually added by an advertiser. This particular group has had successful publications. Plural? You give one example; have there been others? How does the reviewer know that? One such success was aywv, which was "#1 in Gaming Worldwide 2009-09-28 -until- 2009-11-17", and "networked with / claimed by" Square Enix according to the site Social Blade. The first part should be attributed to aywv itself since that's where the information comes from, and should be easy enough to paraphrase instead of using a direct quote. The second part... I'm not sure what it means, and if I don't know, neither will a lot of readers, so either explain it (instead of direct quoting without explanation) or leave it out. But more fundamentally, when you give aywv as an example of a successful publication, it's not at all clear what it is. I was somewhat surprised to realize it isn't a game but apparently some sort of "gaming news" sort of publication. If you're going to mention it, you need to explain enough for the mention to be meaningful — and the claimed statistic about "#1 in Gaming Worldwide" isn't even meaningful unless one knows "#1 what?". Heaven Sent Gaming was the subject of an unsolicited book, released in 2014, entitled Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming. Accepting Bitcoin donations, since 2009, they have been long-time advocates of cryptocurrency. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see where to verify either of these two statements. I actually wondered if I could do a really massive deletion of peripheral material in order to get this thing published, but if I deleted the second paragraph wholesale there'd be little left in the intro to explain why the interview is relevant, and drastically cutting it without deleting it is getting more involved than I'd prefer to. So I'm appealing once more to the reporter, although I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable about the age of this thing so that drastic measures to get it out the door are looking more and more plausible to me. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3007748 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Broadly, I'm not feeling at all good about this article. There's content here that probably would have made quite a good article if it had been presented substantially unadorned about a month ago. Instead, it has sat around getting old in a way that feels a bit disrespectful to the very important news principle of freshness, and is packaged along with a bunch of peripheral commentary a bunch of which appears to be undocumented and a bunch of the rest of which is corrections to the interview given later by the interviewees, which only enhances my discomfort that this has a vague feeling of publicity about it. Re documentation: When you report something, you need to provide documentation, and you should be trying to make it easy for a reviewer to find what they need in the documentation to verify what you reported. If necessary, explain to the reviewer where to find the information: you could write such explanations here on the collaboration page, or you could use html comments to embed notes invisibly in the article text itself<!-- like this -->. A concentration of verification awkwardness here is the second paragraph, which I'll discuss here; notes added after various answers to questions may also contain some such difficulties, which hopefully the reporter can identify and address as appropriate. Online entertainment is a booming market, with plenty of players attempting to make their play. This particular group has had successful publications. One such success was aywv, which was "#1 in Gaming Worldwide 2009-09-28 -until- 2009-11-17", and "networked with / claimed by" Square Enix according to the site Social Blade. Heaven Sent Gaming was the subject of an unsolicited book, released in 2014, entitled Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming. Accepting Bitcoin donations, since 2009, they have been long-time advocates of cryptocurrency. Breaking this up into parts: Online entertainment is a booming market, with plenty of players attempting to make their play. Oh? I tend to think this is probably true... but was no attempt made to provide some sort of evidence to support this? It sounds a bit like the sort of facile generality that might be casually added by an advertiser. This particular group has had successful publications. Plural? You give one example; have there been others? How does the reviewer know that? One such success was aywv, which was "#1 in Gaming Worldwide 2009-09-28 -until- 2009-11-17", and "networked with / claimed by" Square Enix according to the site Social Blade. The first part should be attributed to aywv itself since that's where the information comes from, and should be easy enough to paraphrase instead of using a direct quote. The second part... I'm not sure what it means, and if I don't know, neither will a lot of readers, so either explain it (instead of direct quoting without explanation) or leave it out. But more fundamentally, when you give aywv as an example of a successful publication, it's not at all clear what it is. I was somewhat surprised to realize it isn't a game but apparently some sort of "gaming news" sort of publication. If you're going to mention it, you need to explain enough for the mention to be meaningful — and the claimed statistic about "#1 in Gaming Worldwide" isn't even meaningful unless one knows "#1 what?". Heaven Sent Gaming was the subject of an unsolicited book, released in 2014, entitled Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming. Accepting Bitcoin donations, since 2009, they have been long-time advocates of cryptocurrency. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see where to verify either of these two statements. I actually wondered if I could do a really massive deletion of peripheral material in order to get this thing published, but if I deleted the second paragraph wholesale there'd be little left in the intro to explain why the interview is relevant, and drastically cutting it without deleting it is getting more involved than I'd prefer to. So I'm appealing once more to the reporter, although I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable about the age of this thing so that drastic measures to get it out the door are looking more and more plausible to me. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 3013427 [Passed]

Revision 3013427 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 3013427 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.