Template:Did you know nominations/Antichamber
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Editor has not addressed concerns and hasn't edited since April 30.
Antichamber
[edit]- ... t hat the upcoming video game Antichamber was originally titled Hazard: The Journey of Life?
Created/expanded by Alfredofreak (talk). Self nom at 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources are considered reliable for video games, new enough, long enough, and no copyvio or close paraphrasing, but this isn't an interesting hook in my opinion. My reasoning is that plenty of media titles including video games have a previous name. Whether it was an in production name before the release date or the company just thought of a better name to sell their product. Is there any other hook that you have in mind? SL93 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. I'd suggest something tied around allowing the player to wander through non-Euclidian space. Cbl62 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Cbl62. A hook about the non-Euclidean space (or labyrinth) would be interesting (I got the word "labyrinth" from this source). Note that the "Game Play" section needs sourcing. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess my review wasn't as thorough as I thought it was. Sorry about missing that. My excuse would be that I couldn't control my eyes wandering to the bigger sections. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I found non-Euclidean here - [1], but not anything for the rest. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- First person and Bruce's quote There is a note within the article that the quote is said in the video. I will source it all. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Cbl62. A hook about the non-Euclidean space (or labyrinth) would be interesting (I got the word "labyrinth" from this source). Note that the "Game Play" section needs sourcing. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Everything is now sourced. What about "... that the video game Antichamber allows players to travel through non-Euclidean space? SL93 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am having difficulty finding the basis for several statements in the article in the online sources that are cited in connection with the statements. This may reflect the fact that I do not habitually visit videogamer websites and don't look through the content the same way a gamer would. However, it probably means that some of the information is not on the same webpage that is named in the footnote. Regarding the video, if article content is sourced to an online video, the reference citation in the article needs to explicitly identify the video is the source. A comment that is hidden in the HTML coding is not sufficient for a reference citation. Additionally, I see that the text for a couple of citations to online sources reads ""Internet Archive Wayback Machine". Web.archive.org. 2010-05-01. Retrieved 2012-04-29." This is not the right way to cite an archived url. It's good to supply archive urls, but the Internet Archive is not the original source of the content; the reference citation needs to identify the original source and indicate that the content is now archived. --Orlady (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would give it a go, but the nominator hasn't logged in all month. With these type of noms, maybe it's just better to close it. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the Development section's sources again and I was able to find almost everything. I am use to these types of articles, but I don't feel motivated to reword it or explain how the sentences are correct or watch the video and reference exactly where the quotes are said. Maybe if the editor comes back. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- You, as first reviewer, aren't necessarily responsible for fixing the nomination. It's always nice when one of us reviewers can sort things out to "fix" a flawed nomination, but that isn't always possible. The article creator hasn't edited since 30 April; hopefully, they will return soon and see the notice on their talk page. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)