Talk:Octogeddon

Did you know nomination

The following 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: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Octogeddon was designed by George Fan, who also previously designed Plants vs. Zombies?
  • ALT1:... that Octogeddon was created by an indie development company consisting of people who worked on Plants vs. Zombies?
  • ALT2:... that a prototype of Octogeddon was submitted to a Ludum Dare contest before being developed into an official video game?
  • ALT3:... that PCGamesN sent out eight free codes for PC gamers to play a beta copy of Octogeddon before its release, but no one accepted any?

• Reviewed: I have only four DYK credits. A quid pro quo is not required.

Moved to mainspace by Lazman321 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Lazman321: Great work. Of the hooks, I think ALT2 or ALT3 is more interesting compared to ALT0 or ALT1. However, for ALT2, I personally would describe how the contest requires a game to be created from scratch in 48 hours. Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lazman321, the source (both above and in the article) for the ALT3 hook shows the availability of the 8 free codes, but it doesn't show that no-one took advantage of them. Do you have a source for the latter? If so, please add it and ping me when you've done so. MeegsC (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC That means the ALT 3 hook is not usable. Pass ALT 2 hook then. Lazman321 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Toa Nidhiki05 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Article has images that meet policy and add to the page’s quality.
• Coverage is broad and specific when need be.
• Page is very stable; no edit wars on the page.
• Article has a reference section and citations to reliable sources; sources are of generally excellent quality. Content isn’t plagiarized and citations are used, not original research.

Prose

• Change "Days after lay-off" to "Days after he was laid off".

• Done

• Remove quotation marks around "All Yes Good"

• Done

• Remove the comma after "video game composer"

• Done

• I would convert "with Walker saying that Octogeddon was "not the sure-fire hit that Plants vs. Zombies once was,"[3] and Carter saying that Octogeddon did not have the replay value that Plants vs. Zombies.[2]" into a separate sentence rather than having a semicolon separating it off. It's already quite long, so this would make it a bit easier to read.

• Done

• Change "was praised" to "were praised"

• Done

• Wikilink permadeath; perhaps also clarify this in the gameplay section

• Done

• Change "octopus, Octogeddon, himself" to just "Octogeddon himself"

• Done

• Change "Unfortunately" to "However"

• Done

Citations

• Link IGN in citation 6

• Done

• Link Kotaku in citation 7

• Done

• Link Gamasutra in citation 10

• Done

• Link Nintendo in citation 19

• Done

Putting this on hold until the minor prose and citation issues are fixed. Other than that, this is about as good of an article as you can get for an indie game imo. Once these issues are addressed, article should be good to pass. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: I am done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

All issues resolved, so this passes. Great work! Toa Nidhiki05 19:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George Fan 2018 (cropped 1).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)