Template:Did you know nominations/Aztez


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Aztez

 * ... that Team Colorblind left tutorials out of their upcoming beat 'em up Aztez so the player would feel empowered, "like a badass"?


 * Reviewed: Price Creek, Pancoast Creek (the former)

Moved to mainspace by Czar (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough, within policy, and QPQ done. Article is currently under-discussion for deletion but I think it'll pass. Good to go. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg - No longer under deletion review but I would suggest: ALT1: ... that Team Colorblind left tutorials out of their upcoming beat 'em up Aztez so the player would feel "like a badass"?
 * The original hook reads as even more childish than the ALT1. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg, what do you think? –  czar   00:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think we need a different reviewer altogether to take a look at this nomination. Anyone who says a DYK is "good to go" when an AfD is ongoing should have nothing more to do with that nomination, since nominations are supposed to be on hold until the AfD closes. (See WP:DYKSG.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article wasn't created or have its prose expanded at least fivefold/twofold and not a good article. However, Symbol confirmed.svg The article was created on that day and the article is long enough with more than 1700 characters. It is also within policy.


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The hook is fewer than 200 characters (I think I would prefer ALT1) and it is interesting, accurate and cited and it is neutral. may I have your opinion since I am a new reviewer. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , the article was mainspaced (from draftspace) and nominated on May 2nd, which should be fine for DYK. – czar   15:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The article says that there are "minimal tutorials", not no tutorials at all. The source itself talks about "instruction" rather than tutorials, and in a roundabout way.  The hook needs to be revised to accurately reflect the source. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is all about how the developers do not direct players at all, e.g., via explicit tutorial(s). Rephrased main hook for the above concerns. Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  –  czar   05:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Czar, it's really hard to keep track of what has happened if you edit hooks in place and turn subsequent comments into nonsense. I've restored the original hook (and struck it and ALT1 due to issues raised), and am listing your newly revised main hook below as ALT2. Vincent60030, I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow when I'll have more time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that Team Colorblind thought that their upcoming beat 'em up, Aztez, would empower players because it minimizes direct guidance?


 * I've now read through the article, and so far as I can tell the game has been delayed and does not have a release date. The intro claims a 2015 release date without any sourcing and needs a source if the date is to be used, and the Development paragraph says it "was expected" to have an early 2014 release but "is expected" to have a subsequent console release, which is an odd combination of tenses. The fact that a source dated March 17, 2014, says that the game is "currently scheduled for release in early 2014" should be a red flag about its accuracy, since "early" was already in the past by that point. Until all this is straightened out, I don't believe the article should be approved. Are there any reliable sources from 2015 that could be incorporated? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , the article was drafted in 2014 and wasn't updated properly (the 2015 release date was original research). I've updated and sourced the fact that it has no set release date. All the secondary sources in the article are vetted (WP:VG/RS). It shouldn't be a big deal that a March source reports a release date as "early 2014". Release dates change all the time. – czar   18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, release dates change all the time, but no competent publication would give a vague release date that meant a release either in the past or in a matter of days. That kind of uncritical parroting of company publicity (which is the kindest explanation for what they did) reflects poorly on the source, even if it is normally considered reliable. However, the article seems to have been updated to reflect the current status of the game, and now includes some 2015 sources. I've made some edits to sharpen a few points, and more accurately reflect the timing of one source. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Would like some other reviewer than myself to go over the article to make sure it holds together. ALT2 also needs to be checked. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Length, age neutrality, QPQ, copyvio, cites, all that jazz, are fine. The original hooks would have been fine (that's what the developers said) but ALT2 is also OK (with a little tweak). Ready Belle (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)