Template:Did you know nominations/Firefly Online

Firefly Online

 * ... that the Firefly universe is continuing in Firefly Online, an official video game set to release this year?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Invisible (U2 song)

Moved to mainspace by Samwalton9 (talk), Bananasoldier (talk). Nominated by Samwalton9 (talk) at 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New (mainspaced Feb. 9), long enough, within policy, no copyvio found via spotcheck, QPQ done, hook ce. Maybe it's a bit too obvious, but that the game is a continuation of the Firefly franchise is not referenced in the article. Also a hook about the fan version being cancelled would be slightly more interesting, methinks. Good work! Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  ♔  05:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, proposing an Alt here in that case:
 * Alt 1: ... that Firefly fans were developing their own video game based on the franchise before an official game, Firefly Online, was announced?
 * Feel free to propose another/rewording, I'm not great at writing these! Samwalton9 (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those two are fine with me. I went to add a citation that the game was based on the Firefly series, but I found that Fox did not say they sanctioned the unauthorized game in that source, so you'll want to rephrase. (Also is DarkCryo a studio or a group of people?) czar  ♔  14:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh whoops, that was in the previous source, I've cited that now. DarkCryo appears to be a somewhat informal 'studio' compromised of the developers who were interested in making the game. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg gtg, either hook czar  ♔  17:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Our job is not to help hype the product for its release in the summer. The product isn't even released yet, and the sources are a series of write-ups about the product release announcement. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it terribly unkind to vague wave at WP:SPAM and WP:NOT policies without specifying what part you're invoking, especially when the article is written by a respected video games editor, is certainly not meeting spam criteria as promotional in nature, and meets all the criteria for inclusion as an encyclopedic article on the topic. Furthermore, there is clearly much more referenced than a singular product announcement. So perhaps you could assume good faith that the intent isn't to hype and state your concerns more precisely? Since as it stands, you've said you don't like it but haven't offered a route to improve the article as if your concerns were insurmountable. czar  ♔  13:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? It actually matters not who writes the article. But in plain English, and in actionable terms, I'd say that the current hook seems to be pushing the product's summer launch and is thus not acceptable. It's like saying "Watch out for the ever-popular Firefly, coming out this summer as 'Firefly Online'". The article itself is based almost exclusively on "announcements". That means all the so-called reliable sources are writing directly from what the publishers are saying about the product. If what they say in the press release that everyone is basing their columns on is wrong, the whole thing falls apart. The article needs third party critical commentary, but none of the "reviewers" has had any first-hand experience of the game, so technically these are not reviews; we won't get that until much nearer the release date when true reviewers have had the chance to play the game in its final version and give it a thorough test drive. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the initial hook sounds too promotional; I wasn't sure exactly what to go with for the hook and ended up with something generic. To defend my first hook a little though, I chose it since Firefly fans are notorious for wanting the return of the series and the hook was designed to be a 'Hey, there's actually an official continuation coming!' (I appreciate that there have been comics). That said I do much prefer the alt. I agree that there are one or two too many 'announcement' sources, but the fairly extensive coverage of just a SDCC announcement indicates notability beyond "X is coming out" to me. That io9 have a more in-depth look, Joystiq updated an old article about the fan-made game with an update following the announcement of this game, and gameinformer wrote some skeptical words about the game, would indicate that there is enough reliable sourcing for a DYK. I also don't see anywhere that the alt hook or article go against the DYK criteria unless you consider the article entirely advertisement in which case you should probably take it to AfD. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that you acknowledge my perception of issues with the article. I've just also looked at SkyCycle (concept), which I can draw parallels with. It's clear that AfD is not an option, as the topic is already notable as a concept, although I still think the article is marginally premature. I would have left it as two brief paragraphs in Firefly until reviewers had made some real test drives. To proceed with this review, I would definitely suggest striking the original hook. I would also suggest prefacing the Gameplay section to qualify that the description thereof is based on the developers. I would also suggest then removing all the cites that are not essential and centring on a select few, or doubling them up. Leaving them spread out like they now appears a little deceptive because they are essentially saying the same thing yet flooding the article with different citations. For the Development section, I believe that the text after "The development team is planning ..." could be deleted as too speculative and definitely wreaks of vaporware. An additional point: "The PC versions will be distributed via Steam" seems to imply that Steam has exclusivity, although the Steam link does not read like that. If exclusive, it should explicitly say so; if not, it should be deleted.  The article can be further developed when the product is launched, after new sources with hands-on description and critical commentary about the gameplay become available.  --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put this article up for discussion at AfD, so this nomination is effectively on hold until it is closed. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OhC asked me to comment here - I don't think the article should be deleted as it likely going to happen (given the announcement) and also a reasonable search term, but the limited information available probably means it is better currently described within the Firefly franchise article (redirecting the current article there) until it can be expanded more; as such, with that expansion, you will likely have a more interesting hook (like hypothetically, "...Fireflys creator, Joss Whendon, was directly involved in developing the script for the upcoming Firefly Online video game?" Just saying it is announced and continues the series is not really "hooky". --M ASEM  (t) 18:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is currently at AfD as noted above, so adding appropriate icon to reflect that nomination on hold until this is resolved. (The previous X icon was no longer appropriate.)BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD now ended with 'Keep'. I would move to strike the original hook, and either go with ALT1 or the one suggested by Masem – ALT2: "... Joss Whendon, creator of Firefly, was directly involved in developing the script for the upcoming Firefly Online video game?". --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT 1 would be the one to go with; Joss Whedon actually isn't directly involved as far as I can tell. Samwalton9 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Struck main hook, ALT1 still gtg czar  ♔  13:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I just struck ALT2 due to previously expressed accuracy concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)