Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Danger
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Allen3 talk 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Joe Danger
[edit]- ... that PlayStation Network title Joe Danger was made entirely by a team of just four people?
- Reviewed: Stele of Sulaiman and Yongning Temple Stele — Joseph Fox 11:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Fox (talk). Self nom at 14:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 96 edits ago on October 10, 2011. 14602 characters (2417 words) "readable prose size"
|
Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 96 edits ago on October 10, 2011
|
Multiple sources in development section talking about how article was done by four developers. Text supports all related citations to the four.
|
Citations properly formatted.
|
Sources appear to be reliable industry based news sites.
|
Contains no controversial statements.
|
None spotted.
|
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Probably one of the more interesting facts from the article, so looks good.
|
It checks out for me. --LauraHale (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an impressive article, but I'm a bit concerned about the lack of reference citations in the lead section. It's not clear to me that the lead is fully supported by the body of the article (which is well sourced). For starters, I notice that the lead section and infobox are the only places that identify the game type, and neither of those is sourced. --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Only saw this now; I was under the impression ledes did not get inline citations? Both of those now sourced, hope this is not too late. — Joseph Fox 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The idea is that the WP:lead section is supposed to summarize content that appears somewhere else in the article -- and it's supposed to be sourced in the body of the article. In this instance, since it seems (based on the source you added to the lead) that there is some ambiguity in the game's classification, either the Gameplay section or the Reception section should say something about that topic. With that change, the reference citation wouldn't be needed in the lead. --Orlady (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, understood. As far as DYK goes, is it looking acceptable as-is? — Joseph Fox 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The idea is that the WP:lead section is supposed to summarize content that appears somewhere else in the article -- and it's supposed to be sourced in the body of the article. In this instance, since it seems (based on the source you added to the lead) that there is some ambiguity in the game's classification, either the Gameplay section or the Reception section should say something about that topic. With that change, the reference citation wouldn't be needed in the lead. --Orlady (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Only saw this now; I was under the impression ledes did not get inline citations? Both of those now sourced, hope this is not too late. — Joseph Fox 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
