Template:Did you know nominations/Adrift (video game)

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 Allen3 ^talk 12:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Adrift (video game)

(

)

... that the original prototype for the upcoming video game Adrift was developed by three people in ten weeks?

ALT1:... that the upcoming video game Adrift is a metaphor for the controversy caused by developer Adam Orth's comments on the Xbox One's proposed digital rights management strategy?
Reviewed: Hard Candy (film)
Comment: Hook source, ALT1 source

Created by Rhain1999 (talk). Self nominated at 08:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC).

The hook - while compelling - seems to be sourced to a self-published source, namely, the video game publisher's own website. Could the hook be changed to "that developers claimed the original ..."? Other than that it's new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and seems to meet all other criteria. DocumentError (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@DocumentError: I have actually read some external sources that back up the statement in the hook, but I'm fine with changing the hook as you suggested. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, would it be possible to change the hook so that the title of the game reads "ADR1FT"? This is the official title for the game, and I actually believe that the article itself should be renamed if it does not conflict with any policies. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@DocumentError, courtesy ping. Re: ADR1FT, the precedent of Se7en and Driv3r is to not spell it that way (with the sole exception of mentioning it once as a stylization in the lede). czar ⨹ 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was the case. Thanks for the information, czar! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Original reviewer has not responded to this. New review requested. Fuebaey (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

New (Dec 15th), long enough, neutral, a few close paraphrasing concerns here, QPQ done. First hook needs an immediate ref in article (see 3b). Rephrased second hook to be a bit more neutral. Really, really nice work with this. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ⨹ 23:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, czar! I've gone ahead and changed some of the things you mentioned. Let me know if there are any remaining problems. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 02:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

works for me, hooks check out, gtg. One thing I'd add is that the close paraphrasing changes should be more than moving around the affected words but recasting the sentence to similar words wherever they can be avoided czar ⨹ 02:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)