Template:Did you know nominations/Cannon Fodder 2
- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Cannon Fodder 2
[edit]- ... that to accompany Cannon Fodder 2, its designer partially wrote a novella only to have it vetoed, leaving reviewers baffled by the game's lack of plot?
- Reviewed: Pink Turns to Blue
Created/expanded by Bridies (talk). Self nom at 17:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
New enough and long enough at time of nomination. Article is neutral enough. QPQ done. Image in article has fair use rationale.
The plot summary does not require sources but things like "commonly known as Cannon Fodder 2 is an action-strategy shoot 'em up game developed by Sensible Software and published by Virgin Interactive for the Amiga and DOS in December 1994." really do need sources if I understand that policy correctly as it isn't a summary of game play. The year also isn't cited anywhere in the article. I'm also having a hard time finding the hooked fact in article. Can article be quoted to show where it supports the hook for me?--LauraHale (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments & fixes
- Developer and publisher can be found in any of the secondary sources, but I've cited them in the infobox anyway; cited year, genres and PC port in the infobox; Amiga release is pretty obvious but feel free to add a cite to any of the sources titled Amiga Format, Amiga Power, Amiga Action, Amiga Computing, etc. The use of "commonly" I guess is synthesis based on the fact that only one secondary source uses the full title (which is why I cited that) and all others use the short title; changed "commonly" to "also".
- The second paragraph of the development section (all sourced to the cite at the end of the paragraph), says: "Campbell began work on an elaborate "plot-to-be", partially completing a novella which was intended to accompany the final product [...] However, Virgin vetoed the proposal as too expensive and took charge of the manual's production. The result was a simplified explanation which described the soldiers as in the employ of the aliens and did not clarify the time-travel element."
- Regarding the second part of the hook, I'd sourced the lack of plot to a review and made some reference to a reviewer's complaints of thematic incoherence. However reading over it you're right that the reviewers "bafflement" doesn't come across. So I've added this to the start of the reception section: "Reviewers complained about the lack of plot, with Amiga Power stating: "There's little explanation as to why you're doing this [time-travelling] and absolutely none in the game. As a result, the game doesn't hang together." [cite] AUI called the plot "pointless",[cite] while Amiga Computing called it a "slight problem", saying "you have to guess what is going on in the game because there's no plot explanation [...] it's all very confusing!"[cite]
- First part of the hook is cited to a primary source, but he reiterated the claim in less detail in an interview published in a secondary source. The latter part of the hook is of course cited to multiple secondary sources. bridies (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given the citation caveats Laura expressed above, I think the summary icon has been omitted, and this should not have a final tick like it appears to have. If I'm wrong, Laura, please feel free to override my question mark. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a huge fan of cited infoboxes but I realise music and video games kind of have this as a convention so will tick good to go on this as cited infobox covers points in the lead that I found problematic. --LauraHale (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)