Template:Did you know nominations/Paper Mario: Sticker Star

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) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Paper Mario: Sticker Star

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the developers of Paper Mario: Sticker Star de-emphasized a proper story, because less than one percent of players found the previous game's plot interesting? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that Paper Mario: Sticker Star was the first game in the series to appear on a handheld console? Source: [2]
  • ALT2:... that according to writer Taro Kudo, Paper Mario: Sticker Star did not need a complex story to "drive the action"? Source: [3]
  • ALT3:... that Paper Mario: Sticker Star uses an episodic narrative to compliment on the go gameplay? Source: [4][5]

• Reviewed: 5th nomination, QPQ exempt

Created/expanded by Le Panini (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC).

• Only finding 2 previous DYK credits but definitely QPQ exempt either way. Can you change "only" to "under" in the hook and in the corresponding sentence in the article, because the quote is actually: not even one percent said the story was interesting? Otherwise, the (first proposed) hook is (the most) interesting, verifiable and mentioned in the body with an inline citation. The article was promoted to GA appropriately (though nomination says "Created/expanded"—next time double check that template parameter), is plenty long and very detailed with no obvious policy/guideline issues. Will be good to go after that one word is changed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I felt under to fit weirdly, so I'll use less than. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oof, talk about a slow response. I've made the same change in the article myself here in the interest of finishing the review before the end of the calendar year. In all seriousness, ALT0 approved and thank you for your work on this article! — Bilorv (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Yeah, sorry I took forever. I've been busy with... hm... Le Panini ^[🥪] 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)