Template:Did you know nominations/Five Nights at Freddy's

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's edit

Created by ManicH6 (talk). Nominated by ViperSnake151 (talk) at 05:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

  • New (19th, a little over a week), long enough, neutral (though the part in the first section about fan speculation should be removed), no copyvio found via spot check, no QPQ as external nom. Hook appears to have an immediate ref in article in the lede (3b). Problem with the source though—first, it uses a name other than Yahoo in the ref. It also does not quite correlate "Let's Play" videos with increased sales, though I'm willing to be convinced on that. I also don't see an indication from the source that the game was a "weekly" best-seller. I don't know the article's time scope. And is the new Amazing Stories site a reliable source? I didn't see an editorial or quality assurance policy. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar  00:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Look in the markup and you'll see that's listed as an agency. But yeah, I think they're addressed. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Changes look good, but the hook does not reflect the article & source. It says the game became a best-seller after it was in Let's Play videos while the article and source do not correlate the two other than they happened at once. Also the source doesn't mention that the rankings were over the period of a week. czar  04:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't Ryulong and myself also be added for credit? I mean, i'm the one that added all the references and the entire critical reception section. Also, potential alt below. SilverserenC 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • TBH none of these read like particularly good bylines. Some things just do not look good on DYK.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 gtg. Okay, this has been up for a while now with no replies. ALT1 isn't super interesting, but it's the best of the bunch and it checks out. Struck main for not matching the article or source, and struck ALT2 as somewhat clunky in phrasing. Also the article/sources don't straight up associate Chuck E. Cheese's with the antagonists (in the current choice of phrasing/sources), but I think it's fine. czar  17:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)