Talk:Club Penguin Rewritten

Did you know nomination

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 CSJJ104 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Soccer Mommy hosted a virtual concert through Club Penguin Rewritten? Source: The Verge

  "This spring, popular artist Soccer Mommy played a live music set in Club Penguin Rewritten as part of a larger wave of in-game concerts during the pandemic." NME

  • ALT1: ... that players of Club Penguin Rewritten used the game as a way of escapism from the COVID-19 pandemic? Source: New York

    "The site and others like it experienced a boost in popularity in the early weeks of the pandemic, as teens and young adults who grew up with the game used it to convene from quarantine."

  • Reviewed: QPQ exempt (0 credits)
  • Comment: I might not respond as often in the following months.

Moved to mainspace by Zxcvbnm (talk). Nominated by Sparkl (talk) at 12:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC).

• Are you sure this is notable, @Zxcvbnm:? Is it not just a copyrighted version of the original game? —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Normally, I'd say it should be merged, if it was a flash-in-the-pan thing. But, I think it got enough coverage as a social phenomenon to be its own entity, in addition to the controversy over its shutdown, despite not having a massive difference with the original. It's notable as a clone that got as many users as a real AAA MMO. If people disagree though, I will be fine to admit I am wrong. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• I do think that if the article goes to DYK, it should be focused on its unauthorized nature and high amount of users. Like "by the time the unofficial Club Penguin Rewritten was shut down due to copyright infringement, it had more than 10 million users", or something of that nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do to improve the article. I also don't mind Zxcvbnm's suggestion as well. Here's the source for that if you're curious: gamesradar+ This New Statesman piece goes into very great detail about the development of the game: New Statesman Sparkl^talk 22:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'll join the chorus and say that this does deserve its own article as an unlicensed clone that has (er, had) taken a life of its own, just like the many Mario and Sonic ROM hacks out there. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• New enough, long enough, neutral. Gave it a copyedit for grammar and sectioning. I would like to see the development section expanded in the future, as it's not clear from the article if the remake is a clone in the sense that the developers copied the original assets from working copies of the old Club Penguin or if they recreated the game from scratch (or both). But that's out of the scope for a DYK review. No close paraphrasing. QPQ exempt. Prefer ALT0, as ALT1 is kind of how all video games were used during the pandemic. DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

So should we talk about some of the staff?

Especially Screenhog/Chris Hendricks, who was one of the staff in the original game before leaving in 2010. Anonymosee (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't heard any responses from them or much of the original Club Penguin development team as far as I'm aware. Sparkl^talk 23:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Club Penguin Rewritten/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ThadeusOfNazereth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Logging that I will be reviewing this momentarily. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• I've reviewed first to see if the issues brought up by the previous GA reviewer have been addressed. I am pleased to say that they have been! I went ahead and added a more specific source for the release date, but at first glance this is not an instant fail and I will be moving on to the full criteria. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The article is readable. I made some minor adjustments for flow and SPAG but there were no systemic issues.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No issues of note.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	No issues of note.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	No issues of note.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No issues of note.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwig was clean.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	All major aspects are covered. I think the notice at the top of the "Gameplay and development" section linking to Gameplay of Club Penguin is sufficient for this article as the major change (no memberships) is covered in-text.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Removed a couple filler sentences as part of my WP:BOLD changes but otherwise there were no issues.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No issues of note.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No issues of note.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No issues of note, the fair-use image has detailed rationale.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No issues of note.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Great job on this article! It meets all the criteria and can be promoted to GA. It was a really interesting read - I remember the original game from my childhood and it's a shame that this recreation was shut down.

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.