- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Off TV Play edit
- ... that the Off TV Play feature of the new Wii U does not work for all games, and some developers have chosen not to offer it?
- ALT1:... that some Wii U games do not support Off TV Play because they require interplay between the television and the Wii U GamePad controller?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Morris Industrial School for Indians
- Comment: The hook is based on the following two sentences:
- Not all games support "Off TV Play", as some games conceptually rely on the interplay between the television screen and the Wii U GamePad screen, such as ZombiU or Nintendo Land.
- However, a major concern cited is that it wasn't a required feature, meaning the developers can opt out of making it possible in their respective games, so in theory, it could become obsolete.
Created/expanded by Sergecross73 (talk). Nominated by Odie5533 (talk) at 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Cite for second half of hook is dead.- CNET appears to have changed the contents of their review, or else moved the review, because I distinctly remember verifying facts in the article to a much different looking review, and the author quoted the other review, too. I updated the link in the article and added an archive to it. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Good now. Don't worry too much about that; it happens (that's why some people like to include the archiveurl and/or a quote in their cites as well). One suggestion I do have, though: It's not relevant to the hook since you don't mention specific titles in the hook itself, but neither of your sources for the first half of the hook doesn't mention any, yet you have two titles mentioned inline. Was there another source, perhaps, that did mention them? I ask because it's happened to me sometimes when working with a lot of sources that build on the same body of basic information. Might be a good idea to fix that before it goes through to the queues. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- CNET appears to have changed the contents of their review, or else moved the review, because I distinctly remember verifying facts in the article to a much different looking review, and the author quoted the other review, too. I updated the link in the article and added an archive to it. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
