Talk:The Sims 2: Pets

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 Lightburst talk 16:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a reviewer for The Sims 2: Pets praised its "needless detail"? Source: Bishop, Stuart (10 December 2006). "PC Review: The Sims 2: Pets". Computer and Video Games. Archived from the original on 20 January 2007. Retrieved 18 September 2023.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hanania
  • Comment: Hopefully you can see what I'm going for here? There should be a couple more hooks available in the console reviews, but you can tell from the article I got...drained by that section. Definitely up for workshopping if anyone objects to this one and wants to source-dive -- there's promising stuff, but it'll probably be a quote hook either way.

Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 01:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: Pets; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• More of a comment but the hook is kinda pedestrian. Are there any other possible options? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The Eurogamer PS2 review has a line that I intended to hook as ... that a reviewer for The Sims 2: Pets was disappointed it didn't let him drown the animals?, but that section is still very WIP. I can expand it if you think it's promising. There is also (not in this article yet because I'm still mulling over its relevance, but heavily covered in the ruwiki article, which is a GA) a particularly-ridiculous-product-tie-in moment around EA adding Hillary Duff as a downloadable character, and a review of the soundtrack that claims the lyrics for Simlish covers of real songs (I've been trying to find a way to get that into a hook) are less bad than the real lyrics. Vaticidalprophet 14:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we could go with any of those options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've expanded the console review section enough to be vaguely happy with it. How do we feel about...

ALT1: ... that a reviewer for The Sims 2: Pets was disappointed it didn't let him drown the animals? Source: Kavanagh, Liam (31 October 2006). "The Sims 2 Pets". Eurogamer. Retrieved 18 September 2023.

Unsure yet how to hook-phrase the lyrics thing. In the article we have Stuart Bishop, reviewing the PC version for Computer and Video Games, disparaged the soundtrack and its "mindless inclusion of Simlish covers of Pussycat Dolls songs", positing that Simlish versions of the band's lyrics were an improvement on the real ones. I don't like that sentence in the first place, but I don't know how to redo it yet. (This article is a huge pain -- it's really about six different games.) Vaticidalprophet 23:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think ALT1 is fine. I'll let another reviewer review this, although per recent regarding those Piri nominations at WT:DYK and given that the nom has said they're planning on bringing all the TS2 expansion packs to DYK, it might be a good idea to space out the promotions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been very clear both on- and off-wiki about having the promotions spaced out, for precisely that reason :) I'm currently doing a large chunk of the prepbuilding, which builds some natural spacing in. I expect to be working on some unrelated articles simultaneously, which should help. Vaticidalprophet 00:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well since I've already commented, I might as well just go on with the review. The article was created on time, is adequately sourced, and is free from close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done. Although somewhat dark, I do think ALT1 is a catchy hook even for non-fans of The Sims. The only issue I have with the hook is very minor: the review is actually talking about the PS2 version of the game rather than the PC expansion pack (although to be fair that's also true for the PC version). I'm not sure if that needs to be clarified in the hook or not, but it may be worth proposing an ALT specifying the PS2 version while leaving it to the promoter or whoever to decide if the mention of the PS2 is necessary or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • From a hook-writer/prep-builder POV I'm inclined to think it isn't, but I'm willing to provide:
    • ALT1a: ... that a reviewer for the PS2 version of The Sims 2: Pets was disappointed it didn't let him drown the animals?
  • I suppose it does have the interesting suggestion other versions might have let you do that :) Vaticidalprophet 23:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that works. I'll let the promoter decide between ALT1/ALT1a, although I'd like to request the promoter to take into account hookiness in this case, as in whether or not mentioning it's the PS2 version detracts from the hookiness while also keeping in mind the accuracy stuff. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Splitting off portable versions

It seems to me that this game is another one of those Harry Potter situations where each version of the game is its own separate game despite having the same title. Metacritic indicates the DS version is standalone notable and probably merits a split due to its totally alternate premise. There are 3 reviews listed for the GBA version, but it's unclear if the ones besides IGN are reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of block quote

On a side note, the block quote about animal cruelty doesn't seem relevant to the article - it's just highlighting a reviewer's particularly poor taste joke for shock value. Obviously the game is not going to let you drown animals, so I'm not sure why it's there as a supposed piece of biting commentary. If people agree, maybe it can be swapped out for something else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)