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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 ( talk) 01:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

GLaDOS

• ... that Erik Wolpaw's bitterness about employees finding text-to-speech reading lines funny helped lead him to creating GLaDOS? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20091104222639/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4151/valves_writers_and_the_creative_.php?page=2
  • ALT1: ... that Erik Wolpaw's bitterness about employees finding text-to-speech reading lines funny helped lead him to creating the character GLaDOS? Source: Same as Alt0
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nakhichevan uezd
  • Comment: Grammar seems off about Alt0 and 1 but I can't figure out why. I can definitely brainstorm more hooks for this article if you desire.

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 03:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC).

• Suggestion. Did you know... that the design for GLaDOS is based on the Birth of Venus painting upside down? * PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment and Suggestion: You stole my thunder, I was thinking of a good one! The grammar does seem off. For Alt0 ... that Erik Wolpaw was inspired to create GLaDOS after using a text to speech function? Lankyant ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• The review (which I'm starting now) is a lie! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Article is long enough and new enough (nominated 2 days after passing GA).
• @ PerryPerryD and Lankyant: I know this just passed GA, but I have major reservations about the quality of the sourcing. I've spot-checked a few places. Most of the first paragraph of Description is sourced to Game Informer. Assuming for the moment that this is actually a WP:RS (which I'm not totally convinced of), here's a list of statements I can't verify (i.e. pretty much every sentence in that paragraph):
  • "GLaDOS serves solely as the narrator, guiding players through the test chambers."
  • "Her voice is robotic, but distinctly female."
  • "GLaDOS's announcements get increasingly personal and farcical."
  • "She has several system personality cores installed"
  • "partly to prevent her from killing anyone"
  • "she's actually a complex artificial intelligence system composed of robotic parts hanging from a larger device"
  • "GLaDOS's voice becomes less robotic and more sensual."
• Moving down to Development history, first paragraph sourced to Gamasutra, which sure looks like a blog to me. It's apparently an interview with Erik Wolpaw. Statements that he said in the first person ("When I was working on Psychonauts"), are in the article in wikipedia voice ("Erik Wolpaw was writing the script for the video game Psychonauts").
• Moving down to Voice design, again we have a first-person statement in an interview ("And of course I was trying to sound like a computer") being stated in wikipedia voice ("voice actress Ellen McLain attempted to sound like a computer")
• I'm going to stop here. I honestly don't see how this passed a GA review. Unverifiable facts, unreliable sources, over-reliance on primary sources and interviews. I'll let somebody else take another look, but from where I sit, I don't see how it can pass DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith I don't see how either. I saw an unreliable blog and a forum post within seconds of looking through the references. According to this and reading the Wikipedia article, Gamesutra seems reliable enough. Too bad that isn't the only issue. SL93 ( talk) 00:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@ RoySmith: Heya, I am not new to making mistakes, I reviewed this article with direct accordance to the GA Guidelines. As for game informer, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Game_Informer GameInformer is a reliable source. I also want to mention Plot Sourcing where a games plot can act as its own citation in certain situations. I am fully willing to let someone re-asses this article. This is my direct stance on this issue. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you look at the reliability of all the sources? Like the two sources I mentioned above, this blog, this review by username The hole shebang, and a personal YouTube video. SL93 ( talk) 00:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the blog, A direct interview with the VA about wanting to sound robotic is not un-reliable. As for the youtube video, I assumed it was fine due to its context of it being about user reception of the character, and the video being used as an example of it. The blog i'll admit was my mistake. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I will step out of this to not hijack RoySmith's review. I only posted here because I'm thinking about submitting the article to be de-listed from GA. SL93 ( talk) 01:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm butting in a little here after seeing Perry mention this on the Discord. I agree that the GA review was quite scant compared to what I would expect from such a lengthy article (and I said as much on the Discord). At the very least it should probably be gone over again. However, I do think some of the concerns noted here are not really fair. Gamasutra and Game Informer are both reliable per WP:VG/RS, and I know I've used both in my gaming FAs. The Computer & Video Games review is actually bylined at the bottom to Andy Robinson, an editor at C&VG, and now an editor at Video Games Chronicle. Both sites are considered reliable per VGRS, so I don't see any issue with that review. Finally, it may be true that the article over-relies on primary sources or interviews (I haven't checked that for myself), but I don't see any reason to question basic statements people have made about their own work, such as the Ellen McLain one. Of course she's reliable about how she tried to make her performance sound. Again - I agree with the underwhelming quality of the GA, but some of the things being pointed out here aren't actually problems. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos I know I said I would leave, but I am curious about the Allen McLain interview. I was under the impression that an interview on an unreliable website can't be used. How would a reader know that such an interview has nothing that was made-up? I highly doubt that I could interview someone, post it on my blog, and then use it as a reference. SL93 ( talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The interview I see as a source for the "sounds like a computer" bit is on IGN, here; IGN is a major gaming site and I have no question that it is reliable. What unreliable website are you talking about? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I was confused then. I meant this which I didn't read all the way through. SL93 ( talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And how do we deal with my original point, that none of the statements I pointed out in the Description paragraph are mentioned in the source they're cited to? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Roy, I never claimed the article does not lack problems; I explicitly said that I think the review was not up to snuff. However, several things pointed out above were not, in my view, actually problematic and I believe it's reasonable of me to point that out. SL93, for what it's worth, I'm not sure that site is actually on-its-face unreliable - looks like their other interviews have been referenced in IGN and Kotaku, which lends it a little credence. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally get that not everything mentioned here is an actual problem. It's a matter of once you find problems, you go looking for more. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm marking this for closure. The actual problems, such as the unreliable sources (including a forum post and YouTube) and there being so many primary sources, has not been taken care of. SL93 ( talk) 20:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)