Talk:Mouthwashing (video game)

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 Hilst talk 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 2024 psychological horror game Mouthwashing utilises non-diegetic scene transitions that mimic glitches and crashes?

• Source: Marshall, Cass (6 October 2024). "Mouthwashing is a great horror appetizer in the lead-up to Halloween". Polygon

• ALT1: ... that the 2024 psychological horror game Mouthwashing debuted on Steam to Overwhelmingly Positive user reviews? Source: Morris, Daniel (6 October 2024). "New Steam Horror Game Has 'Overwhelmingly Positive' Reviews". Game Rant
• ALT2: ... that the 2024 psychological horror game Mouthwashing utilises a low poly visual style inspired by original PlayStation titles? Source: Bardhan, Ashley (16 October 2024). "How Indie Horror Games Are Bringing Back Retro Grime". Rolling Stone
• Reviewed:
• Comment: First time nominating an article, I hope I did everything correctly!

Created by Ethmostigmus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk contribs) 10:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC).

• The page is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, written in a neutral POV and copyright free (according to Earwig). QPQ not required as nom has less than 5 DYKs. However, since games like Stardew Valley, Terraria, Beamng Drive, Undertale are all in the 'overwhelmingly positive' region and were released several years ago, I don't think ALT1 is interesting. Even Tiny Glade (released just 30 days ago) are in that region. Other ALTS are fine. JuniperChill (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Hi @Shapeyness, just wanted to start a discussion regarding your decision to remove the reviews from Gazettely and Noisy Pixel from the article. I'm curious as to what led you to deem the Gazettely review unreliable - while the publication hasn't been vetted at WP:VGRS, I see no factual innacuracies to give reason for concern. In fact, I'd say it's one of the best and most detailed reviews currently available, and is quite valuable for the purpose of this article. I was aware that Noisy Pixel is listed at WP:VGRS as "unreliable" when I included it in the article - I did this on purpose, as upon reading the linked thread[1] I found that the discussion was minimal and likely warranted a "caution" or "situational" label rather than "unreliable". That aside, the content of the review is perfectly decent and I see no red flags or factual errors, so I feel it is entirely appropriate to use in this context. In the absence of any real concerns about reliability, I think incorporating both sources only serves to improve the article. Please let me know if there's something I've missed! If not, I would like to see both sources used to further expand the Reception section. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 16:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought the sources in the article would be enough to cover everything, but if you think these could be used to add anything then I wouldn't necessarily be opposed. Shapeyness (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, I wanted to make sure I got your input before attempting to incorporate them into the article again - I have a few ideas on how I'd like to use them, so I'll work on that tonight. Thank you again for your contributions to this article :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)