Talk:Splatoon 2: Octo Expansion/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: TheBrickGraphic (talk · contribs) 21:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi. I'll take this on. If you don't hear back from my by this time next week, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ProtoDrake Pinging since it's been a week. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ProtoDrake Sorry, I think I pinged incorrectly, lol TheBrickGraphic (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Review
Sorry for the delay, life's been...a lot. Some general comments first.
- Not sure on the Wikipedia policy, but I don't think there need to be isolated one-sentence paragraphs. They can be merged. If needed, other paragraphs can be reworked so none of them are too bukly.
- Partially done. I merged the mention of Octolings being playable upon completing the story into the last paragraph of Gameplay. As for the one-sentence paragraph in Plot, I feel that, being a canon detail detached from what's conveyed directly in the game, there's no realistic place I could merge it into. I'd like to keep it, as I think it provides decently useful context, but I'm open to other ideas. Lastly, I merged all of Legacy into Reception, and as a result I renamed Reception to "Reception and legacy". I deleted the one-sentence-long reporting of Splatoon 2's story mode's increased completion rate since I don't think it's relevant; the remaining coverage on Splatoon 3 was thus too short to warrant its own section. TheBrickGraphic (talk)
- The story synopsis seems a little overlarge. I think it could be trimmed down.
Done. Trimmed from 536 words to 469. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Some references aren't linked properly to their publisher's/website's Wikipedia page such as Ref 12. Make sure the references are formatted consistantly.
- Done. Added every missing link as far as I can tell. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Some sources are raising question marks for me. One I know isn't good is Ref 19 Nintendo Everything, which isn't counted as a valid source. You can check this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for a list of accepted, situational and unrecognised sources.
- Partially done. I have bit to say about the sources. I have actually looked at WP:VG/S previously for cross-checking reliable sources and have already cut a good number of them from the article (particularly in this edit I happened to make on the same day of your initial comment: ). As for the Nintendo Everything ref, I only kept it because it's a direct translation of a dev interview originally published through the Switch News app, an archived version of which is not available online as far as I can tell. I did find a Nintendo Life article that covers the same interview, but it uses Nintendo Everything as its source. At this point I'll probably just cut it entirely, but I'd also like your input if possible. Aside from that, I also deleted a few other dubious sources; let me know if anything else seems amiss. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @TheBrickGraphic: Did a quick check with some others. It's either cite the original, or cut it. Since the original seems unavailable, cutting it seems the only option. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Gotcha, just removed them now. I got rid of the content they were being attached to as well since they’re not super essential anyway. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @TheBrickGraphic: Did a quick check with some others. It's either cite the original, or cut it. Since the original seems unavailable, cutting it seems the only option. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
That's my initial general comments. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Second round
- Lead
- You don't need to link "Downloadable content" and "DLC". Best thing to do, both in the lead and in gameplay, is to to "downloadable content (DLC)".
- Done. Removed link to "DLC" in the lead. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Gameplay
- You don't really introduce what Octo Expansion is here, only in the lead. Is it standalone? DLC? Right now that information is only in the lead.
- Done. Clarified that it's a single-player DLC with an appropriate source. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Splatoon 2 isn't linked in its first appearance, which is here.
- Done. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Plot
- "Agent 3, the protagonist of Splatoon." -- Is Agent 3 the protagonist of the entire Splatoon franchise? You've linked to the series article.
- Agent 3 is the protagonist of the first Splatoon (2015). Linking to the series article was a genuine mistake, just fixed it. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Agent 3 is the protagonist of the first Splatoon (2015). Linking to the series article was a genuine mistake, just fixed it.
- Development
- A general point: it feels like there is an overabundance of quotes where paraphrasing could suffice.
- Done. Cut the number of quotes from 5 to 2. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- "Development of Octo Expansion began during Splatoon 2's series of free updates." -- Does this mean production began in 2017? We don't have any dates for Splatoon 2 beyond the lead, once again.
- Looking through Ref 12 Famitsu, the interviewer Vanilla Kondo says that they asked the team one year prior (Ref 12 is from 2018, so this would be around 2017) whether Off the Hook would appear in a standalone story, to which director Yusuke Amano said he had then thought of one. Since Off the Hook are prominent protagonists in Octo Expansion, it's safe to assume Amano was referring to Octo Expansion here. Thus, would it be more accurate to say
"Octo Expansion's conceptualization began shortly after the release of Splatoon 2 in 2017"
? TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- @TheBrickGraphic: Yes, that would be a more accurate way of phrasing it. It's a point. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Looking through Ref 12 Famitsu, the interviewer Vanilla Kondo says that they asked the team one year prior (Ref 12 is from 2018, so this would be around 2017) whether Off the Hook would appear in a standalone story, to which director Yusuke Amano said he had then thought of one. Since Off the Hook are prominent protagonists in Octo Expansion, it's safe to assume Amano was referring to Octo Expansion here. Thus, would it be more accurate to say
- Is there explicitly something "nostalgic" mentioned? The only mentions of this are in the lead, and in an uncited image caption. Also, no other mention of "vaporwave" anywhere outside the caption.
- In Ref 12 Famitsu, Hisashi Nogami mentions that that the Game & Watch, multiple of which can appear floating in some levels, remain "nostalgic" to some people. Both Nogami and Seita Inoue elaborate that they sought to have players experience nostalgia (generalized as "things that we've forgotten") in various ways as an allusion to the game's themes of memory. This also applies to the names of the in-game levels; the English localization team was told merely to describe things "nostalgic" to the local audience. However, this isn't mentioned in the text itself, which... isn't great. Meanwhile, the mention of "vaporwave" was intended to describe the actual picture; I chose to include this specific concept art because I thought it best represented how the game is darker and more dated than previous games (vaporwave itself being based on the pop culture of the 1980s-90s). That being said, I understand if that's too much context needed to understand why "vaporwave" is relevant. Since I think further explaining the "nostalgia" would be redundant and "vaporwave" itself isn't mentioned by the devs, would it be best for the art to be removed altogether? @ProtoDrake TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @TheBrickGraphic: I think the image itself can be kept as it does fit the definition of "retro" as outlined, and does . Just the exact wording seemed off. If kept, the caption needs rewriting. I leave that decision to you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ProtoDrake: Would this version suffice?
"Concept art of Agent 8 in a vaporwave-style location. The environments of Octo Expansion were designed to appear dated to contrast with the established art styles of previous Splatoon installments."
? TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- @TheBrickGraphic: Yes, I think that's acceitable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ProtoDrake: Would this version suffice?
- @TheBrickGraphic: I think the image itself can be kept as it does fit the definition of "retro" as outlined, and does . Just the exact wording seemed off. If kept, the caption needs rewriting. I leave that decision to you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- In Ref 12 Famitsu, Hisashi Nogami mentions that that the Game & Watch, multiple of which can appear floating in some levels, remain "nostalgic" to some people. Both Nogami and Seita Inoue elaborate that they sought to have players experience nostalgia (generalized as "things that we've forgotten") in various ways as an allusion to the game's themes of memory. This also applies to the names of the in-game levels; the English localization team was told merely to describe things "nostalgic" to the local audience. However, this isn't mentioned in the text itself, which... isn't great. Meanwhile, the mention of "vaporwave" was intended to describe the actual picture; I chose to include this specific concept art because I thought it best represented how the game is darker and more dated than previous games (vaporwave itself being based on the pop culture of the 1980s-90s). That being said, I understand if that's too much context needed to understand why "vaporwave" is relevant. Since I think further explaining the "nostalgia" would be redundant and "vaporwave" itself isn't mentioned by the devs, would it be best for the art to be removed altogether? @ProtoDrake TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- " and deduced that a dedicated single-player experience was the best manner of accomplishing this." -- Deduced or decided?
- Just skimmed over some dictionary definitions for
"deduce"
and it generally applies to conclusions made from factual, logical reasoning, while"decide"
is more subjective. I think the latter was more so what I was trying to convey; just replaced it. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Just skimmed over some dictionary definitions for
- "Examples of generational artifacts that make regular appearances include Game Boys and neon lighting fixtures.[6]" -- This uses a review, not a developer comment.
- My intent with adding this was more so to provide context for the reader as to what aspects of the level design were influenced by
"the culture of 'forgotten generation[s]', like those of the 1980s"
. In hindsight though, I suppose you're right that it being sourced to a review doesn't fit into "Development", which is otherwise solely developer interviews and the like. Just removed it, since it's not super important either way. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- My intent with adding this was more so to provide context for the reader as to what aspects of the level design were influenced by
- Release
- "A physical version of Splatoon 2 with the DLC included made available on October 8, 2021" -- "was made available".
- Done. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Reception
- Again, maybe a few too many quotes in places.
- Done. Cut the number of quotes from 9 to 3. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- OpenCritic is valid, but not used outside the score box. If you want to keep it, pobably best to work it into the first paragraph (and fill out the reference).
- Huh. For some reason OpenCritic never showed up on the ref list so I just never filled it out/used it. Just added it. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Huh. For some reason OpenCritic never showed up on the ref list so I just never filled it out/used it. Just added it.
- "was especially acclaimed by critics.[11][9][37]" -- Rearrange refs to be in the proper order.
- Done. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
TheBrickGraphic These stood out to me reading through the prose. Structurally and in its essentials it seems sound, but there are just points that stood out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
TheBrickGraphic Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)