Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geometry Dash/archive2

Geometry Dash

Geometry Dash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 11 October 2026, 11:21 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Geometry Dash/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Geometry Dash/archive2

Nominator(s): ZKevinTheCat (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Geometry Dash is a Swedish indie game released in 2013. While initially it flew under the radar, it quickly picked up popularity and has now grown into one of the most successful indie games of all time. Because of its initial obscurity, however, there are not many reviews from big publications, which has made it extra challenging to get this article up to snuff. After a shoddy GA review and failed FA nom I went back and basically rewrote almost the entire article a second time in March with the help of a Peer Review. If this passes this would be my first FA, and it would be a great honor to bring an article as challenging as this about I game that I've played on-and-off for over a decade to the top tier of quality on Wikipedia. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Source review - pass

This is one of my favorite games, so of course I couldn't resist doing a source review! RedShellMomentum 21:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

This table lists 5 random passages from throughout the article (5.1% of 98 total passages). These passages contain 5 inline citations (4.3% of 117 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. RedShellMomentum 21:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@ZKevinTheCat: Sorry for the delay; source review is all good. I currently have a peer review for "Pusher Love Girl" up; you may leave comments there if you wish. RedShellMomentum 02:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Classic gameplay
3	a	thegamer.com	web.archive.org	✅
Geometry Dash was created by Swedish video game developer Robert Topala. In 2010, Topala published his first video game, Bounce Ball Thingy, on Newgrounds, developing it while he was studying civil engineering. He abandoned his course as he became more interested in the video game industry.
20	a	cultofmac.com	web.archive.org	✅
The next update, update 2.2, had been teased since November 2017
6		youtube.com		✅
David Ingrusee at Indie Hive said that the graphics have the potential to be "excessively beautiful", although that some levels' decoration was overly distracting.
2	i	indie-hive.com	web.archive.org	✅
In 2019 Breakit reported that RobTop Games had earned kr 75,200,000 in profit the previous year, and a total profit of kr 313,000,000 for the previous four.
48		breakit.se	web.archive.org	✅

Pamzeis

Will review this soon! Pamzeis (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pamzeis Ditto per below. — VJTHEDJ (t) 05:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments:

• By my count, the word "level" is used almost 70 times throughout the article, including around 30–40 times in #Gameplay—it seems like it's not necessary every time it's used, for example:
  • Each level is assigned one of six difficulties: "Easy", "Normal", "Hard", "Harder", "Insane", and "Demon".[RT 1] Each levelThey contains three secret coins, requiring the player to take an alternate pathway or complete a task to obtain them.
  • And also, Completing levels will unlock icon customizations,[7] with classic levels further awarding the player with stars, and platformer levels with moons sticks out to me, because it uses level 3 times within one sentence.
• There's a bit of an issue with the "Gameplay" section being quite repetitive in its word choice. I understand there might not be alternatives for these terms, but I think there are certain cases where the structure could be altered or details could be omitted so that we don't get as much repetition.
  • Looking at the final paragraph, we've got: "There are several collectibles and currencies that can be obtained in various ways. Completing levels will unlock icon customizations,[7] with classic levels further awarding the player with stars, and platformer levels with moons.[4] Levels will also award mana orbs, with 500 mana orbs awarding a Demon key. Demon Keys can be used to unlock chests in the Treasure Room, which will give rewards, such as mana orbs, diamonds, and icon designs.[11] There are also two daily chests which award diamonds,[12] mana orbs, and Demon keys.[13] Mana orbs[14] and diamonds can be used in shops to purchase icon customizations and other cosmetics.[12] Vaults can be unlocked after obtaining certain amounts of collectibles, where entering codes can award further icon customizations.[15][16]" — I think this could definitely be more concise.
    • I have rewritten a lot of stuff in the gameplay section, but the main problem (for some of these at least) is that there are not really alternative or official terms for much of the jargon; there is not much room for tidying.
• "As he continued to develop games, he quit his civil engineering course to pursue his new career, releasing a handful of games prior to Geometry Dash such as Boomlings." — doesn't seem lead-worthy, given it's only tangentially related to the game
  • I have removed the "such as Boomlings", but kept the rest. I disagree and do think its acceptable for the lead, as this is just one sentence of an otherwise dry paragraph that gives a short but mostly complete narrative on Topala's lead-up to GD.
• "He began development in early 2013, being inspired by other titles such as The Impossible Game and Super Meat Boy." — was he inspired to begin development by other titles, or was the game itself inspired by these other titles?
  • According to the source this information ultimately comes from (Cult of Mac), it appears to be the latter.
• "He published Geometry Dash in August" — the company published the game, not the person, no?
  • This seems like a very minor semantic issue, but this has been changed.
• "A practice mode option allows checkpoints to be placed that the player can restart from" — the passive voice is a bit awkward for me here. Can it be in active voice?
  • It should be active now
• "For example, the default Cube game mode allows the player to perform jumps, the Ball game mode lets the player change gravity, while the Ship game mode allows the player to fly." — the use of while seems a bit off to me here because there are three items
• "The Dual game mode duplicates the icon, allowing the player to control both at the same time or each individually in Two-Player mode." — I'm having trouble understanding what this means. How do they control both at the same time? What is Two-Player mode? Is Dual game mode a result of the portals as well?
  • I have completely rewritten this paragraph. Hopefully it is more clear how these function.
• "Timing and rhythm are crucial" — are we talking about the player's timing and rhythm or the music's? It's not clear for me.
  • The player's
• "though this mode doesn't reward certain collectibles" — seems a bit trivial to me, and doesn't make the most sense, given collectibles are not explained until later
  • I thought it might be worth mentioning
• Is it "Demon key" or "Demon Key"?\
  • Demon Key
• "Geometry Dash features the ability to upload and play user-made levels." — not entirely sure about this wording—wouldn't it be the players that have this ability, not the game?
  • Fixed
• "These levels may use music from the main levels or feature custom music imported from Newgrounds.[3] Players may also use music from 10 selected artists,[RT 2] as well as music from the British record label NoCopyrightSounds." — couldn't this be one sentence?
  • Yes, it can be.
• "Some user levels also contain user (silver) coins, which are similar to secret coins.[16] User levels may be rated one of the six difficulties the developer levels have, or given the "Auto" difficulty if user input is not required to complete the level.[RT 1] User-made demon levels are divided into five additional difficulties: "Easy Demon", "Medium Demon", "Hard Demon", "Insane Demon", and "Extreme Demon", most of which are more challenging than the three official demon levels.[18]" — what makes the silver coins similar to secret ones? Can it just be said outright (i.e. user (silver) coins, which allow X)? Is it that they allow users to play demon levels? If so, I think the stuff about difficulty should come before the coins bit.
  • They are collected similarly
• "Some players have recreated entire video games within the level editor" — iffy on the use of "entirely" here, since it might imply that the content is exactly the same (if that makes sense?)
  • I see what you mean, this has apparently already been removed.
• "developing it while he was studying civil engineering" — if possible, I think it'd be helpful to clarify what level he was studying at (e.g. at university or something)
  • The old version of this article actually did specify that it was at university, but after looking back at the two sources mentioning this information (Cult of Mac and Topala's Game Developer article), they do not specifically say where or at what kind of institution he studied at.
• "it and Kingdom Escape were eventually scrapped" — what does "scrapped" mean here? Were they never published? Were they deactivated? Did development cease?
  • They were never published
• "According to Topala, Geometry Dash began as a platformer that could have moved in any direction." — wording seems off here—why "according to" (WP:INTEXT)? He's talking about what conceived himself, isn't he?
• "He wanted it to be a tribute to the Super Mario Bros.–style platformers he played when he was young, the game starting as a simple template of a cube that could jump and crash." — the wording's kinda awkward here, and it's a bit ambiguous where "the game" is Geometry Dash or a Mario game.
• "Geometry Dash began as a platformer that could have moved in any direction" and then "the game starting as a simple template of a cube that could jump and crash" a phrase or two later feels a bit scattered for me...
• "Other games such as The Impossible Game, Super Meat Boy, and Bit.Trip Runner inspired Topala to make Geometry Dash." — can "make" be more specific? It seems a tad informal as well.
  • I've changed most of the wording in this paragraph
• "It was developed using the Cocos2d-x game engine[27] and took Topala about four months to create." — is this still referring to the beta version?
  • Presumably the entire game, although this is not specified in any sources.
• "it would release on iOS and Android on 13 August.[c] It would later release" — WP:INTOTHEWOULDS?
  • removed
• "It would later release on Windows Phone and Steam the following year on 12 June 2014[RT 5] and 22 December 2014 respectively." — of "later", "the following year" and "2014", only one is needed.
  • "the following year" has been removed. The sentence still needs the year to have an actual date.

Stopping before #Post-release for now. In regards to some of the comments below, I've skimmed through some of the academic articles, and while some of it is... extremely mathematical, I also noted that there seemed to be quite a few pieces discussing (or briefly mentioning) its use by and impact on primary school students. Could that not be incorporated or am I going off on a weird arc-but-not-quite-tangent-cuz-I'm-still-discussing-the-article (and now I'm going off on a tangent, because I can't decide on my word choice) here? Pamzeis (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I have seen your comment, but I have not had a good time to respond to it. I can hopefully get to it in the next few days. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Letting you know that I have responded to your comments. I have implemented most of these changes. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

NRP

Will review. Ping me if I haven't left comments in a week. NRP (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@NRP Not the nominator, but you didn't leave your comments on this yet. I assume you're busy, but I'm only letting you know :P — VJTHEDJ (t) 05:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I will later today. NRP (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at prose later, but first I'm looking at sources.

• Geometry Dash needs to be italicized in sources.
• TheGamer is not reliable per WP:VALNET.
• Replace sensortower.com with the actual name of the website. That said, what makes it reliable?
• What makes Pocket Tactics reliable? And iXBT Games?
  • Both Pocket Tactics and iXBT Games are considered reliable under WP:VG/S. Content from TheGamer posted after August 2020 is considered "generally reliable". For Sensor Tower, see Fathom's discussion below (the naming error has been fixed). I am actually unsure about the appropriate style for italicizing. The sources cited do not italicize it, so I left them in regular style. Looking at the pages for other VG FAs, Genshin Impact does most of the time, while GTA V does not do it at all. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
    • They're supposed to be in italics per MOS:CONFORM; those articles should do it too. Those sources are fine then, though I would try to remove TheGamer where more reliable sources support the same information. NRP (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

      This has been done. There are a few citations that use one pair of apostrophes around the name (like this: 'Geometry Dash') These I have left alone. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

      Alright, I'll try to get to prose later in the week NRP (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Vacant0

I often see complaints about video game jargons not being addressed, especially in FAC nominations. I might do a full review, but for now, I'm just letting you know of this ongoing issue. You can see all jargons here: Glossary of video game terms. Some of them have sources listed, some don't. If you need help with addressing this, let me know. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, Google Scholar gives me 544 results when searching "Geometry Dash", so I'd suggest adding a few scholarly articles, if they're useful of course. TWL could help too. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I have actually looked at those a bit, but unfortunately I don't really see a way to use them in this article. A lot of them are also very jargon-heavy and I don't really understand them. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Monathephantom

Most of the things I picked up for now, but these two sources are not viable for a FA.

• https://www.148apps.com/geometry-dash/geometry-dash-review/ 148apps is listed as an unreliable source.
• https://thenerdstash.com/how-to-unlock-the-mechanic-in-geometry-dash/ is not considered unreliable, but it's an unknown source and all featured articles must use high quality sources

This is just everything i picked up so far. I'll review further soon. Monathephantom (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the Nerd Stash citation, but I do not see the reason to exclude 148Apps. Another featured article also uses this website as a source (it is also used on Metacritic). ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

148Apps is not listed as an unreliable source, but rather as a situational one. The source was previously deemed to be reliable, therefore it could technically pass as it is cited to an article from 2013. I doubt that newer articles from that site could pass as a reliable source at FAC. Also, Metacritic lists many sources we deem to be unreliable, therefore, that cannot really be a good argument for keeping that source in this article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Fathoms Below

RedShellMomentum when you do a source review, you are generally expected to also give a description as to why the sources meet the FA criterion of being high-quality and well researched. Monathephantom above has just raised concerns regarding two sources, and I have questions regarding the quality of some others.

• What makes Indie Hive a reliable source? The author David Ingrusee appears to have written for no reliable outlets that I can see.
• Softpedia is listed as situational on WP:VG/S, though the latest source evaluation was over 14 years ago so I am treating this with a grain of salt. But can you provide an explanation for why Andrei Dobra is a reliable source (i.e. has he written for any other reliable outlets?)
• Who is the author for the Jeuxvideo review? I've used this website before and I see that it is reliable but I would also like some information on the author if possible.
• Metacritic sources for games such as Boomlings Matchup and Memory Mastermind should only be used for the purpose of aggregating reviews, and should not be used for other things such as saying that "[Developer] also created [this game]"
• Noting here that I have used Pocket Tactics before and the author Daz Skubich appears to have written for reliable outlets such as PCGamesN
• What makes Sensortower a reliable source? It appears to be a Digital Marketing platform.
• The author of the Cult of Mac article appears to have written for Wired, a reliable source for tech, but I'm less certain of the rest of the outlet as a whole.
• The Development section as a whole has a large reliance on primary sources, including the Swedish Games Awards, YouTube videos from Topala himself, and the Cocos website (for a game developed using that engine). Later in the section the App Store version history is also cited as a source. While I have seen many video game FAs use primary sources such as YouTube according to our guidelines at WP:VG/S, they never make up more than a fraction of the cited sources and I am not confident in supporting an article for FA that uses primary source to cite a large percentage of a key section.
• There are a lot of quotations in a short reception section that could probably be paraphrased to still get the original meanings across.

I'm leaning towards opposing right now sadly due to the quality of the sourcing in the Development section. While there are good sources in there such as Vandal, TouchArcade, and Bleeding Cool, most of the coverage appears to be about the game after release, and the coverage of the game before release has a lot of questions that should be addressed. I plan to go into a deeper review later. Fathoms Below (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Let me address some of your concerns:

• I'll be truthful and say that I am not entirely sure how to evaluate a publication as reliable. I was aware that Indie Hive was not on the reliable sources list, but I was unsure if it is actually unreliable. It was not brought up in the first FA review or the peer review.
• I can't find anything on Dobra because there are apparently a lot of people with that name. I kept Softpedia as again, it was not mentioned as problematic in the first FA review or peer review. (This review is also used on Metacritic).
• If you go back to the first archive of that Jeuxvideo review it says "L'avis de Meego", which when translated means "Opinion of Meego" or something like that. I have no idea if Meego is a name or a title, so i left it out. There is another Jeuxvideo source with no available name, even in the archives, and another that appears to list the author as "Xorvencharger", which runs into the same problem as "Meego".
• I used Sensortower because i saw that it was also used in Genshin Impact, another FA
• I have removed one primary source, and perhaps I could remove more in the future, but as it stands there is very, very little on the development of this game (this applies to really almost the entire rest of the article). Trust me, I have searched extensively for information but I have been unable to find much of anything beyond what is in the article. This is the reason I rely on primary sources, including ones from Topala, Metacritic, ect. extensivly. There may be more reliable information out there but I have yet to find it. I understand the concern but in absence of this information from secondary sources this is the pretty much the only other option I was able to devise. Additionally, you mention Vandal as a good source to use but it is used for the same purpose as the Metacritic citations, for dates or other extremely basic information. Is there a difference between the two websites in this scenario? I also used a few more websites (like a lot of stuff in the Spin-off section) like this too.
• I have tried to paraphrase the quotes in the development and reception sections.

ZKevinTheCat (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that Indie Hive was not brought up in the peer review, but unless you have evidence that the outlet has a detailed editorial policy and/or it has multiple authors that have written for reliable sources, I don't think that it can be used.
• Since Softpedia is listed as situational, an author from there should probably have written for a high-quality reliable source and I couldn't find much regarding Dobra either. It seems like Softpedia was the only outlet that he has written for, but someone over at WT:VG/S may be able to do a deeper dive.
• Okay regarding Jeuxvideo
• Regarding Sensortower, I'm going to ping @Gommeh, the main author of Genshin Impact, to point me towards some of the reliable sources that cite it if possible.
• Regarding Metacritic, if I recall correctly their release date information and developer information is shared by GameFAQs which is unreliable, while Vandal's information I presume is compiled by actual journalists.
• Regarding the primary sources in the Development section, I'm actually quite surprised to see a game this old and popular receive so little development information. This seems to be a slightly similar case to Five Nights at Freddy's, where a game with a large following somehow has little to say regarding its creation. With that article I was able to squeeze out a limited amount of information from some relatively short interviews, and there was a bit of a more substantial review presence that allowed me to expand the reception section. This seems to be an even shakier case, and while I would say that the article is up to GA status, not every Good article can be made into a Featured article (certainly I think one or several of my own GAs could not be made into a FA), and the reason for this more often than not is the sourcing and/or the ability to write a comprehensive account of the topic. I'm going to abstain at the moment but I'm hesitant at supporting an article for FA when two key sections are unable to stand without some lower-quality sources.

Fathoms Below (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Sensor Tower should be fine, as the New York Times , Wall Street Journal , and USA Today have all used it, among many others (WP:USEBYOTHERS). In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 11:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)