Talk:Bonfire (Dark Souls)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin Hi, so when will you start the review if you don’t mind me asking? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh my bad, I was without a PC for like a week so I forgot about this. Let me finish up another GA and I'll get this finished today. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I can wait a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'll prioritize this since it seems the other GA nom has been inactive. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead

1. My first thought is to make sure that "bonfires" and "bonfire" is consistent; I feel like it's a little loosey goosey with respect to when it uses one or the other.
2. I feel like the "positive reception" bit could go at the beginning of the paragraph, since all of the paragraph deals with positive reception to it.
3. I feel like "many Easter eggs" is a little exaggerative for five games; maybe use several instead.

Implemented your lead suggestions, although I'm unsure about what you mean by the first one. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What I mean for the first one is that it feels like it sometimes uses singular or plural differently for no apparent reason. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So I should consistently use either singular or plural form, is that correct? PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason to use one over the other, yeah - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Replaced most plural forms in the lead. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Characteristics

1. Is it important to mention that the character is undead? I don't think that anything is really lost if that factor is not mentioned.

I suppose not really, removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Which source is used to verify that Dark Souls 3 allows upgrading, leveling up, and repairing gear? I'd also appreciate if you could double check that the existence of these features is verified for 1 and 2 as well.

I believe that this is technically (or partially depending on how you want to look at it) confirmed when the Polygon article states, "Those bonfires were to enable players to perform various functions, though many of those functions sound like the type of things players can do at Dark Souls’ bonfires already (level up, reverse hollowing, etc.)" in terms of Dark Souls III. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Appearances

1. "In the Dark Souls series, many of them are scattered throughout different locations and range from close proximity to each other to far away to give off appearances of being scattered throughout different locations." Is this dev info, that they intentionally made them scattered? If so, I think it'd work better in Characteristics, and also could stand to be pared down.

Relocated to the Characteristics section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

1. I feel like the YouTuber info is given too much weight. For example, this line: "known for investigations of cut contents of games produced by FromSoftware" is not really valuable, the fact that a source is being cited for what he said should be adequate for context. I would also recommend reducing the discussion of the YouTuber's theory as best you can, if possible to a brief summary, as I think that a theory with that much elaboration would need to be something more widely adopted and accepted.

Simplified the cut content a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Is there no lore surrounding bonfires discussed in reliable secondary sources?

Ironically, bonfires have amongst the least amount of explicit lore attached to them in the Dark Souls series. The closest thing is mentioning the Fire Keepers, but I couldn't find any good secondary source that demonstrates their importance to bonfires. There's really too little written about them, unfortunately. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reception

1. I expanded the Alice O'Connor reference to delve a little deeper, as I feel that her thoughts of the bonfire also representing a stop before going into a new area. Make sure to check whether you can "milk" sources for more info.

Elaborated a bit more on reception from certain sources. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

1. At a glance, I feel that the reception could do a better job of flowing from one piece to the next; as it is, a lot of the reception feels like "Source said this. Source said that."

I tried to address this, but I don't really know to how to handle it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple ways to go about this; you could try to rearrange the sources to make sure that what one source says leads into the next more. Another option would be to organize the Reception section by the critical commentary, so using the same source in multiple areas. For example, if there's a paragraph talking about the atmosphere of the Bonfire and a paragraph talking about the cultural impact, a source that talks about both could be used in both sections. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I reorganized the reception section by different areas of critical commentary based on your suggestion. Let me know what you think. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin Just checking in, are we good to continue the review yet? PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, been a little busy, but should be able to check over the Reception again tonight or tomorrow. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

1. At a glance, the amount of quotations may be excessive. Consider paring them down and replacing them with paraphrasing.

Reduced the quotations a bit and replaced them with paraphrasing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid: I still have some concerns about the flow of the reception, where it's still written like "X said this. Y said this. Z said this." I think it would be prudent to try to improve the flow, such as taking two similar statements and having one lead into the other. I've also found that some of the content seems a little haphazard, with some more critical reception interspersed between more positive without clarity as to why. I still think it would be important that you rearrange the reception more so things feel a little more natural.

"He wrote that at first, he was confused as to why bonfires reset the world and respawn monsters upon usage, but he later expressed his love for hating said progress resets in exchange for being the centers of rest." That feels like a confusing sentence, expressing his love for hating. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions for how I should reformat the reception? I'm not really sure about the expected flow of the section in this case. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, in the Healie article, I wrote a section of it like so: "Futabanet writer Yamaguchi Quest felt that many Dragon Quest fans would likely regard him as the best companion, finding the way that he talks to Ragnar cute.[2] IT Media writer Tetsuya Amano also found him cute, considering him the highlight of the first chapter.[18] He discussed how Healie was used to help introduce players to the mechanics of Dragon Quest IV in conjunction with Ragnar; while Ragnar's lack of magic abilities helped emphasize the importance of equipment, Healie illustrated the importance of a support character to compensate, and the latter's inability to be controlled helped in-game combat to not get too complicated.[12] The staff of RPGFan agreed, appreciating how the automated support Healie provides made the game accessible for people new to the genre." With this setup, I'm able to go reasonably naturally from commentary from Yamaguchi Quest to Tetsuya Amano and finally to RPGFan staff, despite the commentary from Quest and RPGFan staff being completely different. It can't be neatly done all the time, and you might have reception that can't be neatly melded together, but it's basically like having a narrative that improves readability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I rearranged the reception section a bit more and improved transitions between sources that agree and/or disagree with each other when possible. If more drastic changes need to occur still, let me know. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's looking good now. I'm gonna finish reading through and then do a spotcheck. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I dislike rushing, but since we seem to be nearing completion of the review, may we start the spotchecking soon? PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you're not rushing, my brain has just been having trouble being in review mode. Wrapping it up now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, with how much I've double checked on some things, I'm pretty confident that the sources say what they purport to say. Just need to finish up reading through the reception. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Attack of the Fanboy is not a reliable source

Replaced with a GameRevolution source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

1. While Valnet sources are not unusuable, is it possible to replace them with better ones?

I generally tried to minimize Valnet source usage outside of reception (just done so a bit more), but there are some areas where I can't find better sources to replace them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't see FandomWire listed on WP:VG/RS. The source doesn't seem bad so I won't ask for its removal, but I'd recommend getting more opinions by bringing the site up on WT:VG/RS.

I can bring it up there later on. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I missed it, but I'm not sure of the reliability of VidaExtra. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

   The latest source discussion of VidaExtra in the WikiProject in relation to source reliability was in 2019, in which one individual considered it to be reliable. If you want, I can ask the talk page again for the latest thoughts on the publication. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

   Can you link me to the source discussion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

   Sure, here it is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 21#VidaExtra PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

   I would recommend doing a new discussion for it, just because it seems like it didn't get noted. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

   Just done so yesterday in case you haven't already seen. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)