Talk:Islands: Non-Places/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Npthura (talk · contribs) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I will be reviewing this article. I'll have comments most likely starting tomorrow. Npthura (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "...best known for the animated GIF illustrations he created for season two of the Serial podcast." I don't think this really fits into the lead that well. Readers should really know a basic understanding about the person that made the game in the lead.

• I don't understand what you mean. You say readers should know a basic understanding about about the person that made the game in the lead, but that the information doesn't fit? Which is it?

• There is a bit too much information about the gameplay in the lead. I recommend removing the sentence, 'Each scene is rendered in the stylized manner that characterizes Burton's work, with solid monotone colors, dark shadows, and foggy backgrounds' since readers only need a basic understanding of the game in this section.

• No, the lead should summarize the content of the article, and the visual style of the game is a major portion of the content of the article.

• Just like the development section, replace "PC" with "Microsoft Windows" and "Mac" with "macOS".

• Done

• Wikilink "installation art".

• Done

Gameplay

• In general, there seems to be minor instances of WP:OVERCITE throughout the section. Although this doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, you could probably remove some unnecessary sources cited in the section.

• 3 citations is not overcite, especially when each pertains to a portion of the sentence.

• "...consists of a series of anonymous, abstract dioramas..." Replace "dioramas" with "vignettes" and link it since it seems more relevant in this context.

• Both PC Gamer and Eurogamer use "diorama", which is why I did as well. "Vignette" is a disambig, and the most appropriate link there (vignette (model)) redirects to diorama.

• Is a vignette the same thing as a diorama? If so, you could change the other times the word "vignette" is mentioned to "diorama". To a casual reader, they might not know what a vignette is, so it makes more sense to just change it instead.

• Both words have been used to describe the game's scenes, and both are reasonably applicable. They don't need to mean precisely the same thing to both be correct in some sense, and in the interests of style and variety I'd prefer to keep both. "Vignette" is not so technical that the average reader wouldn't understand it, in my opinion. The applicable sense for vignette is #4 on Wiktionary: "A short story or anecdote that presents a scene or tableau, or paints a picture." Here we have a short interactive visual which "presents a scene or tableau", hence by extension we can call it a vignette. Diorama is also applicable because the scenes are "a three-dimensional display of a scenery". Sure they aren't physical structures, but by extension, we can call them dioramas.

• Acknowledge that there are 10 scenes in the game, which is mentioned by this source.

• Done

• You never added that information.

• Whoops, I did, but I had some issues and had to revert my changes and rework (see whatever happened here and the revert) and lost that. Re-added.

• The note defining liminal spaces seems pretty unnecessary; the wikilink seems to define liminal spaces in almost the same way.

  The casual reader might not have the same innate familiarity with liminality, and since it's integral to the game and therefore the meaning of the article, it seemed appropriate to explain without forcing someone to click through and read a whole other article just to understand this one.

• "Bus stop" shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK.

• Sure, although overlinking isn't anywhere in the GA criteria.

• "...with solid monotone colors,..." Add a comma between "solid" and "monotone" because both are adjectives.

• Style quibble. A comma is not required between adjectives. "John lives in a big red house" is not grammatically incorrect, and neither is the current sentence.

• "The soundtrack mainly consists of ambient sounds such as distant cars or birdsong, which are not always obviously connected with the visuals of a scene, as well as assorted sound effects." This sentence sounds wonky, especially the last part. I recommend that you change this to: "The soundtrack consists of assorted sound effects and ambient sounds such as distant cars or birdsong, which are not always connected with the visuals of a scene."

• Reworded, but I'm keeping the link to sound effects to subtly clarify to the reader that this refers to something distinct from the environmental sounds.

• "Sound effects" shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK.
• "...which Burton found on the internet." Although this is just a preference, replacing "which" with "that" improves the flow of the sentence to me.

• "Which" sounds more formal to me.

• "The gameplay is extremely minimalist:" Replace the colon with a semicolon.

• No, the colon is correct, as the part that follows "demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before". (MOS:COLON).

• "...only means of interaction is clicking on the environment..." should be changed to "...only means of interaction is clicking on areas of the environment..."

• There's no need to specify "areas" in the first sentence when the immediate next sentence says it.

• "Interactive areas are usually, but not always, noticeably lit up." This sentence also seems to sound pretty wonky because of the amount of commas in it. I think the best way to handle this is to just combine it with the previous sentence; they seem to be about the same topic.

• Speaking of the next sentence, these sentences are deliberately split. The point is to highlight that the interactive areas are lit-up most of the time - but not always, which was a point of criticism for some reviewers. I swapped the commas for en dashes though.

• "and no overarching narrative or goal aside from interacting with the current scene" should be changed to "and there is no overarching narrative or goal aside from interacting with the current scene" to improve readability.

• That would be repetitive with the first clause of the sentence.

• "The game is short, and can be completed in approximately an hour." Both sources mention that it takes less than an hour to complete it, so this should be changed to: "The game is short, and can be completed in approximately less than an hour."

• Reworded.

• "Puzzles" shouldn't be linked per per WP:OVERLINK.

• Fine

• I recommend splitting the first paragraph into two paragraphs between "beneath it" and "each scene" since they both seem to be about a differing topic. The first part appears to be about the overall concept of the game, while the second part appears to be about the visuals and sound of the game.

• Split, although not at the recommended point.

Development

• I actually found this reliable source that provides a lot of information of the development of this game. Feel free to incorporate some of the information from this into the article.

• This was a really good find, thank you. I've significantly expanded the development section using it.

• Replace "PC" with "Microsoft Windows" per WP:MOSVG, since the term "PC" denotes terms for everyday computers of any operating system.
• Replace "Mac" with "macOS".

• Both done.

• It's still called "PC" in the development section.

• Sorry, another VE/revert issue.

• In the second sentence of the first paragraph, none of the cited in that sentence sources mention when the game was released, and both cited sources don't mention that the game was released on Linux.

• Actually, the Verge link says "released today" and is dated November 17, 2016. I think I'd intended to cite Boing Boing, not PC Gamer, as that supports the Linux release. Replaced.

• You didn't add the Boing Boing source for some reason.

• Appears to have been a VE issue - I definitely copied the Boing Boing reference but for some reason I got the HyperAllergic one in there instead. God willing it should be correct now.

Reception

• Change the header "Critical reception to simply "Reception".

• Done

• It wasn't changed.

• Sorry, another VE/revert issue.

• "The visuals were similar to his previous animated work, with Rob Funnell at TouchArcade noting that the game felt like 'a relatively logical step' for Burton to take." Change this to: "The visuals were similar to Burton's previous animated work, with Rob Funnell at TouchArcade noting that the game felt like 'a relatively logical step' for him to take."

• Tweaked

• "Potted plants" and "escalator" shouldn't be linked per per WP:OVERLINK.

• Fine

• Capitalize "award" in the last sentence.

• Done

References

• According to WP:VG/RS and WP:RSP, Boing Boing as a source seems fairly sketchy, and Twinfinite is considered unreliable itself.

• Boing Boing is situational; in this case it supports the Linux release (non-contoversial & unlikely to be challenged) and Burton's previous work, which is backed up by another source, so I think it's safe. Twinfinite, I've siloed off so it's only cited in the review section for its own opinion. This was acceptable for a similar source at Islanders (video game) as even "unreliable" sites are reliable sources of their own opinions (see the FAC for that discussion). In my opinion Twinfinite is relevant for its opinion as it was one of the few that was somewhat critical of the game's mechanics, and removing it entirely would artificially slant the article in a more positive direction.

• Archive all sources.

• This is not required by GA, but I've looked into it.

Images

• Both non-free media need to be replaced with a smaller version, and there are some parts of the fair use rationale in both media that need to be filled in.

• Been waiting on DatBot, but it seems there's a delay. I've done it manually with the header and have asked at DatBot's talk page about the gif, as I have no way to resize it myself.

• DatBot has taken care of the gif now as well.

Infobox

• Include the publisher of the video game (which I assume is Carl Burton), since it's an important piece of information for the infobox, especially a video game.

• Done

• The game engine isn't linked correctly.

• I think I am going to hurl visual editor into the sun, maybe. It should be fixed now.

• That's all the issues I could find. This is my first review, so if you have any questions or you think my comments are incorrect, let me know. Npthura (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since this is your first review, I apologize for giving pushback on some of the comments, but some are a bit outside the purview of GA, and some are not quite correct in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I didn't review this article adequately enough. Some of my comments (especially in the gameplay section) where either unnecessary, subjective, out-of-place, or just flat-out wrong, and I apologize for that. That being said, I crossed out comments that you addressed or I believe weren't correct or necessary. There's still some comments that you didn't correct for some reason, and I also added a few new comments. Once these have been addressed, I'll promote this article to GA status. I'll strive to review better next time. Npthura (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• No need for an apology. GA is kind of odd to review for because it doesn't require rigorous perfection the way FA does, it just needs an article to be "pretty good". So for example stuff like site archiving and compliance with more subjective MOS pages like overlink aren't necessary for a GA pass. The essay "What the Good article criteria are not" gives a fairly good overview of what does and doesn't need to be covered by a GA review - it might be helpful to you.
  Don't get discouraged though! A lot of the changes were right, and you found a really useful source I hadn't had before, which is always awesome. The thoroughness of the review would be perfect at FA level - you should definitely look into commenting on some featured candidates :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind and encouraging words! The essay you linked was actually very useful to me, and I will definitely rely on it with future GA reviews. Because it is my first review, I appreciate that you guided me throughout reviewing this article, and the things you typed could really help me in the future. It seems like all my comments have been addressed, and I will promote this to GA status. Thanks again! Npthura (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Cheers, thanks for the review! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)