Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islands: Non-Places/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2021 [1].

---

Islands: Non-Places

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Islands: Non-Places is an odd little game that I picked up in a charity bundle last year and found myself quite taken with. It's simple to the point of being hypnotic, but the visuals are gorgeous enough to bring me back again and again (the fountain! the palm tree escalator!). Amazingly, there was enough mainstream coverage to sail it past the bare minimum of the GNG and well into thoroughly-sourced territory, so here we are as a little palate cleanser between larger projects. (For anyone watching my FACs, yes, I do apparently love colorful minimalist indie games with similar names). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

In the lead's first paragraph, there is one sentence that starts with "The game..." and it is followed by a sentence that starts with "The short game...". I find that somewhat repetitive so I would change the first instance to "It" instead. Cheated and condensed it into a single sentence instead :) That is probably the better option lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For the two images used in the body of the article, please use ALT text. Oop, I always forget alt text I am the worst with ALT text so I understand that. I am just bad at writing ALT text lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, it is usually described as an art game, I would attribute who describes the game this way. Is it critics, players, someone else entirely? Added "critics" For this part, Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra, he, I would substitute "he" with "Burton" to avoid any confusion since James Turrell is discussed in the previous sentence. It is already clear from context, but I think it is always good to make sure any points of potential confusion or misinterpretation are avoided when possible. No you're right it is a bit unclear in my original; I tweaked it I would incorporate this sentence, Islands was nominated for the Nuovo Award at the 2016 Independent Games Festival., into one of the earlier paragraphs to avoid having a one-sentence paragraph at the end. I wound up integrating it into the first paragraph of that section - does it work? That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For Citation 17, I would clarify that this source is in Japanese. Done Several of the citations seem to include the website and publisher (like Citation 1 with The Verge and Vox Media), but there are some citations that only include one of these bits of information (like the one for Kill Screen or the one for the Philippine Daily Inquirer). I would be consistent with one method or the other. Under Template:Cite_web#Publisher, it says to omit the publisher where it is substantially the same as the website name (ie "The New York Times co." doesn't need to be included when citing "The New York Times"). The Philippine Daily Inquirer was an oversight but the rest of the ones where they're missing are intentional because they're substantially the same. (I made an exception for Vice (magazine) and Vice Media on the grounds that they have separate articles). Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) For Citation 8, I would link Annals of Tourism Research and add that Elsevier is the publisher. Done For Citation 15, the access date and archive dates are not presented in the same format as the other dates so I would correct that for consistency. Fixed

The article looks very good to me. I have honestly never heard of this game. To be completely honest, I do not think I agree with the non-place idea, but I think this is one of these cases where some people find value in it while others do not. My comments are relatively minor and nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful and have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for your comments - always lovely to hear from you at FAC :) It's definitely an obscure game, even more so than Islanders, but I was just so taken with the art style I couldn't resist writing about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading the article and I always appreciate it whenever an editor brings an obscure topic through the FAC space. I also like the art style, from what I have seen so far, and it seems to compliment its gameplay very well. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Sdkb

You have great taste in games :) This article looks quite sound, so I only have a few comments.

• In the lead, Many reviews drew comparisons to other minimalist art games is a little obvious. Would the Nuovo Award nomination maybe be a better piece of information to stick in that spot? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sure

• It's not quite clear what you mean by "anonymous" in the lead, as that term generally refers to people, not places. Would "nondescript" or something else perhaps be better? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• It can also mean bland or non-descript, and Merriam-Webster specifically uses a building as an example of this definition.

  I still think "non-descript" would be clearer, but it's your article, so I'll defer to your preference. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• As a note I wound up adding "non-descript" based on another comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• The paragraph breaking in the lead could maybe be improved. The current break is between two sentences talking about the gameplay, which doesn't seem a logical place. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Tweaked

  Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• My understanding is that most FA reviewers don't hold my view that templates used in FACs should be up to featured-level quality, so this isn't something I'll require you to address to earn my support, but I want to at least mention it, as readers are going to notice prose that isn't up to 1a standard just as much in the infobox as they would in the body. All of the instances of (s) in the infobox are unnecessary and distracting, as the values are all singular, so for this article, the labels ought to be, too. This is an issue I've been working on addressing at a broader level (see here). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah this is something we ran into at Inuit clothing as well. I don't have the patience nor the interest to go mucking with complicated templates like infoboxes that happen incidentally to be in my FACs, and to be honest I don't feel the (s) would that big of a deal for readers.

  No worries; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to dive into technical template areas. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• For the Turrell image, it's unfortunate that we don't have an actual good photo of a skyspace rather than just a rendering. The sparsity of Turrell photos is something I've encountered before—I wish ones like this were public domain, but given the current available selection, I think the rendering is the right choice, and you've properly disclosed that it's a rendering in the caption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I dunno, I like the current image. The unreal and monochromatic palette is quite similar to the visuals in the game; you can really see what Burton was drawing from.

• For In an interview with Gamasutra, Speaking to Fast Company, and Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra, I don't think it's necessary to provide in-text attribution. See the Lancet example at WP:INTEXT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• INTEXT also says "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech", and all three of those are direct quotes from interviews.

  The way I interpret that is that it's important to attribute Burton when quoting him, but I'm sure how it helps the reader to also attribute the publication he's speaking to. A quote from him is still a quote from him, no matter who he says it to, and the publication is available in the reference for anyone who wants to check it out. This is a small point, though, so I won't let it hold me up from giving you my support below. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Experimental music has a page and might be a good wikilink to put near Watson. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sure

• For the Augé wikilink, should the link cover the apostrophe? (I forget, but I assume the answer is somewhere at DYK or the MOS.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Refactored the sentence to avoid having to read the MOS any more than is humanly necessary

  Haha fair. I looked it up for myself—at Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook#H13, it recommends that possessives not be linked over the 's. I can't find anything at the MOS, but I'd assume the best practice recommendation there would be the same. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• The reception section is missing {{Video game reviews}}. Was that omission intentional, due to there not being enough available reviews or some other reason? It'd be nice to have it as a quasi-visual element, but if not possible it's not possible. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Intentional, Metacritic takes 4 scored reviews to generate a composite score, and there are only 3 with scores, so I didn't think it was worth it

  Got it; too bad. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• For ref10, there should be a "the" in the name of The Boston Globe. Also, Jesse Singal can be wikilinked, assuming it's the same person (the reviewer has middle initial R) and that it survives its current AfD. I'm not sure if having the publisher really adds anything, but I'll leave that up to your discretion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed, linked, and I was advised that publisher was mandatory if available at the FAC for Islanders, so it's in there.

  Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• For the refs 11, 17, and 18 (the three without bluelinked publishers), could you speak to why you found them reliable or noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? Checking ja-WP for a possible ILL to The Massage is probably also worthwhile if you haven't already done so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of "noteworthiness" I generally like to get as much opinion about a source in as I can. Particularly for gaming, where most sources are fairly positive, I want to get a breadth of criticism if I can find it. To that end, 148 Apps & Twinfinite were both somewhat more critical than other reviews (although I realized that I forgot to put in 148's criticism - fixed now). Per WP:RSOPINION, these kinds of sources are reliable for the purpose of giving their opinion, as long as it's clearly attributed in the article and not UNDUE, which I don't think it is here. Strip 'em out and we lose a good chunk of the criticism. As for The Massage, I felt it noteworthy that a Japanese indie culture site had noticed the game enough to review it. (No ja.wiki article though, I checked).

  Sounds good to me; RSOPINION seems to cover them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting once these things are addressed, and I hope to be able to check out the game for myself at some point. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and looking forward to your responses :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support, as my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Overall, this is a very solid article that makes maximum use out of a limited pool of sources on a niche topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now......

I'd describe Auge "French anthropologist" rather than just "author"

Otherwise......looks ontrack prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Tweaked, and looking forward to any additional comments :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. I left some copyediting comments on the article talk page which are mostly dealt with now. Reading through again I have only a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.

• "The ambient soundtrack was inspired by": do we need "ambient" here? We've already said that the soundtrack includes ambient environmental sounds.

• Trimmed

• "Allison Meier of Hyperallergic found that the limited gameplay eventually became repetitive, but was overall impressed by the way each scene unfolded in an unexpected way": I think this could do with rephrasing. "Way" is repeated, and I think "was impressed overall" would be more fluent.

• Reworded & also re-ordered to make more sense with the building of criticism from "good but limited" to "deeply annoying" to "these criticisms suck anyway".

A concise and well-written article; it's particularly nice to see a well-structured and interesting reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Mike, I appreciate them (and the support of course!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Comments comin'. I recommend Proteus (video game) next. Panini!^🥪 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(Dang, it's a FA already.) Panini!^🥪 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It has to have "island" in the name to really fit the scheme :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I was aiming towards a game with a minimalistic art style and its main component is an island. There's The Island (video game) if title is what you aim for. Panini!^🥪 15:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, tomorrow, I promise. Panini!^🥪 21:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Man, I'm awesome at keeping promises! I'm very sorry, I've been doing a lot of IRL writing recently and have recently got involved in a project that is eating up all my free time. I'm gonna get this done nice and early before I do anything major today. Let's do this.

;Lead

Okay, I lied. This article is actually written exactly how I do. Even the Reception, which I always shake my stick at. I made some minor changes that I could easily do myself. I do want to hear before I lend the easiest support of my life on the lack of a {{Video game reviews}} table because it seems that some of these reviews have numerical ratings. Panini!^🥪 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Panini!, see Skdb's comment section - I didn't put it in because there's only 3 and Metacritic requires 4 to start a composite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Panini!, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for checking up on me. I should be back to usual editing tomorrow. I was waiting to see if there was a reason for the lack of a review table (which there was, as PMC commented on); with that, I will more than gladly Support. Panini!^🥪 23:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TRM

• "artist and animator Carl Burton" nationality?

• NYC-based so I assume American. The only sources I can find on it are his own website or a blog (Colossal (blog)) - not sure if that's RS enough to add

• Is Burton not notable enough, even for an optimistic red link?

• I don't think so, unfortunately, based on my searches. There's minimal coverage of him, just the game. Maybe if his second game takes off on its eventual release.

• "is extremely minimal" no need for "extremely".

• Aaaaagh it wounds me but okay, enough people have complained that I really can't defend it

• "the Nuovo Award at" what was that for? Design? Sound? Graphics? Gameplay?

• It doesn't specify, although Independent Games Festival states that the award used to be called the Innovation Award, so I guess for...innovation?

• "overall effect invokes the feeling" presumably "effect is intended to invoke" because Wikipedia can't dictate what it does invoke in all people.

• Tweaked

• "extremely minimalist" just minimalist.

• As above

• "it isn't made" avoid contractions.

• Fixed

• "The soundtrack ... The soundtrack..." repetitive.

• oop, fixed

• "freely licensed recordings" shouldn't that be "freely-licensed recordings"?

• Fixed

• "the internet" we sometimes call it the Internet.

• Chicago Manual of Style and AP both use the lowercase as of 2016

• "Warr described a scene" maybe to avoid scene again, you could say "Warr described one such vignette"

• tweaked

• "machine...like" non-breaking spaced before ellipsis and normal space after ellipsis in this case per MOS.

• fixed

• Any word on a follow-up or any similar work or anything done by Burton subsequently in a similar way?

• According to his email newsletter he's working on a sequel/followup with a similar look, but I don't have a reliable source (or even a non-transitory one) for it.

Short and sweet, I enjoyed the article, thanks, and only a few minor issues for me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man thanks for your commentary, insightful as always and I'm glad you liked the article. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I had nothing much to gripe about, so now my comments have been addressed where possible, I'm content to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Alexandra

Infobox and lead

• Single-player is typically linked in video game infoboxes

• Done

• Considering this game isn't about Burton or the podcast he worked on, I find it a little too high-detail for the lead to say that he worked on season 2 specifically. I would suggest striking that from the lead and only mention it in the development section.

• I think it's relevant; it tells the reader where the game's aesthetic, which is basically a more complex version of the GIF style, comes from.

• Similarly, do we need to mention in the lead that he made animated GIF illustrations rather than just "animations" or "illustrations"?

• "Animations" on its own to me implies a longer clip, and illustrations on its own doesn't communicate that they move.

• The gameplay is extremely minimal - I would recommend cutting "extremely". It does not really add anything, as you already describe how the gameplay works.

• I disagree. I know it's fussy to argue for a single word, but IMO it does matter. Minimalist can mean a range of things, and Islands is on the "arguably barely a game" end of that scale, which is fairly extreme.

• Okay, enough people have brought it up that I must accede - I've removed both instances of it and "heavy" as below

Gameplay

• You're probably already aware, but there's a [./Islands:_Non-Places#cite_note-7 [lower-alpha 1]] visible in the rendered page.

• VE weirdness. Fixed it.

• All of the sounds in the game are pre-existing, freely licensed recordings which Burton found on the internet. - this seems more like development than gameplay.

• Yes, you're right. I moved it down and created a new paragraph under Development.

• Like in the lead, I'd recommend cutting "extremely" and "heavy". The minimalist gameplay and focus on visuals is well communicated without them.

• See above second-indent comment

Development

• I recommend opening sections with topic sentences - here, [Islands] was developed and published independently by artist and animator Carl Burton... works better for that than the game's release date.

• Done

• I know another reviewer brought this up already, but I agree with them: In an interview with Gamasutra, Speaking to Fast Company, and Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra are only necessary if it is important who he was interviewed by, and I do not see how that is the case here. Attributing quotes by Burton to Burton is not the same as mentioning the interviewer every time.

• Fair, I've trimmed that.

Reception

• Try to avoid making subjective reviewer opinion come across as objective/universal truth, such as noting that the game felt like "a relatively logical step" for the artist to take.

• Somewhat in reference to your point below as well, the whole point of quoting that in particular was to make it come across as subjective opinion. The quote starts with "felt like" and is clearly a quote of opinion from a reviewer.

• There are a lot of quotes here, most of which are paraphrasable. You should aim to do so whenever possible, using only particularly illustrative quotes - there is for example nothing gained by literally copying "a relatively logical step" from the source.

• The use of quotes is fairly typical for a reception section, and is intended to avoid presenting subjective opinion as objective fact. However on your advice I've trimmed/reworded a few.

• none were entirely certain of Burton's intended meaning - I don't think we can make such a universal claim based on three sources (or based any amount of sources. Can we really with certainty say that no one who has ever reviewed this game felt certain about the intended meaning?)

• Tweaked to say "most".

References

• Other sources seem fine, but Twinfinite is listed on WP:VG/RS as unreliable.

• Per WP:RSOPINION even an unreliable source can be useful for an attributed statement of opinion. In this instance, I feel it's important to include as much criticism as possible, and Twinfinite was one of the somewhat more critical views.

Please {{ping}} me when you have responded to the above, and I will be with you again.--Alexandra^IDV 11:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV - all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Alexandra IDV, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Premeditated Chaos and Gog the Mild: Apologies - I have been (and am) sick, and haven't used my PC as much as usual. I'll try to look at this and post a response before the weekend is over.--Alexandra^IDV 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• My concerns have been addressed/answered, and I will go ahead and support this FAC.--Alexandra^IDV 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alexandra IDV, thanks for your support and I hope you feel better soon! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – pass

Hi PMC. I hope you are well. OK, starting the source review:

• The year for Warr seems to be 2016, not 2020.

• Oh yup, typo.

• The date formats 2020-09-24 and 2021-03-05 for Asuncion are inconsistent with the other dates.

• Fixed thx

• Ref 14, the author should be Chris Kerr, date February 6? Also I see that Gamasutra links to Game Developer, but the source shows Game Developer. Do you even need Gamasutra at all?

• Gamasutra recently renamed itself with the aggressively anodyne name Game Developer. There appears to have been some weirdness on the website in the transition. If you look at the archived version ([2]) from the original release of the article, you can see that the author is given as Joel Couture with a date of Feb 7. This discussion had consensus to retain Gamasutra as the name in references that were published before the rebrand.

• There is a space included in the name of 148 Apps when used in the References section but not in its use in the main text.

• Fixed

• I will accept your argument about Twinfinite above. I also wasn't sure about 148 Apps or The Massage, but they are likewise used for statement of opinions, so seems like they should be OK.

That's all from me, cheers. Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Moisejp, thanks for the review, should all be sorted now! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• You're welcome! It all seems good now. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – pass

• There are two non-free images with adequate FURs.
• The two non-infobox images have good captions.
• For File:James_Turrell_-_Rendering_for_Aten_Reign_-_Photo_01.jpg, it may not be a requirement, but I exported the image to be Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure if there's an extra step I need to do make the image "More details" link go directly to the Wikimedia Commons version, or whether a bot makes that change. In any case, that shouldn't affect this image review. Moisejp (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.