Wikipedia:Peer review/Islanders (video game)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Hello! This article was recently passed as a GA, and I'm considering throwing it to the wolves at FA. It'd be my first time nominating at FA, and I'm a bit nervous to take the plunge, so I'm hoping for critical eyes to make sure I'm not missing anything that FA considers essential. It's not too long of an article so hopefully that makes it more appealing to review :) Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- May be doing a full review of the article but I had this idea. Have you thought about contacting the creators of the game to get free licensing of screenshots and other images involving the game? Indie dev usually allow that to happen. GamerPro64 03:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I could definitely ask, I did email them when it was on DYK and they were really charmed by it so I bet they'd be willing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Already I see an issue that might kneecap the article. Four links used in it are from unreliable sources according to the Video Game WikiProject. From the Sources page, Niche Gamer, TechRaptor, and Critical Hit are considered unreliable for use. IND13 and Game World Observer are questionable meanwhile. Might have to ask around. GamerPro64 05:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, but I think my use of these sources is defensible, in the context they're used in. And two of the unreliable listings seem a bit outdated to me.
- TechRaptor is listed as unreliable on the basis of one discussion from over five years ago that had a mere two posts, the first of which was strongly arguing for it being reliable. It seems a bit unfair to permalist it as unreliable because of that. In any case, it's used to cite a basic fact about the update that's also verifiable from a primary source (the game's Steam page), and then essentially to verify its own opinion of the game.
- Critical Hit (formerly Lazygamer) was listed as unreliable over three years ago on the basis of it being user-generated, which it no longer seems to be (articles have staff bylines, and Alexandro Barbosa seems to now write for GameSpot). It cites a basic fact of gameplay as well as its own bylined opinion (in the more critical paragraph; losing it means tilting the article more towards the postitive even if only slightly).
- Niche Gamer supports the Mac/Linux update info. It could be replaced by a primary source (Steam again), but given WP's preference for secondary sources I'd rather not if possible.
- IND13 again cites a basic gameplay fact and its own bylined opinion. As it's on the more critical side, losing it slants the article toward the unreservedly positive. As much as I love the game, I do want the article to be NPOV, so I made a point of including whatever criticism I could find.
- The GWO article is mainly for the development interview with the devs (ie it's basically functioning as a primary source for that part of the article). The way it's used in the article makes it clear it's being used that way, and doesn't do any interpreting or analysis (which is mostly what WP:PRIMARY counsels against).
- I'm not relying on those sources to hit GNG (even if you strip them, the other bluelinked sources easily cover it) or controversial/disputed facts. They're useful replacements for using the game's Steam page, and two of the reviews are on the somewhat-more-critical side, which IMO provides a necessary balance to the other more positive reviews. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, GamerPro64, I realized I never pinged and I'm the only page watcher. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well Im not sure what others will think but I do have more comments. I think the lead needs to be beefed up more. There is no mention of the development in the lead so that should definitely be said in a few sentences. GamerPro64 03:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- GamerPro64, added that paragraph and increased the size of the gameplay paragraph as well. I can go more if you think that would be better? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I think more might be better. Like mentioning its sales. GamerPro64 18:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- GamerPro64, added that paragraph and increased the size of the gameplay paragraph as well. I can go more if you think that would be better? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well Im not sure what others will think but I do have more comments. I think the lead needs to be beefed up more. There is no mention of the development in the lead so that should definitely be said in a few sentences. GamerPro64 03:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, GamerPro64, I realized I never pinged and I'm the only page watcher. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I see where you're coming from, but I think my use of these sources is defensible, in the context they're used in. And two of the unreliable listings seem a bit outdated to me.
- Already I see an issue that might kneecap the article. Four links used in it are from unreliable sources according to the Video Game WikiProject. From the Sources page, Niche Gamer, TechRaptor, and Critical Hit are considered unreliable for use. IND13 and Game World Observer are questionable meanwhile. Might have to ask around. GamerPro64 05:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I could definitely ask, I did email them when it was on DYK and they were really charmed by it so I bet they'd be willing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I wish I had concrete sales figures. I added the bit about top-twenty for April 2019 and the fact that some outlets placed it on "favorites"-type lists for the year. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)