Jump to content

Talk:Isle of the Dead (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIsle of the Dead (video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 21, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
January 28, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Some possible sources for you @GamerPro64:--Coin945 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

[edit]

GamerPro64, not sure if you saw these here posted by Coin945, but good work on the successful GA. :) BOZ (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Isle of the Dead (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer some thoughts, but it may be a little bitty! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added it now. GamerPro64 04:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be open: I worry that there are some big unanswered questions about the production. My snooping around the internet earlier has exposed some of them (multiple releases? Location of publishers? etc.) and it looks like there are some others identified above by Coin945 (e.g., European publisher). I'm left wondering if the article meets GA criterion 3a at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the big issue is that there is not exactly enough information about this that come from reliable sources. Its kinda hard adding some things in without it possibly being original research. GamerPro64 04:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand entirely. My worry is that if relatively basic facts can't be determined from easily accessible sources, perhaps this isn't a topic that can realistically be pushed to GA status based only on easily accessible sources! I'll ask for a second opinion on the review page. Second-opinion giver: Do you think there is enough information in this article to justify GA status? Generally, do you think this is promotable in its current state? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not offering a second opinion, but just as an observation several sources were added to the talk page by User:Coin945 back in January, in case any of those sources can be used to build the article up enough to meet GA. BOZ (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay section does seem a bit sparse. What is the actual goal of the game? Can it be beaten? The development section hints at a "plot", but not much is said about it anywhere else. On an off-note, I've never seen a reviewer's quote get its own box like that before. It clashes with the review scores and would be better off being incorporated into the prose.-Megaman en m (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt realize I failed to mention the goal of the game. Added a sentence explaining it. Also, I have used pull quotes in review sections in previous articles. I personally consider them the standout quote for the game, sometimes. GamerPro64 22:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay section is still bare, let me see if I can find ways to expand it: [2] mentions you can talk to characters, and [4] says that there is an inventory where you can store items (the lead of the gameplay section says it's a point-and-click game, but there is nothing suggesting this is more than a shooter). [1] also mentions that the game occasionally switched to a 2D mode where you can pick up items. [13] describes this in more detail, saying you can use the classic adventure game tactic of looking at, getting and using items.
[2] also mentions that it's annoying how zombies respawn every time you enter a room; it's worth adding to the reception section.
I also discovered that someone plagiarized a whole sentence from Dragon magazine: "You are the lone survivor of a plane wreck on a mysterious tropical island, which unfortunately teems with zombies under the control of an evil mad scientist." It has undergone slight changes, but it's still clearly recognizable. Needless to say this is a problem for GA status.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. When I get some time I will expand the section. GamerPro64 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great. I think we're all agreed that there are questions outstanding and some room for expansion, so I'm going to close the review at this time. I encourage you to renominate when you've pulled a little more from the various sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Isle of the Dead (video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 08:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 08:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening notes:

  • The lead is relatively short, as is the article in general. Some of the sources seem underutilized, such as the Rock Paper Shotgun review, the Dragon review, and the "Weekly Kusoge" (fantastic name) Hardcore Gaming 101 piece.
  • The prose needs some work -- there are some typos (e.g. "Cobbett" for "Corbett"), a lot of fairly choppy/repetitive sentences, and some circumlocutory phrasing (e.g. Corbett would later call it one of the weirdest shooters of the 1990s -- WP:INTOTHEWOULDS).

The article is currently 738 words long according to WP:PROSESIZE. I think you probably have at least a hundred or so more words of material in some of the sources about its gameplay and reception, as well as in expanding the lead paragraphs; both are fairly sparse with rather short, prosaic sentences. That said, this is a good start, and it'll be able to pass with some work. I'm not drilling into the nitty-gritty details yet, though I plan to later. Vaticidalprophet 22:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead a bit and got people to copyedit the page. Honestly there isn't much about the game to work with to really add more material for the page, in my opinion. GamerPro64 23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is definitely looking better now. The narrow scope itself isn't a problem -- short articles can definitely be GAs, it's just a matter of making sure they're in-depth. I have a query about the sentence Despite gameplay being compared to Wolfenstein 3D, Isle of the Dead received negative reviews upon release.[1][4][3] -- aside from the refs being in non-numerical order, the positioning here seems to be a slightly awkward juxtaposition. It'd be worth just noting "mostly negative reviews", and bringing up the specific Wolfenstein comparisons later in the paragraph attributed to the people who made them. Vaticidalprophet 00:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked that part and moved it around. GamerPro64 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidalprophet is there anything else? GamerPro64 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, I'm happy to pass this. Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]