Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islanders (video game)/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) 11 January 2021 [1].

---

Islanders (video game)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm back with my second FA nomination, a much shorter article on a wildly different topic - Islanders, a charming little indie game I fell in love with last year. There's just something hypnotic about the simple gameplay loop of planning, placement, and points that keeps me coming back to it this long after release. I should mention that concerns were raised at peer review about the reliability of some of the more obscure review sources. I believe these are reliable enough to cite as reviews for a smaller indie game, and their inclusion is necessary to provide a more balanced perspective to the reader. In particular, the larger gaming sites like Kotaku were almost uniformly positive about Islanders, so the inclusion of indie review sites helps to balance that with some reasonably-deserved criticism. In any case, I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I enjoyed writing it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

Will review, unencumbered by any background knowledge. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strikes me as odd that the specific release date (April 4, 2019) is only mentioned in the infobox

• Fixed

• "The goal of the game is to obtain the highest score possible in a single session, which can span multiple islands" unclear at this point what 'islands' mean in the context of the game. Could you rephrase to get the explanation before the bit about a session spanning multiple islands somehow?

• Moved that sentence to the end of the paragraph, that should help.

• "and a pack of basic buildings to place" do we know how many? What defines a 'basic' building?

• None of the sources mention that detail, although anecdotally I think starter packs usually have three. There's not really a defined "basic" building per se. There's a kind of progression in that you generally start off with packs of industrial-ish stuff, then residential-ish places, then commercial buildings and finally the late-game stuff like balloons and monuments. Once you've picked every named pack, the game gives you random assortments until you run out of space/buildings. Unfortunately, none of the sources get into more detail about the order of the packs than what's already in the article, so I can't expand on that without getting into OR.

• "There are several types of islands" do we know how many?

• It's unfortunately not in any of the sources, so while I could load up the game and do some counting, I can't put it in the article.

• "other buildings within its scoring radius" I think the basic concept of 'scoring radius' and its relevance to the game should be briefly glossed at the first use of the term, not in subsequent sentences.

• I rewrote that paragraph a little, hopefully that's more clear now?

• Is there a difference between 'earning points' and 'scoring points'? If not, no action needed.

• No

• "planning are important to maximize the score" perhaps "the score reached" or "the score obtained" or something else? just 'the score' kinda strikes me as odd, but it may just be me

• I think it may be you, in a gaming context "the score" makes sense

• So does the inventory of buildings deplete as the game goes on? If so, how does that work? this is implied when the article talks about refilling it, but not really explicitly laid out

• Should be more explicit now

• Is Grizzly Games really notable?

• No, I think someone else redlinked it and I just left it in there. I'll pull it.

• "Rather than struggling against the limits of working with a small team" I'm not convinced that this bit of the sentence actually adds any encyclopedic value to the article

• Mm, I think it speaks to their design choices - rather than trying to "overcome" the handicap of a small team and still produce something at the AAA-level of photorealism or depth, they just went whole-hog into minimalism.

• "aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic." what does that score indicate? Is it average for games of the type? High?

• Hard to say. Islanders is quite stripped-down compared to most city-builders and there's not much else out there in the same vein. Comparing it to something like Sim City or Anno 1602 would be a bit like comparing a haiku to a novel. As far as average for the game industry as a whole, gaming tends to have a problem with artificially high scores (the TvTropes page on the so-called Four Point Scale sums it up fairly well), so 82 is probably right about average.

• I think that this article is long enough to have items linked again in the body that are linked in the lede, but am not sure

• I'm happy either way so if you want links, only say the word and I shall make links :)

• Reception slips into "A of B said C. A of B said C" cycles at times-- can you try and mix it up a bit more? WP:RECEPTION may be helpful if you haven't read it already.

A very nice article overall. I think that's it from me, but may come back with more later. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Eddie891, thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of them and the only thing left to work on is the reception section. Should be finished overhauling it sometime tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I overhauled the reception section - now it's organized by topic, with less pull quotes. I'm way happier with the structure now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've reviewed your changes, they look good to me. Support, mostly on prose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Islanders_(game)_header.jpg: FUR is incomplete
• Ditto File:Islanders_gameplay_in_progress.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed both and added alt text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Support from SatDis

• The article is looking good. Just a comment about the references, in my experience of Feature Articles, it is encouraged to have all URLs archived. I would also ensure you have all the aspects of a citation: consistently italicise Islanders, link the work and publisher on first mention and write out the entire date; like this example
• I'd say this would be a quick way immediately improve the article. SatDis (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, just want to say I've seen this, but haven't had time to dig into updating the refs yet and probably won't until after Boxing Day. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just wanted to say I did the archiving for you. Happy holidays! Le Panini ^[🥪] 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in responding, thanks for the archiving, Le Panini, I appreciate it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Good to see the references have been archived, however, dates and publishers need further formatting.
• Gameplay section looks good and is well referenced. I would link sandbox though - I think that would be the correct page but double check. SatDis (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• SatDis, I linked sandbox as above and am working on references. Most are not linked because they are not independently notable (and thus would be redlinks), and most appear to be published "by themselves" in the same way that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Co, so I've omitted the publisher field there are recommended by {{Cite web}}. I also didn't italicise Islanders in ref titles as I notice that other FAs for games (such as Dishonored) don't italicize the game name in the ref titles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. That sounds fine with the independent works, and the italicising is all good. The references are looking better, I will check in again once complete. SatDis (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry, I'm done now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have gone through and just expanded on the dates for the archive-date and access-date; writing it out in full is usually the way to go. Another suggestion; for the Italian, French and German references, you can use trans-title= in the citation to write out what the translation is. SatDis (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, thanks for that. I've added the translated titles now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for addressing the comments. Well done with the article! Based on the prose and these fixes to reference formatting, I will support the nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my featured article nomination, even if just some basic comments. Thanks so much and good luck with your article! SatDis (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Just wondering if you are able to leave any comments on my featured article nomination? I completely understand if you are too busy. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Support from ImaginesTigers

Hi! Tagging now to let you know I'll be reviewing in the next 24 hours. ImaginesTigers (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's jump right in. I have one question about citations, and a few about the prose. I've made a few changes to the prose already for concision, but you are free to revert them.

Prose:

Generally communicates gameplay very plainly and clearly with a minimal use of jargon. Similarly, attention has clearly been paid to ensuring that sections flow naturally from one section to the next. That said, I have some questions! The last paragraph of Gameplay details some post-launch updates, but it’s unclear if those were free or paid DLC. At the same time, it glosses over the times of those release and their distribution on the various platforms — did these all go live at once to every version of the game? The section on criticism begins with a sentence that indicates the remainder of the paragraph will discuss only the criticism of the low poly style (it is not; it serves as a very abridged negative criticism section, compared to the several positive paragraphs). As a result, the critical reception component of the lead feels a little underdeveloped.

a) Free, which is why I called them updates rather than DLC; in my gaming experience, update tends to imply changes made at no cost to the player, while DLC implies paid content. b) Mac and Linux support were added after the other updates, and the June 2019 update was the last big one save for a bugfix and a language update. To solve this, I consolidated the sentences about the updates into a paragraph sub-heading called "Release and updates" under Development, so now all the wording about the June 2019 update is together and (should) be more cohesive. c) I don't think it implies that at all. "The game's studied minimalism" refers to the whole game, not just the visuals. The article as a whole discusses the game's minimalist schtick throughout - the gameplay, the lack of "bells n whistles" like tech trees or achievements, the graphics, etc. I don't think it would surprise someone who's read the whole to see the whole game referred to as minimalist in that way. As for the size of the criticism section, I could try to expand it, but I'd be reaching/fluffing a little - most criticism really boiled down to "but I wanted it to be more of itself" in some way, and it's hard to expand on that more than I have without repeating myself or over-relying on pull quotes just to expand the word count. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Citations:

I notice that one of the sources for the game's development is the developer's blog. I understand why this might be necessary, but I do have some concerns about using it here because the rest of it is advertising-related -- it’s a pitch. On another note on citations (note that this is only a recommendation based on experience), using a French-language source, it would be really helpful to put the French language original in the "quote" section of the citation. This just makes it easier for others to find, given the language can't just be Ctrl+F'd.

I also don't super love using the primary sources (the Steam news release is another), but in this case it's in there mostly to cite the detail that it was made in their 3rd year of a game design BA, which I think is interesting enough to be worth keeping in even at the price of citing a primary source. (I also use the dev's blog to cite for the infobox that the game is built on the Unity engine, so given that it's kind of in there anyway I figured I could throw it in again). Regarding quotes in the citation, why specifically only the French source? There are German and Italian ones also. In any case, I'm not partial to that given that those sources are used elsewhere in the article, so the quote wouldn't apply to those other citations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

At this stage, these are my only real observations. I think this is a very small article, reasonable in scope, with a survey of the relevant literature. One issue is, of course, that very few non-games outlets are quoted. But the criteria asks for the "relevant" literature, and this is simply what exists, and isn't a reflection on you. I've conducted a few searches and cannot see any glaring omissions. Pending your responses, I am leaning support. I don't ask that you make changes based on what I've said; only that you explain your choices as best as you can. It was an engaging article; well done! ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate you taking the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm fairly new to this process, so those explanations also help me. I'm going to Support this nomination. Great work! ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

David Fuchs sorry to hassle you, just wondering if you're still looking at commenting here? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Since the release date is included in the lead and article, I do not see the need for a citation for this in the infobox.

• I was just being completionist but I'll pull it

• Currently, the game engine is only mentioned in the infobox. Is there a reason to not include this in the lead and the article as well?

• The reason is that I am dumb :) But I have fixed it now.

• For this part, German independent game studio, I would extend the link out to independent game just to make the link clear to the reader.

• Done

• Would a link to inventory be helpful to readers who have not played a video game?

• Done

• For this sentence, The game intentionally omits many features common to city-builders, I would link city-builders since this is the first time it is mentioned in the article and a link would stay consistent with what is linked in the lead.
• You link procedurally generated, but not in the article. I would recommend linking the first instance in the article for consistency. Also, I notice an instance where you use this with hyphens and another without so please be consistent with either way.

• Done for this and the above, and inventory since it's mentioned in the lead and the body.

• I would link Bachelor of Arts.

• Done

• Is there any further information on why Shahrabi left Grizzly Games?

• No, I assume he graduated, but can't confirm.

• This is more of a nitpick, but in the second paragraph, I noticed you used "found that the process of" in two back-to-back sentences, and it may be beneficial to change on these instances to avoid being repetitive.

• Oh, nice find. I fixed that.

• I have a question about the Michael Moore review. I have not looked at the cited review, but it reads more like a negative perception of the game. Is that a fair assessment? I was curious about this because this sentence is put between more positive reviews so I was struck by it when I first read it, and I was wondering if it could be placed differently.

• The Moore article isn't really a review, it's a column that compares Islanders with another miniature city-builder, 20 Minute Metropolis. I see what you mean though; I reworded the sentence to tie it more clearly to the aesthetic theme of the paragraph.

Wonderful work with the article. A majority of my comments are very minor nitpicks as I believe the above reviewers have already done a great job with reviewing this. I have seen this game on Steam a lot so it was fun to finally read and learn more about it, and I appreciate that you chose to do a FAC on such a wildly different topic than your previous one. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I never like to strike the same place twice :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Source review by Ealdgyth

• What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
  • https://paulschnepf.com/islanders
  • https://www.indiegamewebsite.com/2019/05/08/islanders-is-a-dangerous-lesson-in-entropy/
  • https://www.ind13.com/islanders-review/
  • https://gameworldobserver.com/2019/05/24/bestselling-april-releases-steam/
    • Based on a search of the WP:FACR talk page archives, "high-quality" is subjective relative to the subject matter of the article (and arguably as to what material in the article is being supported). As this is an indie game made by students, there was always going to be less "top-tier" gaming journalism devoted to it and a lot more indie-level coverage.
      • I would argue that the dev's blog is reliable as a citation of what engine the game uses, since I can't cite the game itself, and it's not mentioned in any other coverage.
        • That's a good usage of a primary source. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Indie Game Website is used on Metacritic, indicating that an industry aggregator takes their reviews/coverage as reliable. The "Entropy" piece is bylined to a human, well-written, and not promotional of the game; in fact, as an odd little thought-piece it's significantly more negative than most other coverage. IMO including it is important to help balance the article's perspective.
        • Being bylined by a human isn't exactly a indication of reliablity. And used on Metacritic is ... iffy itself. If this was being used solely as a "review" ... it MIGHT be enough to use, but I'm not clear if it's just being used for the reviewers opinion or if its being used for other facts in the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Well, it is cited in the Gameplay section once, but not for anything particularly controversial or that isn't supported by the other two citations as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Then lets remove it from the gameplay section and it should be okay for the review part. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Although IND13 allows users to submit articles for consideration, the review in question is bylined to Rahul Shirke, who is the site's deputy editor, so it's not user-generated. I don't see any indication that it's churnalism or based on a press release. Again the criticism from the article is relevant as a balancing factor.
        • As above - if solely for the review potential, I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide if it's a concern, but if it's used for facts, that's probably not a high quality source. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Also as above - it's cited once under Gameplay to back up the lack of multiplayer elements, but other sources support that too. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Let's remove it then, if better sources support the same info. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Both are removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I could swap that out for the original Steam announcement, if that's better.
        • This is supporting the best selling on steam fact, right? (Forgive me, I did a pile of source reviews in a short period so some things are running together)... if that's all it's supporting, changing out for the Steam source would be better, honestly. This is a classic example of when a primary source is better, honestly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that's all it's there for, so I'll swap it over. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:ALLCAPS, all caps shouldn't be used, even if they are in the original.
  • Handled ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Ealdgyth (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliability is satisfied - I did not do spot checks nor formatting checks. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Le Panini

I see I said I was gonna review this, but withdrew... a month ago. Sorry about that. That was probably annoying to see. Comments soon. Le Panini ^[🥪] 02:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nahh s'all good I understand.

Lead

• "It was built using the Unity 3D engine." I think this sentence belongs in the third paragraph, about development.

• Honestly I hated it in the third para so I just yanked it out of the lead entirely. I noticed that other gaming FAs didn't include the engine in the lead, so I don't think it's that great of a loss especially since it's in the infobox.

Gameplay

• "so careful placement and forward planning are important to maximize the score." This sounds two game guide-like to me, and I think it'd be better if this was removed.

• Hm, I dunno. I think it tells you about the style of game that's being played. It's not a sandbox game where you can succeed while placing stuff willy-nilly. Strategizing and planning ahead with limited resources is the crux of the game - if you place something badly, you can't remove it later, you just have to deal with it. (Compare, say, Dishonored, which discusses the gameplay ramifications of stealth vs violence in its gameplay section - the contrast goes to the heart of the game).

Release and updates

• "The game, which uses the Unity 3D engine, was initially released on Steam for Microsoft Windows on 4 April 2019." There's four references for these simple statements. If two of these sources are to cite the Unity 3D engine claim, I'd move them up, like this: "The game, which uses the Unity 3D engine, was initially released on Steam for Microsoft Windows on 4 April 2019."

• I hate putting references mid-sentence. I yanked the two Kotaku references instead so we're down to two.

Reception

• "Critical reception to Islanders was largely positive, and it received an aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic," I'd change this to "Critical reception to Islanders was largely positive, receiving an aggregate score of 82/100 on Metacritic,"

• Wording it that way is grammatically a bit wonky; it implies that the critical reception is the object receiving the aggregate score. I semi-colon'd it instead, does that work?

• Sure.

This article is good. A simple article for a simple game. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've made some changes as above (not always as suggested, but hopefully acceptable). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention I wasn't watching this page, so sorry about the delayed response. I'll lend my support. Le Panini ^[🥪] 12:52, 11 January 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) 14:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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