Talk:Don't Starve/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) 09:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to review this and will give it a start now. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll go through and look at referencing after I've copyedited and written up some prose concerns. As a warning I write a lot of rhetorical questions, they're meant as 'here's what I was thinking when reading the article, you should probably clarify this.' Samwalton9 (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone back through and looked at sources too, and will do from now on. Doing them together makes more sense on reflection. I'll do development at the least tomorrow. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. I promise to carry on in detail tomorrow but for now I'll give you something to do. There's only currently one PS4 review and no mention of how reception compared between the versions (if at all), with no coverage of the plethora of PS4 reviews: IGN, Eurogamer, Destructoid, OPM, The Independent. How you want to include them is up to you but I feel this version should receive its fair share of coverage. I haven't read through them but some may even give you some content for the PS4 paragraph in the development section. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I used IGN for its score only (the prose was copied verbatim), OPM for a generic score of the PS4 version and one bit of reviewing, and Destructoid for some actual information on the differences between the PS4 and PC versions. The other two seemed redundant. Tezero (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the development section makes sense, and I think I'm happy to pass this once points on the lead (and one extra in development) have been addressed. I also do think you should remove unnecessary plot references, specifically ones like "Maxwell: Freedom, at last!" which don't actually back up their cited sentence but appear to just be things said at around the same time. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Done, and I've removed two of them. Tezero (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• The statement that this is presumed (by who?) to be Klei's last survival game doesn't appear elsewhere in the article. This should be cited in the lede, cited in the article, or removed.
  • Reworded. It's implied in the source that talks about Klei wanting to do something different with each game, but not outwardly stated. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• The early-2010s statement should be reworded in the same way it was in the Development section. I'd also like to see it cut down a bit in comparison.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "the player receives 20 each day" - I'm assuming this is in-game days i.e. days survived, but with the current trend of mobile games requiring things to happen in real life time, that might not be obvious. I think clarification here would be a good idea.
  • Yeah, it's in-game. Done. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• When the player goes into Adventure Mode, do they come back out into survival if they complete it or not?
  • Yeah. Clarified. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Do players chose which items to keep at the end of each chapter?
  • Yeah. Done. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• That the game keeps a record of the number of days survived doesn't appear to be in the given source.
  • Yeah, you're right; I misinterpreted it from the source. (I wrote the article before I'd actually played the game; I'd only read about it and watched gameplay footage.) Fixed. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• It would appear that the characters can be unlocked through experience points gained over multiple lives, is this true? If so I think that should be clarified.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Plot

• You don't really need to cite plot sections which just describe the story (Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed - I'm sure there's an actual guideline/policy about this...), and the various in-game quotes do fill up the references section. I think you should remove at least most of the citations to the game in this section; leave one at the end of each paragraph if you wish.
  • They're not required, but they're common (present in my previous FAs and GAs, for example), and they help verify that what's said is true. Would it help to combine existing quotes that are said one after the other? That's sometimes done. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I guess it doesn't matter too much either way. I'm just not too fond of over half the references being quotes from the game, especially when a fair amount of them are just quotes from the game that occur around the time the event being cited happens; that's not very useful as a citation. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Where do these other characters come into the game; are they playable, NPCs, etc.?
  • Playable. Done. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• It might be good to differentiate somehow the difference between how Willow starts fire and how it is started normally. His being able to start a fire doesn't sound like a new power otherwise.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "brings his own sword"? (This may be me not knowing a phrase)
  • I don't really know—it's just in the game's description of him—so I removed it. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• External links shouldn't be present in the article itself.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Development

• "This was also during the heat of an early-2010s trend of creating games in which players are dropped into a world with few instructions and a goal of survival." - This is sort of in the source, and I think the general notion is worth mentioning, but there isn't really anything in the source which gives the style of game any time frame, for all we know it could have been happening for 10+ years. A rewording/cutting down of this sentence would be a good idea.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• "systems-exploration gameplay experience" - I don't really know what that means, and I strongly doubt that someone who doesn't play video games would.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• "weird little experiment" isn't a direct quote from the source. The exact quote is "weird experiment" if you still wanted that there.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• You could reduce on quotations a little in this paragraph, for example I don't think "emphasis upon character and theme." needs to be a quotation, you could actually just take out the quotation marks.
  • Done, and not just with that quote. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• That the development team found the supernatural elements and use of a day/night cycle in Lost in Blue important isn't in the source.
  • Reworded. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• The IndieGames source should probably cite the original interview found on Gamasutra; the IG source is a direct copy of it, see the footnote on that article.
  • Fixed. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• " ...art style was influenced by the work of filmmaker Tim Burton, to which it has been frequently compared" - One or two other sources which compare the game to the work of Burton should be included here.
  • Done. Very easy to find. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is easy to find people comparing it to Tim Burton but there are no sources that show it was influenced by Tim Burton. The source cited for that is just a Gamasutra article where the author of the artical calls it a "Tim Burton take on Minecraft". Which of course can be used to show how people are comparing it to Tim Burton's work, but is not a source that demonstrates the game was influenced by Tim Burton. Grundy923 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely convinced that the source confirms that "Don't Starve's development taught Klei a considerable amount about the nature of the emergent gameplay that was endemic to its open and random world", the answer sounds more like it being about procedural generation than anything.
  • In context, I don't see the difference. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• This source could be used to flesh out the section a little, specifically it might be useful for the game's initial creation. This may also be useful.
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• There's no mention of the upcoming DLC yet either (granted this was only announced recently!) - [1], [2]
  • Done. Tezero (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• "as well as a potential sequel" doesn't appear to be backed up in the source.
  • Yeah, I accidentally cited the wrong one. My bad. Tezero (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reception

• Section is good on the whole, I gave the section a copyedit and reduced the number of quotes.

Final Checklist

• 1a - After a little copyediting I think the article reads well. Some overciting of sources has been reduced, and requested a little more trimming.
• 1b - Complies with the MOS to the best of my knowledge.
• 2a - References section is good, especially so once the plot overciting has been trimmed.
• 2b - Well sourced; any concerns were addressed.
• 2c - No OR.
• 3a - Main aspects are all there; DLC and PS4 coverage were added as topics not covered.
• 3b - I don't think it goes into any unnecessary detail. Early 2010s trend mention needs reducing in lead, however.
• 4 - Neutral. Positive and negative reception covered.
• 5 - Article is stable.
• 6a - Both images are tagged with appropriate fair use rationales - I reworded the gameplay image rationale slightly.
• 6b - Both images are relevant and useful. I trimmed the image caption of the reception mention.

Overall this article is good to go once my final concerns have been addressed. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)