Talk:Isle of the Dead (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

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]

Perhaps a link to List of video games notable for negative reception; perhaps even with an entry on the list?
- Wiki-linked. I asked for an entry on the list in the talk page but no one responded. Though I do not believe it fits the criteria the page has to require it to be on there. GamerPro64 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have a suitable wikilink for IBM in the opening line?
- done. GamerPro64 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are these American companies/programmers? I feel I'm missing some context!
- I want to say yes but I don't think there are any reliable sources that say where they are from. GamerPro64 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The developer also intended" Who? Why also?
- Answered. GamerPro64 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from your other sources, which release year seems more likely? Ideally, I think we'd name a particular release date, but perhaps note a discrepancy in a footnote. I'd be surprised if it was really "unknown"!
- Its possible it was released in 1994. I will just have it say 1994 unless there is a concrete date. GamerPro64 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is some inconsistent date formatting and a some superfluous information in the references, but life's too short.
- Done. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Hardcore Gaming 101 a reliable source?
- Its marked as reliable at the VG WikiProject Sources page. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I recommend against the interwiki link? If the magazine is notable, a redlink is fine.
- Not sure where that came from. Wiki-linked. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, do you read Finnish or German? There might be some information you could draw from them. Google Translate can do a lot of the work, or you could contact someone at an appropriate WikiProject may be able to help (if you think it's worth it).
- Cannot speak a lick of Finnish or German. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IGN lists the game as 1993. An unreliable source I saw mentioned "the 1994 version" with differences from the 1993 version. Difficult...
- So should there be a note added about there not being a certain date it came out? GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure. I suspect there were two versions, but I'm not sure we have the sources to support this. Perhaps going with the earlier date would be better; we can assume this was the first release and just not mention any subsequent release. I do worry that these sorts of puzzles are the sorts of things we should be clearing up in articles, though. What do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It might just be easier to make it 1993 at this time. GamerPro64 14:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in Maxim. I don't know how reliable it is, but it's a fun little description...
- I saw that while writing up the article. Thought it was rather superfluous. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I suspect this shows the "rerelease" cover... It also provides evidence that some of the companies are US-based (I think), and points towards some references.
- Don't think I should be using a Tumblr account as a source. GamerPro64 01:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but you can surely cite the original advert; you can chase it up using the information given. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you cite ads on Wikipedia? GamerPro64 14:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why not, and have seen it a few times (including specifically in articles about '90s video games). Naturally, they're primary sources, so they'd have to be used cautiously, but they'd be good sources for (say) information about release dates, or companies involved, or how games were presented by their publishers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Follow-up on this. How do I cite ads on Wikipedia? Is there a specific cite style for these? GamerPro64 23:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd just cite it as a magazine article; I can see it popping up in a few styleguides online (e.g., MLA). I saw Cat's Tuxedo cited an advert in Solstice (1990 video game), which was recently promoted to GAC (by me, admittedly). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 8 July 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]