Islands: Non-Places is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 6, 2021 Good article nominee Listed September 27, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 16, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the surreal art game Islands: Non-Places, a bus stop may become an egg incubator and a fountain may conceal a vast underground space?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games: Indie Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the indie task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islands: Non-Places/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Npthura (talk · contribs) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be reviewing this article. I'll have comments most likely starting tomorrow. Npthura (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "...best known for the animated GIF illustrations he created for season two of the Serial podcast." I don't think this really fits into the lead that well. Readers should really know a basic understanding about the person that made the game in the lead.

• I don't understand what you mean. You say readers should know a basic understanding about about the person that made the game in the lead, but that the information doesn't fit? Which is it?

• There is a bit too much information about the gameplay in the lead. I recommend removing the sentence, 'Each scene is rendered in the stylized manner that characterizes Burton's work, with solid monotone colors, dark shadows, and foggy backgrounds' since readers only need a basic understanding of the game in this section.

• No, the lead should summarize the content of the article, and the visual style of the game is a major portion of the content of the article.

• Just like the development section, replace "PC" with "Microsoft Windows" and "Mac" with "macOS".

• Done

• Wikilink "installation art".

• Done

Gameplay

• In general, there seems to be minor instances of WP:OVERCITE throughout the section. Although this doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, you could probably remove some unnecessary sources cited in the section.

• 3 citations is not overcite, especially when each pertains to a portion of the sentence.

• "...consists of a series of anonymous, abstract dioramas..." Replace "dioramas" with "vignettes" and link it since it seems more relevant in this context.

• Both PC Gamer and Eurogamer use "diorama", which is why I did as well. "Vignette" is a disambig, and the most appropriate link there (vignette (model)) redirects to diorama.

• Is a vignette the same thing as a diorama? If so, you could change the other times the word "vignette" is mentioned to "diorama". To a casual reader, they might not know what a vignette is, so it makes more sense to just change it instead.

• Both words have been used to describe the game's scenes, and both are reasonably applicable. They don't need to mean precisely the same thing to both be correct in some sense, and in the interests of style and variety I'd prefer to keep both. "Vignette" is not so technical that the average reader wouldn't understand it, in my opinion. The applicable sense for vignette is #4 on Wiktionary: "A short story or anecdote that presents a scene or tableau, or paints a picture." Here we have a short interactive visual which "presents a scene or tableau", hence by extension we can call it a vignette. Diorama is also applicable because the scenes are "a three-dimensional display of a scenery". Sure they aren't physical structures, but by extension, we can call them dioramas.

• Acknowledge that there are 10 scenes in the game, which is mentioned by this source.

• Done

• You never added that information.

• Whoops, I did, but I had some issues and had to revert my changes and rework (see whatever happened here and the revert) and lost that. Re-added.

• The note defining liminal spaces seems pretty unnecessary; the wikilink seems to define liminal spaces in almost the same way.

  The casual reader might not have the same innate familiarity with liminality, and since it's integral to the game and therefore the meaning of the article, it seemed appropriate to explain without forcing someone to click through and read a whole other article just to understand this one.

• "Bus stop" shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK.

• Sure, although overlinking isn't anywhere in the GA criteria.

• "...with solid monotone colors,..." Add a comma between "solid" and "monotone" because both are adjectives.

• Style quibble. A comma is not required between adjectives. "John lives in a big red house" is not grammatically incorrect, and neither is the current sentence.

• "The soundtrack mainly consists of ambient sounds such as distant cars or birdsong, which are not always obviously connected with the visuals of a scene, as well as assorted sound effects." This sentence sounds wonky, especially the last part. I recommend that you change this to: "The soundtrack consists of assorted sound effects and ambient sounds such as distant cars or birdsong, which are not always connected with the visuals of a scene."

• Reworded, but I'm keeping the link to sound effects to subtly clarify to the reader that this refers to something distinct from the environmental sounds.

• "Sound effects" shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK.
• "...which Burton found on the internet." Although this is just a preference, replacing "which" with "that" improves the flow of the sentence to me.

• "Which" sounds more formal to me.

• "The gameplay is extremely minimalist:" Replace the colon with a semicolon.

• No, the colon is correct, as the part that follows "demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before". (MOS:COLON).

• "...only means of interaction is clicking on the environment..." should be changed to "...only means of interaction is clicking on areas of the environment..."

• There's no need to specify "areas" in the first sentence when the immediate next sentence says it.

• "Interactive areas are usually, but not always, noticeably lit up." This sentence also seems to sound pretty wonky because of the amount of commas in it. I think the best way to handle this is to just combine it with the previous sentence; they seem to be about the same topic.

• Speaking of the next sentence, these sentences are deliberately split. The point is to highlight that the interactive areas are lit-up most of the time - but not always, which was a point of criticism for some reviewers. I swapped the commas for en dashes though.

• "and no overarching narrative or goal aside from interacting with the current scene" should be changed to "and there is no overarching narrative or goal aside from interacting with the current scene" to improve readability.

• That would be repetitive with the first clause of the sentence.

• "The game is short, and can be completed in approximately an hour." Both sources mention that it takes less than an hour to complete it, so this should be changed to: "The game is short, and can be completed in approximately less than an hour."

• Reworded.

• "Puzzles" shouldn't be linked per per WP:OVERLINK.

• Fine

• I recommend splitting the first paragraph into two paragraphs between "beneath it" and "each scene" since they both seem to be about a differing topic. The first part appears to be about the overall concept of the game, while the second part appears to be about the visuals and sound of the game.

• Split, although not at the recommended point.

Development

• I actually found this reliable source that provides a lot of information of the development of this game. Feel free to incorporate some of the information from this into the article.

• This was a really good find, thank you. I've significantly expanded the development section using it.

• Replace "PC" with "Microsoft Windows" per WP:MOSVG, since the term "PC" denotes terms for everyday computers of any operating system.
• Replace "Mac" with "macOS".

• Both done.

• It's still called "PC" in the development section.

• Sorry, another VE/revert issue.

• In the second sentence of the first paragraph, none of the cited in that sentence sources mention when the game was released, and both cited sources don't mention that the game was released on Linux.

• Actually, the Verge link says "released today" and is dated November 17, 2016. I think I'd intended to cite Boing Boing, not PC Gamer, as that supports the Linux release. Replaced.

• You didn't add the Boing Boing source for some reason.

• Appears to have been a VE issue - I definitely copied the Boing Boing reference but for some reason I got the HyperAllergic one in there instead. God willing it should be correct now.

Reception

• Change the header "Critical reception to simply "Reception".

• Done

• It wasn't changed.

• Sorry, another VE/revert issue.

• "The visuals were similar to his previous animated work, with Rob Funnell at TouchArcade noting that the game felt like 'a relatively logical step' for Burton to take." Change this to: "The visuals were similar to Burton's previous animated work, with Rob Funnell at TouchArcade noting that the game felt like 'a relatively logical step' for him to take."

• Tweaked

• "Potted plants" and "escalator" shouldn't be linked per per WP:OVERLINK.

• Fine

• Capitalize "award" in the last sentence.

• Done

References

• According to WP:VG/RS and WP:RSP, Boing Boing as a source seems fairly sketchy, and Twinfinite is considered unreliable itself.

• Boing Boing is situational; in this case it supports the Linux release (non-contoversial & unlikely to be challenged) and Burton's previous work, which is backed up by another source, so I think it's safe. Twinfinite, I've siloed off so it's only cited in the review section for its own opinion. This was acceptable for a similar source at Islanders (video game) as even "unreliable" sites are reliable sources of their own opinions (see the FAC for that discussion). In my opinion Twinfinite is relevant for its opinion as it was one of the few that was somewhat critical of the game's mechanics, and removing it entirely would artificially slant the article in a more positive direction.

• Archive all sources.

• This is not required by GA, but I've looked into it.

Images

• Both non-free media need to be replaced with a smaller version, and there are some parts of the fair use rationale in both media that need to be filled in.

• Been waiting on DatBot, but it seems there's a delay. I've done it manually with the header and have asked at DatBot's talk page about the gif, as I have no way to resize it myself.

• DatBot has taken care of the gif now as well.

Infobox

• Include the publisher of the video game (which I assume is Carl Burton), since it's an important piece of information for the infobox, especially a video game.

• Done

• The game engine isn't linked correctly.

• I think I am going to hurl visual editor into the sun, maybe. It should be fixed now.

• That's all the issues I could find. This is my first review, so if you have any questions or you think my comments are incorrect, let me know. Npthura (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is your first review, I apologize for giving pushback on some of the comments, but some are a bit outside the purview of GA, and some are not quite correct in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry I didn't review this article adequately enough. Some of my comments (especially in the gameplay section) where either unnecessary, subjective, out-of-place, or just flat-out wrong, and I apologize for that. That being said, I crossed out comments that you addressed or I believe weren't correct or necessary. There's still some comments that you didn't correct for some reason, and I also added a few new comments. Once these have been addressed, I'll promote this article to GA status. I'll strive to review better next time. Npthura (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for an apology. GA is kind of odd to review for because it doesn't require rigorous perfection the way FA does, it just needs an article to be "pretty good". So for example stuff like site archiving and compliance with more subjective MOS pages like overlink aren't necessary for a GA pass. The essay "What the Good article criteria are not" gives a fairly good overview of what does and doesn't need to be covered by a GA review - it might be helpful to you.
  Don't get discouraged though! A lot of the changes were right, and you found a really useful source I hadn't had before, which is always awesome. The thoroughness of the review would be perfect at FA level - you should definitely look into commenting on some featured candidates :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your kind and encouraging words! The essay you linked was actually very useful to me, and I will definitely rely on it with future GA reviews. Because it is my first review, I appreciate that you guided me throughout reviewing this article, and the things you typed could really help me in the future. It seems like all my comments have been addressed, and I will promote this to GA status. Thanks again! Npthura (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers, thanks for the review! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this nomination at FAC and thought I'd try the game; it's short and entertaining, so thanks for the recommendation! (Though I think Feed the Head is the champion oddball game.) I started reviewing at FAC but found myself wanting to do more copyediting than is appropriate at FAC, so I thought I'd post here to see what you think. Here's what I'd like to change the "Gameplay" section to -- let me know what you think. I can give you my reasons for the changes I've made but I don't want to overcommunicate so I'll wait for your comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islands: Non-Places consists of a series of ten scenes, each of which represents a constructed environment such as a parking lot, a hotel lobby, or an airport. These spaces are rendered in the stylized manner that characterizes Burton's work, with solid monotone colors, dark shadows, and foggy backgrounds, and although each environment is clearly built by humans, there are no people in any of them. These mundane scenes become increasingly surreal as the player interacts with the scenery: for example, in one scene, an empty bus stop becomes an incubator for eggs; in another, a malfunctioning fountain opens up to reveal a vast underground space beneath it. The soundtrack mainly consists of assorted artificial sound effects and ambient environmental sounds such as distant cars or birdsong, which are not always obviously connected with the visuals of a scene; the sounds are all pre-existing, freely licensed recordings which Burton found on the internet.

The gameplay is minimalist: the camera can be rotated around the scene in a fixed circle, but the player cannot move within it. The only way to interact with the game is to click on the scene, which prompts the next events to unfold, and eventually leads to the next scene. Interactive areas are usually–but not always–noticeably lit up. There are no puzzles to be solved, and no overarching narrative or goal aside from interacting with each scene. The game is short, and can be completed in less than an hour. Because of its minimal interactivity and heavy emphasis on visuals, it is usually described by critics as an art game.

I don't agree with all of your changes, particularly the elimination of mentioning liminality, which I think is essential. I have made some alterations based on what you posted above - what do you think? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I suggested the remaining differences:

• "anonymous" -> "constructed" -- I don't think the sources support "anonymous" very well, and I'm not sure what is intended by it. It seems important (given the liminality comments) that the scenes are of places that are built by humans, but I don't think it's clear what "anonymous" means -- perhaps "not identified as a particular example of a space", e.g. this is a parking lot but it's not identified as the JFK long-stay parking lot? Can you say why you think "anonymous" is the right word and how the sources support it?
  • Anonymous as in "non-descript", unidentifiable as anything other than a generic example of the type. It ties into the concept of "non-places" and liminality, which is clearly supported by the sources.

    I like "nondescript"; could we use that instead of "anonymous"? I think it's more direct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Cheated and put it in addition to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "each scene clearly represents a constructed space" -> "each environment is clearly built by humans" -- I avoided "constructed" partly because I used it in the first sentence, but also because it has a figurative meaning -- there are abstract constructs as well as physical constructs. I was trying to be as clear as possible to the reader what it is about the scenes that's being commented on. I'd like a better term in the first sentence too, but I couldn't come up with one.
  • I didn't use it in my first sentence, so there's no issue with repetition. My initial version specified constructed as opposed to natural, which seems to fix the problem you describe, but your version removed that.
• I cut the "liminal" sentence because I don't think it fits in the Gameplay section, though I think it's a key part of the appeal of the game and I like the point being made. Given that the gameplay is so minimal, and the ambience is a big part of the game's appeal, I can see why you included it. I don't think it's necessary here but it's a judgement call and if you really think it's necessary I'll drop the point.
  • Yes, I think it is significant. The whole point is that the scenes are intended to evoke the same feeling of liminality/non-place/disconnection that being in those spaces in real life can have.
• I connected the two sentences beginning "The seemingly..." and "In one scene..." with a semicolon and "for example" for flow; the rhythm is getting a bit staccato at that point in the paragraph and the two sentences are a natural fit with each other.
  • Do that and we have 5 refs at the end of one sentence, I'd rather have slightly less flow and more ref separation.

    Could we not have the refs at the ends of the clauses, so there wouldn't be five together? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • • I really, really hate putting refs in the middle of sentences. It breaks up the flow visually and is super distracting imo.
• Similarly the two sentences about the sounds seem to me to flow better when connected.
  • If we do that, we have a one-sentence paragraph, and I don't think the bits about the sound design ought to be put together with the visual design; separate topic, separate paragraph.
• I cut "extremely" from "extremely minimalist" as unnecessary. There's an old newspaper editor's saying: "Use 'damn' instead of 'very' when writing your stories; that way you can be sure they'll be cut from the final copy". I don't think we need to emphasize this beyond "minimalist"; we give a complete description of the gameplay so the reader understands just how minimal it is.
  • For readers who haven't played it, or who don't do much gaming at all, I think it's necessary to emphasize how extreme Burton takes the minimalism schtick, especially as it became a point of critique for some reviewers. So far the other people at the FAC haven't seen an issue with it, so my preference is to retain it.
• I added "and eventually leads to the next scene", and you kept the addition but changed it to "leading to the next when it is finished". I think neither of these is quite right; my version is a bit vague about what it is that leads to the next scene, and your version doesn't say "next scene", so it could be read as "leading to the next step of the scene". The point I was trying to get across is that the activity within a scene, and the transitions from scene to scene, are both caused by the same player interaction -- clicking on the scene. I used "eventually" because there's no clue in the scene about when the scene will end. Is there a better way to convey this?

Hope you don't mind the detailed prose analysis; I enjoyed the game a lot and it made me pay a lot of attention to the prose here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Tweaked a little, should be more clear now I think. I'm glad you liked the game (out of curiosity, had you played it prior to the FAC?) and the article as well. Critique is always good - I wouldn't have gone to FAC if I didn't want any :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Your tweaks are a definite improvement and resolve the issue I was concerned about. No, I hadn't played it before seeing the FAC -- it was your article that led me to try it. A couple more replies above -- for the ones I didn't reply to, I'm not sure I agree with your points but I think the remaining issues are matters of judgement so we can see if other editors chime in at FAC or afterwards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm glad that my writing got you interested in the game! I responded to the two remaining comments above, and have made changes per the FAC comments as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again, I have a couple more comments, but nothing very substantive, so I'll post at the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding "nondescript"; I do think that helps. Re your comments about having references in the middle and too many at the end, I've no problem with leaving that sentence as it is, but as a general rule won't that lead you to consistently use short sentences where multiple refs are needed to cover something? If we can't add refs in the middle, and can't pile them up at the end, those sentences have to be chopped up. Many sentences won't need four or five refs, so it won't be an issue often, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to let the visual aesthetics trump prose considerations. Just my two cents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I've run into as a big problem in the past, to be honest. It isn't so much about visuals in the sense of aesthetics as it is about how the arrangement of text can be distracting for the reader. I have ADHD and I find it more difficult to parse text when refs and stuff are interspersed with it so I make things easier for myself (and, I like to hope, others with similar issues) by avoiding putting refs midsentence. I have a hard time with raw wikitext editing for the same reason - visual editor is a lifesaver for me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Visual Editor fan! We can agree on that, then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• James Turrell - Rendering for Aten Reign - Photo 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]