Sources[edit]

Restoring original source dump, which was removed:

czar 17:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rain World/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought the lede was short for the length prior to the nom, but upon looking at it, I didn't find anything that needed to be added. Do you think it's missing something in particular? Otherwise I think it's an adequate summary.
The player—it's referring to the gameplay experience
James Primate is the adopted name of James Therrien, but this isn't explicitly connected in any source... (Sources refer to either James Therrien or James Primate as a co-designer.) I added one such citation that shows "Therrien" as a co-designer, though I think it veers too far into original research. Alternatively, I could not mention it at all? But that seems even less appropriate
This has been a development through the past several FACs—there isn't a conceptual issue with using the magazine as a metonym, especially if the focus is on making important points that the reader can understand and hold rather than having them juggle 12 unimportant names (unimportant at least for the section's purposes)
No? But rephrased
Rephrased, though I think it was among the main points of that review
Those were quotes to indicate a phrase, not a direct quote that would need attribution—rephrased anyway

The sources all look appropriate and images seem fine. I suppose I should wait for the OTRS ticket to be confirmed (I lost my access...) I will note that I'm always thrilled to see freely released images/videos like this! Ok, that's enough for now; please double-check my copyedits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, thanks for the review! I think I got everything, if you'll take a look. I also have plenty more video/animations from game devs on Commons, if you're interested czar 17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn czar 14:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, and sorry for the delay. I'll find time, I promise! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been so long.

Sorry again for the delay- I'll aim to be back to take a closer look at the sources soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, I don't have an image that I'd use to illustrate the "rat in Manhattan", though I think these three are fine examples of the animation style/fluidity. The float-right stack doesn't bother me because it displays well in the browser for varied resolutions where it might become overillustrated if broken into three separate captions. Alternatively, I could drop the second of the three animations but I'd rather not. Some of the language differences (especially with prepositions) might be regional—if there's an agnostic way to put it (or, of course, if I makes no sense) then I'm fine with rephrasing. I try to do what's best for the reader. I believe I've addressed your other points too. Appreciate the review czar 03:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this review has taken so long; I am finding I have less and less time for Wikipedia.

And my source checking was otherwise fine. I'll be happy to promote once these two small issues have been looked into. I do disagree with a few of the stylistic options (as explored above), but I appreciate that it is not the place of a GA reviewer to force changes of that sort! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant user acclaim?[edit]

I’m not the right person to add this, nor do I yet have a personal opinion on the quality of the game. But it seems like the “Reception” section could stand to mention the community reception as well- e.g. the 1,079 steam reviews that presently give the game an average rating of 9/10. The disparity seems notable enough to merit a mention. Dagdammit (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be notable if it were noted by reliable, secondary sources. Otherwise, user-generated feedback is notorious for being manipulated/subject to caveats. czar 21:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think even adding some details in the lead next to the summary of mixed critical reviews is probably a good idea. Rain World has definitely (A) built a significant cult following since release and (B) been heavily reappraised as an extremely good game both critically and with audiences since the initial mixed critical reaction. The obvious challenge with documenting this in the article is having objective sources and citations for saying so. If we can collect those it would be valuable for the article. It's an accurate thing to document regarding the game's reception. --180.150.37.234 (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia has policies that editors must follow, and that those policies are in place for good reasons. But no policy is just in every situation, and in this particular case Wikipedia policy has committing an injustice for some time.64.85.227.176 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release of Downpour[edit]

I really don't know how add this into the wikipedia article in a nice way but maybe someone could 2001:48F8:7052:BE5:0:0:0:106C (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Positive user reviews[edit]

I feel that the critic reviews of Rain World do not paint a full picture of the reception, as user reviews tended to lean more toward the positive side. I do not know how to add this, though. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated section on Downpour?[edit]

I think Downpour is a noteworthy enough addition to the game that it needs a full section in the article rather than a single mention of its announcement and release. Atlas2432015 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Downpour into plot?[edit]

I feel that Downpour should also be explained in the plot. It adds 5 new characters that are much more intertwined with the plot of the iterators than the original characters, but they were all completely skipped over in the plot section. I think we should include them into the plot somehow TheWikiToby (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Downpour into the plot[edit]

I just added the plot of the 5 campaigns in the Downpour DLC. I'm a more newer editor, so I'm bound to have probably made a mistake somewhere in the writing. Someone look at what I added and fix anything I may have overlooked.

Cheers! TheWikiToby (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, really appreciate it. I've trimmed it down significantly though, as the plot section was getting rather unwieldy (the Wikipedia Manual of Style for video games recommends 700 words for plot summaries). Free to amend it if I've accidentally omitted anything important though. ― novov (t c) 07:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]