Talk:Bonfire (Dark Souls)/GA1

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

Nominator: PrimalMustelid (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin Hi, so when will you start the review if you don’t mind me asking? PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, I was without a PC for like a week so I forgot about this. Let me finish up another GA and I'll get this finished today. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I can wait a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'll prioritize this since it seems the other GA nom has been inactive. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

1. My first thought is to make sure that "bonfires" and "bonfire" is consistent; I feel like it's a little loosey goosey with respect to when it uses one or the other.
2. I feel like the "positive reception" bit could go at the beginning of the paragraph, since all of the paragraph deals with positive reception to it.
3. I feel like "many Easter eggs" is a little exaggerative for five games; maybe use several instead.

Implemented your lead suggestions, although I'm unsure about what you mean by the first one. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean for the first one is that it feels like it sometimes uses singular or plural differently for no apparent reason. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I should consistently use either singular or plural form, is that correct? PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a good reason to use one over the other, yeah - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced most plural forms in the lead. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

1. Is it important to mention that the character is undead? I don't think that anything is really lost if that factor is not mentioned.

I suppose not really, removed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which source is used to verify that Dark Souls 3 allows upgrading, leveling up, and repairing gear? I'd also appreciate if you could double check that the existence of these features is verified for 1 and 2 as well.

I believe that this is technically (or partially depending on how you want to look at it) confirmed when the Polygon article states, "Those bonfires were to enable players to perform various functions, though many of those functions sound like the type of things players can do at Dark Souls’ bonfires already (level up, reverse hollowing, etc.)" in terms of Dark Souls III. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances

1. "In the Dark Souls series, many of them are scattered throughout different locations and range from close proximity to each other to far away to give off appearances of being scattered throughout different locations." Is this dev info, that they intentionally made them scattered? If so, I think it'd work better in Characteristics, and also could stand to be pared down.

Relocated to the Characteristics section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I feel like the YouTuber info is given too much weight. For example, this line: "known for investigations of cut contents of games produced by FromSoftware" is not really valuable, the fact that a source is being cited for what he said should be adequate for context. I would also recommend reducing the discussion of the YouTuber's theory as best you can, if possible to a brief summary, as I think that a theory with that much elaboration would need to be something more widely adopted and accepted.

Simplified the cut content a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is there no lore surrounding bonfires discussed in reliable secondary sources?

Ironically, bonfires have amongst the least amount of explicit lore attached to them in the Dark Souls series. The closest thing is mentioning the Fire Keepers, but I couldn't find any good secondary source that demonstrates their importance to bonfires. There's really too little written about them, unfortunately. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

1. I expanded the Alice O'Connor reference to delve a little deeper, as I feel that her thoughts of the bonfire also representing a stop before going into a new area. Make sure to check whether you can "milk" sources for more info.

Elaborated a bit more on reception from certain sources. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. At a glance, I feel that the reception could do a better job of flowing from one piece to the next; as it is, a lot of the reception feels like "Source said this. Source said that."

I tried to address this, but I don't really know to how to handle it. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple ways to go about this; you could try to rearrange the sources to make sure that what one source says leads into the next more. Another option would be to organize the Reception section by the critical commentary, so using the same source in multiple areas. For example, if there's a paragraph talking about the atmosphere of the Bonfire and a paragraph talking about the cultural impact, a source that talks about both could be used in both sections. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the reception section by different areas of critical commentary based on your suggestion. Let me know what you think. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. At a glance, the amount of quotations may be excessive. Consider paring them down and replacing them with paraphrasing.

Reduced the quotations a bit and replaced them with paraphrasing. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Attack of the Fanboy is not a reliable source

Replaced with a GameRevolution source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. While Valnet sources are not unusuable, is it possible to replace them with better ones?

I generally tried to minimize Valnet source usage outside of reception (just done so a bit more), but there are some areas where I can't find better sources to replace them. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't see FandomWire listed on WP:VG/RS. The source doesn't seem bad so I won't ask for its removal, but I'd recommend getting more opinions by bringing the site up on WT:VG/RS.

I can bring it up there later on. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]