Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxenfree/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2018 [1].

Oxenfree

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game that's a personal favorite of mine. It's got an excellent audiovisual presentation and a story that is ripped out of the 80s/90s Spielberg/high school drama tableau. Article has been through a GA and PR and looking to get this a bronze star. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Support

edit

I suppose, since it's a video game, I go into it expecting lots of garish imags; ironic, then, that it only has one small screenshot! I do understand that's due to its fair use; howver, do you think it would be possible to find a couple more images to break up some of the (if you don't mind me saying) slightly—plain looking paragraps / sections? Perhaps photos of the creators, designers, etc., or soem packaging, advertising? Just a stylistic suggestion though.

Also, isn't self sent hyphenated? audiovisual too? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into finding additional free images. "self sent" in this instance is a different parsing, not "self-sent", and "audiovisual" is generally one word in style guides I've seen, e.g. [2] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Apologies I never came back to you. I think that extra image makes all the difference, while still being of relevance to the topic and adding a human touch to it. The only thing is—again regarding the breaking-up of text—perhas make them slightly bigger? Changing the upright (which should really be used in any case, for the purpose of maintaining scales) to 1.5x its original size gives you this. What do you think? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong opinion on it, so that sounds fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit

I absolutely love this game, so I will try my best to help with this nomination. Great work with this overall! My comments are below:

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image/logo.
  • I have comment about this portion (This was expanded to the) from the lead’s first paragraph. I would avoid starting a sentence with “This”.
  • For this part (later in 2016, iOS, Android, and the Nintendo Switch in 2017.), I would replace the comma after “2016” with “and”.
  • I think that the following sentence (There, seemingly supernatural events occur and Alex and her friends must unravel the secrets of the island.) can be better worded. I am not sure about starting a sentence with “There”. Maybe something like (Alex and her friends must unravel the island’s secrets while seemingly supernatural events occur.).
  • For this part (Influenced by classic teen movies and), I would link “teen movies” to the appropriate article.
  • Something about the tone for this sentence (The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with sharp, distorted, and digital ones.) seems strange to me. It reads a little too editorial for my taste, and seems more appropriate for a review/article. I would revise it to make it more appropriate and clearer on how it fits in Wikipedia.
  • In the reference titles, avoid putting words in all caps. Examples of this in the article are references 19, 21, and 22, but I would look over all of the references to check for this.
  • Please add ALT text to the screenshot. Make sure that all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
  • For this part (built around the "walk and talk" mechanic), do you think that a link to “walk and talk” would be helpful?
  • For this part (suggesting that the player's choice may have had an effect on the characters' relationship.), I would cut “may have had an effect” to “had an effect” as the ambiguity is already established through the previous word “suggesting”.
  • For this part (Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions), is the word “loss” really necessary here?
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I think that the person’s name should be before the quote. For instance, in this section, ("We thought, why not let you move freely while communicating, interacting, and exploring a branching narrative?" Krankel recalled.), I would putt Krankel recalled before the quote. I think that it would make it clearer to the reader who is saying this rather than having to go through the entire quote to find out, and something about the tone of this sentence structure strikes me as something use more in a fictional work, like a novel, instead of something like Wikipedia. This is up to you, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
  • For this part (The developers were influenced by other coming-of-age stories like Stand By Me), I would make it clear that Stand By Me is a film and include the year in which it was released. I would also make it clear in the prose that Freaks and Geeks is a television series.
  • For this part (Youtuber Jesse Cox posted), do you think that “Youtuber” should be linked?
  • For this part (reviewers also felt that the naturalistic dialogue of Oxenfree was a strength, while IGN’s), I think that “though” would be a better word choice than “while” as it would be better fit the contrast of ideas present in the sentence.
  • Please link IGN on its first use in the body of the article. The same comment applies for Destructoid.
  • When you first mention Playstation 4 and link it, I would put PS4 in parenthesis after it since you use the acronym for the rest of the article.
  • I have a comment for this part (fans playing the ARG discovered). The acronym for ARG has not been established in the article so this could be confusing for some readers.

I hope you find this helpful. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aoba, thanks for the review. I'd addressed or adjusted per most of your comments. A few responses: for the game over/loss bit, I included the loss in case there are readers unfamiliar with the term "game over". The references all use OXENFREE in their titles, I'm not sure if the MoS recommends removing them even in those instances? I wasn't really sure what you meant by the sentence being "too editorial" for Wikipedia; it's paraphrasing the Gamasutra reference. I swapped the quotation order on one of the passages in the development section, but I left the other where it was because it bridges the two quotations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I am still honestly not sure about the "The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." sentence. What I mean by "too editorial" is that I find that this sentence seems more appropriate for a review on the game rather an encyclopedic entry on it. It raises some questions on POV, especially since it is right in the lead, as it reads a little bit too much like fan language/praise for the game for my personal taste. I was always told to keep the tone as objective as possible, and I am not sure how that sentence works with that in mind. However, I will leave that issue to other reviewers, as I may just be overthinking it. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

edit

I haven't played this video game. I have only a PS3 and a Nintendo Wii from 2008, plus I'm more of a Cities: Skylines guy. Sounds like a very cool game, though. Anyway, on with the review:

Lead:

  • PlayStation 4 and Linux versions of the game released later in 2016 - do you mean "were released later in 2016", or is this some video gaming lingo where the games release themselves?
  • assume the role of teenager Alex - I'd suggest "a teenage girl named Alex". You do use "her" in the very next sentence.
  • developer Night School Studio - not sure the "developer" part is necessary, you already described Night School as a "developer" earlier on.
  • collectors edition - does this need an apostrophe after "collectors"?

Gameplay:

  • speech bubbles appear over Alex's head giving the player a choice between two or three dialogue options - I'd add a comma after "head".
  • Players can select dialogue options at any time during conversations, choosing to wait for other characters to finish, to interrupt, or to remain silent. Certain dialogue options cause a thought bubble with Alex inside it to appear over characters' heads, suggesting that the player's choice had an effect on the characters' relationship. - Just a question, do these dialogue options affect the subsequent movements of the characters at all, or do you just pick an option and the other characters respond? Like if I chose an option to be rude, would the other character respond in kind?
  • Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions; the player's choices and relationships with the characters determine which of several possible endings the player receives - How many endings would there be? (Five are mentioned below, but I think it would be helpful here as well.) And if I'm understanding correctly, it's not possible to lose the game, since you're just going through the storyline.

Plot:

  • Clarissa (Avital Ash), Alex's late brother Michael's ex-girlfriend - Are they the same person? (Just to clarify, I've never played this game, so if I'm asking a question, it's because I really don't know.)
  • time looping repeatedly - I guess you can link time loop at this point.
  • In a small cavern, Alex tunes her radio and unexpectedly forms a rift - like a physical rift, or a metaphysical rift? This is a bit confusing.
  • What is Harden Tower?
  • Not a criticism of the article, but this entire "Plot" section is a bit confusing to me personally. It seems like significant choices can't really be made until the end, and that all you really do is move around and click on speech bubbles. But then again, I'm more familiar with playing games that don't specifically have storylines.

Endings:

Developments:

  • Krankel had previously met or worked with many Night School members at Disney - do you know which part of Disney? Theme parks? Animation? Video games? Additionally, Night School didn't exist yet when these members worked at Disney, so I'd change it to "future Night School members".
  • Rather than developing the gameplay and attaching a story to it, Night School focused on developing gameplay that would support the story they wanted to tell - How I'm understanding this sentence is that Night School wanted to develop the gameplay around the story itself, not add the story as an afterthought to the game.
  • This meant making sure branching dialogue trees never became too sprawling - so would this be like having too many options?
  • I guess you can clarify that Backstage is a magazine, because I was confused the first time I read it.
  • prior to actors being cast and lines recorded - To be consistent with the previous sentences, I would suggest, "prior to casting actors and recording lines".
  • Oxenfree was developed primarily using the Unity game engine, Adobe Photoshop, and Autodesk Maya - these pieces of software cover three different things. Unity powers the game play itself, while Autodesk Maya is for the graphics, and Adobe Photoshop is for graphical touch-ups. Am I correct in that analysis?
  • The team's need to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look - "need" can be confused as a verb, and this sentence is in need of an extra comma. How about "The team wanted to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen, which simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look"?
  • but found that it helped organize their story better in the process - I suggest "but they found..." since, as currently written, the subject for this phrase is "The unique animation, art, and effects required for the game's major plot developments".

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK, continuing. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio:

  • Initially, Night School Studio did not know exactly what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like. - I'm guessing that this is the case for any company that is creating a video game for the first time, because you can't get it exactly right on your first try. It's more probable that they are simply unsure. How about this? "Initially, Night School Studio was unsure about what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like."
  • American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer Andrew Rohrmann, known under his alias scntfc, composed the music and sound design of the game; Krankel knew Rohrmann through a friend of a friend and had not known of his game music pedigree. - I personally think this should be 2 sentences because it's pretty long. I particularly find American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer awkward. It's clear that "film, TV, and game music composer" and "sound designer" are two different things. Would it be OK if you just said "American sound designer and film, TV, and game music composer"?
  • What is "John Carpenter meets Boards of Canada", compared to the music they got in response? I am genuinely confused about this.
  • The soundtrack was released on January 15, 2016 to accompany the game, with a vinyl release on May 25 - there should probably be a comma after "2016". I don't think "with" is the best conjunction; I'd personally phrase it similarly to this: "...and the vinyl record was released on May 25."

Promotion and release:

  • The game's January 2016 release announcement in October 2015 coincided with a second teaser from the game - Grammatically, the first part of the sentence is unwieldy, there are two dates here and I think it would be better if they were separated more. There also seems to be two separate ideas here, and I'd suggest phrasing them like this: "In October 2015, it was announced that the game would be released in January 2016; this announcement coincided with a second teaser from the game."
  • Writer Robert Kirkman is planning to help adapt Oxenfree into a film and a web-series via Skybound - So what's the status of this now? If there were no updates, could you describe when this plan was made?
  • which featured items like - I'd forgo "like" in favor of "such as", only because in context, this is awkward.
  • Alternate reality game - should this be lowercase?
  • This phone number led players to the Twitter account @xray9169363733 - how was this connection made?
  • Fort Ward, WA - I would spell out "Washington" completely. I would also suggest a link to Fort Ward (Washington), unless this is the wrong link. By the way, why was this location chosen?

Reception:

  • Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic"; "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years," he wrote - It looks weird with two separate quotes juxtaposed. I'd say, "Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic", writing: "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years." "
  • A less enthusiastic review was offered by Allegra Frank for Polygon, who wrote that - this too clashes with the overall style of the paragraph, but this time it's because of this sentence using passive voice rather than active voice. "Allegra Frank of Polygon offered a less enthusiastic review: she wrote that..."
  • "The studio’s choice to completely split the art styles between the normal world and the mystical is a massive success." said Buchholtz - The period in the quote should be a comma.
  • In contrast, Corriea appreciated - You have never mentioned Corriea before, but you don't put her first name like you do with the other authors.

I think that's all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Epicgenius for your comments. I've taken a stab at addressing these, and left inline comments with some responses to certain points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I'll wait until you finish with your edits, or you can just tell me if you didn't want to take up some of the suggestions. I appreciate your answers to my questions. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed all actionable elements. Some I'd like to provide more context on, but I don't think there's the sourcing available to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good, and I now support this nomination. Again, thank you for responding to my comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ProtoDrake

edit

Support: A great read, and a well constructed article overall. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Salvidrim

edit

I think Epicgenius did a good job of going through the text, so I'll focus my thoughts on other aspects:

  • I can't find where in the MOS I saw this recommendation but I believe we try to avoid pseudonyms in infoboxes? Could the composer's full name be used in the infobox (wikilinked to his article of course)? The mention of real name + pseudonym then referenced with lastname in the Audio section is fine.
  • I feel like the article ends super abruptly with a single EL.... could we add links to Further Reading, more ELs, a navbox, a portal bar, something?
  • The part about the ARG I feel is strongly lacking in links, such as wikilinking Jesse Cox, a link to the Twitter account (or its archived posts which are mentioned), links to an archive of the URL written in plaintext, etc. I know the in-line ref at the end of the whole bit covers every little aspect.
  • The accolades section is just a table with no prose, was there no critical coverage of their award nominations and win? Just asking.
  • Backstage magazine's name should be italicized, no?
  • Could more thematic categories be added? Going off of words already in the article, some suggestions: Time travel video games, Mystery adventure games, 2010s interactive fiction, Alternate reality games (since one if mentioned as a companion to the main title), Supernatural in fiction, Paranormal fiction, Ghost video games, Fictional submarines, Nuclear-powered submarines; note I haven't individually checked the criterias for all of these, just throwing ideas.

Feel free to respond in-line :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Salvidrim: I've italicized Backstage and tweaked the infobox link. There's no prose for the accolades section because it would be redundant with the table; we're covering everything already there and I haven't seen any incidental coverage that adds much beyond the awards themselves. I've added a few more categories and links for the ARG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Than, looks great. I whole-heartedly support FA. Awesome work! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Hey David Fuchs, this hasn't received any attention in almost a month—we'll have to archive it soon unless you can scare up some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I commented at the peer review, and I felt then that the article was close to FA quality, but that the reception section needed some work. I think that's still the case; the reception section has the "A said B" problem in places; see WP:RECEPTION. There are more than half a dozen sentences like Wired's Chris Kohler wrote that "Oxenfree shows some smart thinking about the relationship between games and players," and that as Night School's first game, it was an "auspicious debut". There is some thematic organization, and in some places the reviewer comments are assembled into more complicated constructs, but it's still not what it should be: an overall description of the game's reception that uses quotes to support and illustrate that description. There's not enough "scaffold" to hang the quotes on, to borrow a phrase from Czar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As this FAC is getting close to decision-time, I think I'd better make my oppose explicit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately I'm at a bit of an impasse as to what can be done to address your points. The "A said B" format is in there because it's not like there's a lot of definitive sources that describe Oxenfree's reception, and I can't really combine sentiments without attributing them as I don't have sources for generalized reception beyond the Metacritic scores and that's not good for anything other than a snapshot of overall reception. It's great and all for WP:RECEPTION to suggest avoiding them, but I don't see any way around at least the attribution aspect, if not the quotes. Reviews said X is not really an improvement and readers would understandably want to know who these nebulous "reviewers" are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's synthesis to assemble opinions. Attribute inline if there's a reason to (e.g. prominent sources). An example from WP:RECEPTION is "The characterization received mixed reviews: Cohle's speeches, described by HuffPost as "mesmerizing monologues", and by Vanity Fair as dense and interesting material, were criticized by the New York Post as "'70s-era psycho-babble" which slowed down the story." If there's no particular reason to mention a reviewer or the website/newspaper they write for, then don't: "Other reviewers were more positive: comments ranged from "as frighteningly nervy and furious in its delivery and intent as prime David Lynch", to "one of the most riveting and provocative series I've ever seen"." So long as the citations make it clear who said what, the reader can check the footnotes if they're interested.
The problem with A said B is that it's not interesting to read. The last paragraph before the reception section, about the ARG, is interesting: it starts with a topic, and leads the reader through a tiny narrative explaining what happened. Or look at the last paragraph of the Audio section; again, a clear opening statement, followed by illustrative information, finishing with the facts about the release, which also fits the mini-timeline in the reader's head: goal, composition, recording, release. A very natural sequence. Reception sections are harder to write but that's not a reason to give them a pass.
I'd be willing to try to help improve this section, but unfortunately I'm leaving on a week's vacation in the morning. If I have time while I'm in Canada, or if the coordinators are willing to let this sit beyond another week, I can try my hand at it and see if I can put my money where my mouth is, if you would like me to. And I should probably add that I don't think this section is terrible; it's better than many that come to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that although I have net access here in Canada I won't be able to work on this. If this is still open by the weekend of the 22nd of June I will try to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Mike. I've taken a stab at working off your feedback with the section, if you can take a look when you're able to let me know if I'm on the right path. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement; I've struck my oppose. I think more could be done but this is easier to read than it was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I'm not the best person to assess the quality/reliability of video game sources, but given the venerable character of the nominator I'm inclined to accept that they meet FACR requirements. I've checked all the links and they all work, but I have a few queries:

  • 10 carries a message: "Our website is currently unavailable in most European countries". This might be a temporary glitch, but might be worth noting.
  • 14 states "This listing has expired", but I'm not sure whether this actually affects the cited content.
  • 15 and 16 are TouTube sources. Should they have an "event occurs..." reference?
  • 17: it's not obvious to me where this source supports the cited statement.

Subject to the above queries and caveats, I'm happy to sign off the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian, thanks for the review. 10 seems to be a GPDR thing, I assume, but it shouldn't affect the archive. 14 just means the original casting call is expired, but the listing remains. I added a time locator on 15 and the same on 16 (thus splitting it into two separate citations.) Thanks for the catch on 17—the URL had a specific date but it doesn't look like it's live now or cached specifically via Wayback, so I've tweaked the wording to align with the ref (and added a separate citation for the digital release.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Oppose on prose at the moment.

  • I have a problem with the following, as it doesn't flow, and you end up with what looks like a two-word sentence with "Krankel recalled." (Better to add that before the quote to line it up).
"Krankel and Hines looked at other story-focused games, and felt that they either were linear stories driven by set pieces, or branching, player choice-influenced stories told through cut scenes. "We thought, why not let you move freely while communicating, interacting, and exploring a branching narrative?" Krankel recalled.[11] "The first thing we wanted to do..."" (The second quote also hangs without support, and should either run from the first one or have some other text connected to it. If it's the same quote as the first one, use them together as a block quote.
  • "had to figure out a scope": "figure out" is too informal for an encyclopaedia
  • "that would not be unmanageable": what's wrong with "that would be manageable"?
  • "branching dialogue trees never became too sprawling". Again, unencyclopaedic. I've never heard of a 'dialogue tree' (and I won't be alone in that), so it needs either replacing or explaining.
  • "more [...] Spielberg-ian" See WP:ELLIPSIS: "more ... Spielberg-ian" is the correct way.
  • "Casting call": pipe to Casting (performing arts)
  • "on-the-fly" is another piece of unencyclopaedic wording that needs to be replaced.
  • "The team's wanted" -> "The team wanted"
  • "The unique animation, art, and effects required" Strike unique - peacocky and pointless: all games are unique to some extent

None of these are insoluble, but the prose does need a further brush up before it hits FA level. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, thanks for your comments. I've taken a stab at the above (I've just shortened the quoted section for the first bit and paraphrased part so there's less of a long quote taking up space.) In regards to one specific point, dialogue trees are a pretty common term even outside of strictly video games, and I'm not sure there's a better term. I've wikilinked it in the prose and tried to add a bit more to contextualize it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have had a sheltered life never to have heard of dialogue trees, but the link works nicely for those of us still in the dark about them! The rest of the tweaks you've made are all good, and it runs much more smoothly now, with nothing that jars when I read it. My (possibly harsh) oppose is now struck, and I'm moving to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

edit

Another game I keep telling myself to play. Perhaps I'll pick it up during the Steam sale... Anyway, that aside, here are some comments:

  • Hines looked at other story. How about "examined" instead of "looked at"?
  • Development uses the word "like" often. How about changing this one: coming-of-age stories like the film Stand By Me when. This can be changed to "such as the film".
  • "their story better in the process". Remove "better".
  • Is it necessary to say "Game Developers Conference 2015" when the article already mentions the year and that it was announced four days afterwards? I'd change it to "four days later at the Games Developers Conference".
  • What is the New Game+ mode? Mention the most important differences between it and a normal play-through.
  • Should IGN be in italics?

Once these are resolved, I'll support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David, these should have been taken care of by now but I'm going to promote because the consensus is with that and I'm not going to see another month tick over with this nom open -- pls action ASAP; any discussion necessary can talk place on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oxenfree/archive1&oldid=848285986"