Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teardown (video game)/archive1

Teardown (video game)

Featured article candidates/Teardown (video game)/archive1

Nominator(s): IceWelder [✉] 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, please find attached my favourite game of 2022: Teardown. In this game, the player is given the tools to destroy and shape the game world around them, which is made entirely of destructible voxels. The core gameplay loop has the player plan and create efficient paths between objectives (say, cars to steal) that must then be completed within only 60 seconds. I began writing the article just as the game was about to enter early access in October 2020. It has been a Good Article since November 2022 (thanks, @Shooterwalker) and was a DYK item on the Main Page in December 2022 (cheers, @Theleekycauldron). Following the release of the console versions last year, plus the completion of the GOCE editing spree just this week (props to @Dhtwiki), I feel ready to tackle my second Featured Article nomination. Thank you to all commenters in advance! IceWelder [✉] 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Teardown cover.jpg – good.
Teardown screenshot.jpg – good.
Alt text explains all images perfectly.

This passes the image review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse (Source review)

I will get to this in the following days. If I somehow don't, trout me. — lunaeclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 11:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a CNET citation in the article. I'd heavily recommend removing it as the publication is unreliable per WP:CNET.
You should also remove the Game Rant source (situational per VG/S).
What makes Voxagon reliable?
Ref formatting seems ok to me. Nothing to do here.

lunaeclipse ^(talk) 23:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, @LunaEclipse!

I removed the CNET source.
The VG/S comment for Game Rant reads "Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas." I reduced its usage to the mention of the top-down view, which I think is invaluable to state. I also left the Reception comments intact for now, although I have no hard feelings in this regard. Would you say that this usage is justified in this case?
Voxagon is the blog of the game's designer, Dennis Gustafsson. It should be treated as a primary source.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IceWelder, ehh... I don't think if Game Rant should be here though. FAC demands high-quality sources, and Game Rant is not one. Additionally, many video game FAs don't use it at all. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 11:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I removed it entirely. IceWelder [✉] 16:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on source review. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 20:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

I think we have everything we need here content-wise, which means I'll focus on tweaks. I like the sleek leads of the last few video game articles and would prefer for the lead to be just a bit shorter. For the first paragraph I'd suggest something more like this (additions are underlined, omissions are not ~~struck~~):

Teardown is a 2022 sandbox–puzzle video game developed and published by Tuxedo Labs. The game revolves around the owner of a financially stricken demolition company, who is caught undertaking a questionable job and becomes entangled between helping police investigations and taking on further dubious assignments. Teardown features levels made of destructible voxels, and the player follows the campaign through consecutive missions. In most missions, the player must collect or destroy objects connected to a security alarm, which triggers a timer. The player has unlimited time to prepare and is given upgradable tools, vehicles, and explosives to create a path within the level that allows them to complete the objectives and escape before the timer runs out.

The second paragraph feels like it tries to follow the twists and turns surrounding Bengtsson's involvement, but I don't think it's necessary to describe it here because it is not possible to adequately cover it with so few words, and the lead doesn't need more text. I'm not satisfied with my attempts to resolve it so I can't provide an example, yet. The third para seems fine.

Will return to discuss the body later. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the portion around Bengtsson a bit to make it flow better. I didn't remove him outright as his involvement in the development seems large enough to warrant a lead mention. IceWelder [✉] 09:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Moving along:

Gameplay

The first sentence asserts that the game "is played from a first-person perspective", but it's a bit confusing since there's an in-game image displaying an apparent third-person perspective right beside the text.
"Some voxel materials require stronger tools to destroy." -- should probably be moved down a bit, the use of tools hasn't been introduced yet
"The spraycan can be used to mark points of interest." -- this feels a bit vague on its own, I think you'd need to elaborate on the utility of the spray can and/or points of interest.
"New structures can be erected using planks." -- one or a few examples of how this might help the player could be useful to the uninitiated.
"previous progress" -- level-specific?
"the player can design levels and objects by painting with voxels of various materials within the game world." -- I'd turn this into at least two sentences with a little more info on how the editor of this mode and it's interface works.
"Teardown on PCs highlights developer-curated mods" -- how are they highlited?

Pausing here for a moment. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded a bunch. Vehicles are driven from a third-person perspective, everything else happens in first-person. I'm having trouble finding a source for this, though (except for this blog post, even highlighted by the developer, but it would likely not stand a chance here). Perhaps I should exchange the image? IceWelder [✉] 13:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, such a shame that the sources ain't cooperating, but that's one way to resolve the mismatch.

I'm gonna cut my review short here to go on vacay for about two weeks. If the review is still pending by then I'll resume. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some scouring, I finally found that the review in Multiplayer.it (reliable per WP:VG/S) mentions verbatim that "Teardown uses a first-person camera, but when you're driving machinery this will switch to a more useful third-person." It appears Google is no huge help when the target text is in Italian. I included the source to mention the camera shift, leaving the image as-is. Thank you for now, and safe travels! IceWelder [✉] 11:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Vacant0

Will leave comments here. I saw the FAC at WP VG. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Gustafsson also worked on Smash Hit, so that is another reason to review this FAC.
I don't see any issues with references themselves, some of them have been addressed above.
There are two images in the article and both of them are properly licensed, under the non-free licence.
Could add Portal:Video games at the bottom of the article (where it is supposed to be, according to MOS:ORDER)?
Gameplay: New structures can be erected using planks. Could this be moved at the end of the first paragraph?
In the rest of this section, and the Plot, I did not find any problems. I will review the other two sections by the end of the week.

Hmm, the planks are part of the standard tool belt that can be upgraded (number, width, length), so it currently flows into the sentence about upgrades. Is there any particular way you would want me to rewrite this portion? IceWelder [✉] 09:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. The rewording sounds nicer, so it can stay there, IMO. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the rest of the article.
Post-launch content and console ports: Typo in "divsted".
I've read the rest of the article and did not notice any issues. The article is well-researched, this can be seen in the inclusion of foreign-language sources, for example. For the rest of the FA criteria, I think that this article does meet the listed criteria. I will change my vote towards support once the typo gets fixed.

Fixed :) IceWelder [✉] 07:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me then. Good luck! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]