Wikipedia:Peer review/The Planet Crafter/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Planet Crafter

Previous peer review


I have listed this article for peer review to seek feedback on its structure, sourcing, and clarity, and to identify any issues that should be addressed before a Featured Article nomination.

Thanks, Monkegamer123 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Nub098765

Hi! I have several comments I think should be rectified:

First, prose.

  • "Players awaken in a crashed spacecraft..." — This is a bit in-universe, no? The players themselves don't awaken, the player character does.
  • "...in which players control an astronaut tasked with terraforming a hostile planet into a habitable environment. Players start on a barren, rocky planet and are tasked with terraforming planetary environments." — Don't these two sentences (or, rather, sentence and clause) state the same thing? Could they be streamlined into one?
  • "Terraforming involves...Terraforming requires..." — These two sentences are adjacent. Restating the subject of the previous sentence is generally not the best writing practice (provided there is no noun in between that could ambiguate it), and I recommend either using a pronoun ("It requires..."), or merging them into the same sentence, i.e., "Terraforming involves...and requires..."
  • The "Planet Humble" section of Gameplay and the "Post-release updates" section of Development describe, in all, three times what the DLC adds. To me, this feels like overkill. Especially in the Post-release updates section, I feel like such a description is not needed at all.
  • As a whole, the gameplay section is pretty short and a bit vague. I ask this not condescendingly but genuinely: is there not any more information you could gather from the six reviews to fill the gameplay section a bit more? If not, then it could stay as long as it is—it's perfectly fine—but looking through might be helpful.
  • "...while noting that additional balancing and content could further improve the experience." — Per MOS:SAID, verbs like "note" connote objectivity or truthfulness; where not objective, simple verbs like "say" should be used. I think this is a case where "saying" would be a better alternative.
  • "...while noting a sparse early game, limited map variety, and some quality-of-life issues." — Same thing.
  • In all, the reception section feels, for lack of a better word, disjointed. Each review is introduced with the website (sometimes not even the reviewer) and the score they gave the game, which is okay, but there is little, if any, elaboration on how they said what you claim they said. Each review is in its own bubble, even though each paragraph is introduced with its own topic sentence (e.g., "Reviews highlighted the game's gradual terraformation system, describing it as a key part of the experience.") that has no corroboration as far as I, or the reader, can tell. As a particular example, one sentence reads: "Other critics praised the game's terraforming systems, pacing, and freedom of exploration, with Screen Rant awarding it 8 out of 10." Does Screen Rant's review praise the game's terraforming systems, pacing, and freedom of exploration? Does it describe other critics praising the game's terraforming systems, pacing, and freedom of exploration? Or have you simply tacked it on to make the sentence longer? In any case, I think you'd need specific reviews cited to corroborate this, even if you don't expand on them. But a reception section must answer these questions: "How have critics praised the game's terraforming systems, pacing, and freedom of exploration? What have they praised about those aspects of the game?" Here, it doesn't seem it does. Later, in a separate paragraph, you introduce James Cunningham of Hardcore Gamer, who "further remarked that the freedom and low-stakes survival aspects of the game created a relaxing gameplay loop, while also praising the visual payoff of terraforming." This seems like it would fit perfectly in the paragraph you set up earlier, but it appears in its own paragraph.
  • In this article, you use a lot of tricolons (and even 4-colons (quadricolons?)!). On their own, tricolons are okay to use—I've certainly used them. But...it almost feels like they're being used here to compress information rather than to express it in the most concise way it can be expressed. Tricolons, in my (and I think Wikipedia's) opinion, should be used to introduce facts, not present them in full. But here, you describe three entirely separate things, which I'm sure are detailed in the source, in the same breath, as though they all hold equally unsubstantial weight.

Now, sourcing.

  • The passage "The game's soundtrack, composed by Benjamin Young, was released digitally through Kid Katana Records on April 12, 2024, two days after the game's full release, with additional tracks added in later updates." is given the citation Planet Crafter Original Soundtrack/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/2902050/The_Planet_Crafter_Original_Soundtrack/. Primary sources in general are entirely fine, but the passage introduces a lot of information that I don't think are fully corroborated by a Steam source offering the soundtrack for $5.99 (pricy for what I presume is a relatively short soundtrack, by the way). Where, for example, does it say that "additional tracks [were] added in later updates"?
  • Game Rant and Screen Rant, being Valnet sources, have consistently been ruled by the gavel of Wikipedia FA reviewers as not of FA standard. I would consider removing/replacing them.
  • The source formatting could use some work. Several reviews/general website sources do not have author names, which is a big red flag at FA. For example, Erwan Lafleuriel of IGN France is not named in the citation from which he comes. I would suggest making it explicit who is writing each article. Also, many citations list the website names as their URL (e.g., techraptor.net) instead of their actual names. FA reviewers would certainly flag that.

Third, the images.

  • The images themselves are totally fine—I can discern that the gun-like object on the right in the first gameplay image is presumably in the player's hand and that the trees and liquid (water?) on the ground is the player's doing, and the second gameplay image is all the same. But the non-free use rationales seem...bare?
    • The first image's "purpose of use in this article" section reads, verbatim, "The image will show the gameplay, helping that section of the article." How? How will this image help that section of the article. What does it display? What does it show that mere text would not? You partially answer this in "respect for commercial opportunities": "The image is used for identification and critical commentary. By illustrating the game's terraformation stages and UI, it helps the reader understand the subject matter, which is a transformative use rather than a commercial one." But I must say that 1) it's the wrong section and 2) transformative use does not demonstrate "respect for commercial opportunities". Basically, it is asking you "why doesn't this image compete with the media from which it comes commercially? Why aren't the developers losing money because you decided to add this image into this article?" This NFUR does not substantively answer that.
    • The second image does not improve on the first. The purpose section reads "The image will help support the article's text." How? Why? In what way? For whom? There is no description of how the image helps the article extend beyond mere text and why this image was chosen over others. How does this image convey meaning that could not otherwise be conveyed by text? What is the purpose, beyond simply complimenting the text, of this image? As of now, the NFUR does not provide information for, or about, this image, this article, or this reader.

Overall, it's certainly not a bad article. Definitely worthy of its GA badge. But I don't think it's quite ready for the eyes at FA. nub :) 08:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by AdaCiccone

I'd just like to point out one tiny detail about conceptual flow. Right now, the article's introduction after the lead looks like this: Gameplay > Planet Humble > Plot. I think that the early sections should be about laying the ground for readers to understand the game's basics, so I feel that Planet Humble DLC content being there just feels abrupt and early. I know that DLC section has points about gameplay, which is why I think you placed it under gameplay, but FA reviewers might notice that abrupt change. So I'd suggest moving it somewhere else. AdaCiccone (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Monkegamer123

I have finished making these changes to the article. Thanks for the feedback! If you have any more suggestions for the article, leave them here. Monkegamer123 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Alaexis

I've run an automated analysis of sources used in the article using a tool I co-developed with two more editors. It checks whether the claims in the article are supported by inline sources. Please see the results below. Most of the "Not supported" results are false positives - currently the tool can only check claim-citation pairs and so a group of citations that jointly support a claim are flagged as "Not/partially supported" (such as the [3][4] group in the table below).

I manually checked and confirmed one minor inaccuracy. [7] doesn't mention Riley by name and doesn't say what kind of tips they give. There are a few more hits which I haven't checked. I'd be grateful for any feedback. Alaexis¿question? 21:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

More information Extended content, # ...
Close

RoySmith

I'm not into video games, so I'll just mention one of my standard complaints, which is the use of a lot of jargon. Per WP:MTAU, you should briefly explain what words and phrases like the following mean: open-world, terraforming, survival game, Unity engine, automation games, Steam, GOG.com, gameplay loop, map (i.e. Level (video games), not the more obvious Map), game balancing, building misalignment.

I'll also comment on

As these metrics increase, the global ecology shifts to support biomass through plants and animals.[3] Machines require power to operate.[4][5] Early exploration is limited by a finite oxygen supply. The player character wields a "matter-manipulation gun."[6]

I often complain about choppy writing and on the surface, the succession of the three short declarative sentences would be an indication of that. In this case, however, I think the construction actually works quite well, giving a bit of emphasis to the list. So that's interesting.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI