# Talk:Look Outside

@SapphireBandit Good job with this article so far. Looks pretty good right now. I've tagged the article for having a long plot section since it's only 5 words under the limit. Make sure to trim some unnecessary parts off so the article doesn't get carried away in the story. Note that story elements should only be included assuming that every/most players will see them in a playthrough. WP:VGMOS can help with writing video game articles. Cheers. Tarlby (t) (c) 16:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Tarlby, I appreciate the second set of eyes on this article. The plot section is definitely the lowest quality part of the article at the moment, I trimmed it down to under 700 words for when I moved the article out of draft space, but there's still definitely a lot to be desired. As long as its not indexed yet I should be fine(gotta get into the NPP queue as quick as possible anyways), but the situation with that section is honestly pretty funny. I'm still in the process of fully finishing Look Outside without spoilers, and although describing vital endings can be fine, I pretty much have to wait until I can finally be fully comprehensive. Anyways, I've been currently working on expansions to the Reception and Development sections, so when those are finished I'm probably gonna revamp Plot. Ironically, with new, more basic endings I now have since the creation of the article on the 14th, I now have quite a few more things to add, but now coming back with a fresh pair of eyes I'm already seeing some stuff I can omit or simplify so it shouldn't be that bad.
Thanks once again for your input, gonna temporarily remove the reassessment request until I'm done with that, I'll probably be working towards a good article ranking while I'm waiting to be indexed. And hey, if I'm lucky, someone with autopatrolled might notice the page if it gets promoted to GA-status. Anyhow, thanks once again for the help, and good luck with the Rain World article! I'm a bit backed up with Look Outside right now, but Rain World's page looks amazing right now, and I'll be sure to come back to it soon! SapphireBandit(♢) 22:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Look Outside/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: SapphireBandit (talk · contribs) 00:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 08:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Will review soon. Jaguar (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead
"leading to its developer Francis Coulombe working with others" - Coulombe has already been introduced, so I would delete the emboldened text
" the full version of the game was simultaneously announced and released by video game publisher Devolver Digital" - remove, the publisher was already introduced
The lead summarises the article well, so no issues here
Body
"...using the RPG Maker game engine, with its music being made by Eric Shumaker" - this would be better if broken with a full stop
"Francis had been in contact with video game publisher" - informal, use his surname in all instances
"announced by Devolver Digital and released to Steam on March 21, 2025" - on Steam
"...compelled to move forward, with Lucas White of Shacknews similarly describing the game" - this is a very long unbroken sentence which would read better if split. Eg. compelled to move forward. Likewise, Lucas White of Shacknews described the game...
Overall this is a well-written article and is comprehensive enough to meet the GA criteria. The sources are all of high quality, and it was a smooth read. Other than those minor points raised, I see no reason to put this review on hold, and will promote it outright. I still highly recommend you implement the changes, though they do not subtract from the criteria. Well done.  Jaguar (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)


### Look Outside
Looking for suggestions and help before I submit the article for FA consideration. I've already noted a complex and time consuming change I could make to fix a possibly fine rule violation(the Plot sections word count), but an outside perspective on the matter as well as general help would be much appreciated.
Thanks, SapphireBandit(♢) 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey SapphireBandit, are you still interested in comments here, or can this be closed? You may also want to look into an FAC mentor, since it looks like this would be your first nomination. Let me know either way! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm still interested. I do not need assistance with the candidacy, but a quick outside perspective from someone else would be helpful, so I would like to keep this open for the time being. SapphireBandit(♢) 22:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)


#### Octave
Some comments on sourcing:

What makes Vice or Digital Trends "high-quality reliable sources"?
MOS:ALLCAPS: VICE and LOOK OUTSIDE should be downcased
MOS:CONFORM: hyphens should be changed to dashes, and game titles should be put in italics
Suggest consistently using either title case or sentence case
Some refs are missing archive links
Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @UpTheOctave!, sorry for not getting to your review sooner, I don't think I got pinged so it took me a while to notice, but I absolutely appreciate the help.
I just fixed the uppercase and italicizing problems, thanks for pointing them out. As for Vice and Digital Trends, I picked them out because they were listed on WP:VG/S(Vice can be seen there as Vice Gaming/Vice Media, listed as situationally reliable during the time the article was released). For title case/sentence case consistency, I would personally want to just keep it matched to all of the originals. Focusing on archiving, I have all the sources but Metacritic and OpenCritic archived right now, and, to be completely honest, I have a fairly distinct memory of wanting to archive the sites, but then found some rule or policy that made me go like "oh so I shouldn't archive them then got it" but I now cannot find anywhere that says that. I could totally make a quick archive of them, but I swear to god whatever I read was saying something about how since Metacritic/OpenCritic are changing sources they shouldn't be archived, no idea what it was now though, so any additional input from you would be helpful in this case.
Thanks once more for getting to my peer review. If you also want to continue your input on any other sections(or just the Plot section I'm not really worried that much by the others lol), I would appreciate it a bunch. SapphireBandit(♢) 06:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi. From memory, I’ve seen Vice and Digital Trends challenged at FAC before. Note that it is not enough for a source to be reliable, it must also be high-quality. What that means exactly depends a lot on the reviewer, but I would possibly expect a comment on those sources. Again, it depends on the reviewer, but it is quite common for a consistent casing to be required, as it is technically a guideline (WP:CITESTYLE). Archives, italics, and dashes look fine now, just make sure that the italics are in the place of any existing quotes (e.g. ref 1 should not have the single quotes as the italics are enough per MOS:CONFORM. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 12:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I do acknowledge that your concerns on those sources are pretty valid, I'd say I'm decently strenuous with sourcing and those were the ones that concerned me the most when I was creating the article. I tried my best to do a full analysis when I was originally adding them but some details were way too hard to get a completely unambiguous answer on, though they did seem generally alright then, so Ima just keep using them unless problems are brought up at FAC. Also thanks a bunch for the pointers on citation casing style. The sources' casing have been fixed now, but before this I had never even heard of the titling MoS rules, and I'm happy to now know about them for future sourcing. If there's anything else you can see that may need to be changed be sure to let me know.
Oh and sorry if I kinda came off a bit passive aggressive on the ping thing, looking back I worded it badly, but I just meant that I'm used to automatically getting notice pings from topics I create, and so I was confused for a minute on if I had somehow missed the notice or somehow didn't receive one, though I realized pretty quickly afterwards I just wasn't subscribed to the topic because this one was automatically created lmao.
Thanks,  SapphireBandit(♢) 04:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, generally reviewers do not ping at most venues, so I would recommended keeping review pages watchlisted. Since my speciality is in source reviewing, I mainly just do that unless I feel comfortable with the subject matter. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 13:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This game needs to be on PlayStation five. It deserves to be honest. 199.115.144.33 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)