Talk:The Last of Us: Left Behind

The Last of Us: Left Behind has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Last of Us: Left Behind is part of the The Last of Us series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 28, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
August 27, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 5, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that The Last of Us: Left Behind featured entire gameplay encounters involving water guns, and a photo booth?

Current status: Good article

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Goodboy Galaxy (0 participants)
Double Eleven (company) (1 participant)
Backflip Studios (1 participant)
HLSW (3 participants)
Vii (3 participants)
Small Worlds (presentation) (3 participants)
Petpet Park (2 participants)
List of Android games (9 participants)
Brent Pendergrass (4 participants)
Avimator (1 participant)
Spaceballs (demogroup) (1 participant)
List of Skibidi Toilet episodes (12 participants)
Gnasher Shotgun (5 participants)
Football Madness (6 participants)
A Date with Death (4 participants; relisted)
Giant Squid (company) (2 participants; relisted)
The Wizard Sniffer (6 participants; relisted)
Melon Dezign (1 participant; relisted)
The Wayward Realms (1 participant; relisted)
Haytham Kenway (10 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Can I just change it to GA?[edit]

I don't know know much about this. I also don't know whether I am allowed to just change it or if I need to do anything else (when changing a "Start" to a "C" you just make the one edit on the talk page). The reason I say this in the first place is because they say that "GA" and "Featured Articles" are strict. To me it is clearly a "Good Article". —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words about the article, DangerousJXD, and for approaching the talk page first. In order to promote this to GA, you'll need to conduct a review to ensure that the article meets the appropriate good article criteria. For more assistance, you should read the Reviewing instructions. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my post above, I have come to understand how the process works (just thought I'd say that). Why has nobody started it yet? —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousJXD, it can often take a long time for someone to start reviewing a GAN; there are still quite a few GA nominees that are yet to be reviewed (as can be seen here). Just so you know, I believe you are eligible to review this article, as you have only made two minor edits to the article so far, but I understand if you wish to avoid doing as such. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last of Us: Left Behind/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs)

Gonna stake my claim on reviewing this article. Feedback coming soon. GamerPro64 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Review[edit]

Gameplay

-Throughout the game, players control Ellie; Riley is controlled by the artificial intelligence.[3] I checked its citation and I didn't see that mentioned in it.

Plot

-There, she treats his open wound, and takes Joel away from the mall to find a hideout for the coming Winter. I'm not sure if "There" should be in the sentence.

-A random question since I've never played The Last of Us. Does the game just ends with Ellie and Riley embracing each other? Just a weird way to end the plot overall. GamerPro64 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far, GamerPro64! I'd like to answer some of your concerns:

Even though I know that Riley is definitely controlled by the artificial intelligence, you are correct when you say that the citation does not mention it; I've removed this fact.
Spoiler alert: the game ends with Ellie and Riley discussing what they should do. Riley then gets up and walks out of frame, and the game ends on a shot of Ellie. You can watch it here.

Let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64 and Rhain1999:, it seems as though the Plot section doesn't have any references. Just telling you just in case you miss it. --Anar chyte 02:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References for plot sections aren't required but is Rhain wants to that can work. GamerPro64 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one, in the same fashion as Grand Theft Auto V; I know they're not required, but there's no harm in having it there. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 03:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Links

-I think you should look at the archived sources to your citations. I was checking the GameSpot review and I think it sent me to a clip from Eddie Murphy's "Raw" comedy special. [1]. GamerPro64 19:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Take a look at all of the archived sources to GameSpot references (9, 16, 27, 31); they all seem to redirect to the same clip. It looks like someone over at GameSpot might have made this happen, and it's confusing me. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpot's sister site, Giant Bomb, appears to do the same thing. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance does this effect other links to websites by CBS Interactive with WebCite? GamerPro64 01:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering that, but GameRankings and Metacritic are unaffected. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no way for the archive links to be fixed, we might have to resort to Archive.org. GamerPro64 05:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no clear solution arises by the time the rest of this review is completed, I'll go through and change the applicable links. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

So besides the archive links issue, which doesn't effect GA criteria, I believe this article meets requirements to become a Good Article. If you do not agree with this decision, you can take the article to WP:GAR for reassessment. Cheers. GamerPro64 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hopefully, we'll find a solution for the archive links issue soon. If not, I'll be sure to come back and replace all of the links in a few weeks. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 01:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are only leftist critics cited?[edit]

I am curious why only far-left sources are cited in the article. This article contains no conservative sources criticizing the game for its blatant promotion of the homosexual agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubsboer (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such reliable source exists. – Rhain ☔ 13:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game or expansion?[edit]

The lead sentence currently states that Left Behind is a game; however, I think this description is inaccurate. Left Behind is an expansion pack for the game The Last of Us and it should be introduced as one. The current lead sentence gives the false impression that this title is a full release, when it is not. I know that Left Behind was subsequentially released as a standalone product after it launched, but it initially launched as DLC.

I would like to propose this lead sentence: "The Last of Us: Left Behind is an expansion pack to the 2013 video game The Last of Us, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment."

This lead sentence would be more in line with other articles covering game expansions, such as BioShock 2: Minerva's Den, Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony, Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, Gears 5: Hivebusters and Dark Souls III: The Ringed City. Zohariko1234 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the current phrasing is the best version. It is simple, accurate, and complies with the Manual of Style; the proposed version is verbose and misses important details. The game's existence as an expansion is covered appropriately in the second sentence. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rhain. I think trying to get too specific in the lead sentence produces diminishing returns. Keep it simple in the lead sentence and get into the details later. Popcornfud (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]