Talk:Fallout 4/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Manelolo (talk · contribs) 23:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, will be reviewing this article very soon, standby! Manelolo (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review done: I tweaked minor things myself. Looks like a solid article in its core, but needs a full copyedit sweep. I have added relevant tags around the article on the most serious GA criteria-related issues. On hold for 7 days. Cheers and Merry Christmas! Manelolo (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• a dynamic dialogue system featuring 111,000 lines of dialogue,[1] an in-depth crafting system which implements every lootable object in the game, and much more. A bit commercial-sounding, no?
• by growing food in makeshift patches and building water spouts Are we talking about a waterspout or what is this? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.
• I added citation needed tags around the article where needed.
• As discussed on talk already, the Plot and Endings sections are a bit too detailed and unencyclopedic per MOS:PLOT. Perhaps if its trimmed by about 2/3 paragraphs or 1 quarter it should be ok?
• Bethesda announced that the game would run at 1080p resolution and 30 frames per second on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. Bethesda revealed that mobile devices would be integrated into the game ... Todd Howard revealed that mods for the PC versions of the game would be usable on the Xbox One version, and that the team hoped to bring them to the PlayStation 4 version eventually. When asked about the failed effort to add a paid mod system to The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Howard stated there were no plans for a similar effort with Fallout 4 The text in the Design section should be updated to reflect a more post-release stance. The reader is more interested to know if these were in the game or merely announced and about the actual design process instead of announcements, no? Consider trimming robustly! :)
• Refs 20 & 21 are only a link, need more info!
• Ref 75, no dates
• an updated material system—for wet textures—among numerous others. Weasel-ish, what others?
• The Engine section seems like a commercial listing of features of which some are repetitive with each other. Needs a copyedit/rewrite in my opinion! Consider trimming robustly! :)
• an announcer pack featuring the voice of Mister Handy was released Who is this Mister Handy? Consider clarifying his role & character a bit, since he pops up suddenly.
• Added two copyright violation tags to the Reception section next to the PC Gamer quotes. Copyvio detector gave a 47.6% confidence on violation there. Can you double-check the refs there, trim down the verbatim quoting etc? Likewise, how are there 3 quotes from PC Gamer; of which two seem to be repetitive of each other? Added neutrality tag.
• Fallout 4 sold 1.2 million copies on Steam in its first 24 hours of release. The source for this is a mere Twitter post? Surely better can be found now. Added a RS tag.
• such as GameSpot, GamesRadar, EGM, Game Revolution, IGN, and many more. weasel-ish, no? The Accolades section needs copyedit/rewrite altogether as its more of a commercial "and this, and this, and this!" read right now in my opinion!

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   With reservations, as protected in Sep 2017 for vandalism.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Second opinion: This nomination merits a quickfail per the criteria as it was a drive-by nomination by a user who has only had about 20 edits under his belt. Slightlymad 05:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Manelolo (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.