Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Should have this one to you by tomorrow ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * "the game generated controversy over a mission that requires players to use torture equipment in a hostage interrogation" - this is the opening of the lead, and it sounds like that this mission was the only controversy the game had?
 * "The game became subject to widespread online debate " - is it just online debate? Politicians, TV personalities and newspapers have also taken part?
 * The lead could be expanded just slightly in order to summarise the article better and comply per WP:LEAD. It's almost there, but some content from the Depiction of torture and Portrayal of women section could be expanded in the lead?
 * "protagonist Trevor Philips interrogates a man, Mr K." - this is the only mention of "Mr. K." with a full stop. The other instances appear without it
 * "In her review, Petit of GameSpot" - should be Carolyn Petit as this is a new section
 * "In July, actress Lindsay Lohan also filed a lawsuit" - July in which year?

On hold
This is a well written article which is deserving of becoming GA. The only problems I could find with it are the lead section's broadness and some other minor prose issues. If all of the above can be addressed then this would have no problem passing this GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . I expanded the lead per your suggestion and fixed the "Mr K." issue. Regarding the widespread online debate, I don't think the controversy got further than the internet so it's safest to say that it was an online debate. I think that when a person's full name has been introduced earlier on in an article, we can just refer back to them with their surname, even if in a new section. Lohan filed suit in July 2014—the year 2014 is stated a few sentences earlier on, and to avoid redundancy we don't have to keep referring back to the year if it hasn't changed. Everything else is done. Cheers. CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 11:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for addressing them so quickly, I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria. It is broad, well referenced and now all of the issues have been dealt with. I agree with you with the online debate thing too. Anyway, another GTA GA ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)