Talk:Development of Grand Theft Auto V/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Right now I'm only gonna skim it for initial thoughts, but I'll do a more in-depth review later. For now I'm claiming it. Tezero (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are some initial comments; I'll give more after dinner.
 * There's an awful lot of overlinking in the citations. Computer and Video Games, for example, is linked to five times in the first seven sources. (Using it this often isn't a problem, to be clear.)
 * Back before this was split off into its own article, User:Rhain1999 and I noted that publisher linking was inconsistent throughout the article -- some publishers were never linked, some every time and some for the first time after several uses. We considered that for the sake of consistency, publishers should be linked either every time, or upon their first introduction. Rhain went with the former. It isn't so much a point of contention for a Good Article. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The citation format's a bit inconsistent. Namely: the status of Computer and Video Games' and GameSpot's italicization; reference #22 ("Why Grand Theft Auto Online is Crazy Enough to Work") doesn't mention GameSpot by name (likewise with 46, 70).
 * ✅. GameSpot was italicised by default because it used the |work= field instead of |publisher. CVG, a magazine, has been italicised in all instances. Missing publisher fields have been added. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are Gamepur, The Daily Dot, Gameranx, and VG247 reliable sources? I haven't checked to see if they're interviews or otherwise appropriate in context, but they seem a little sketchy.
 * Gamepur and Gameranx have been removed, as they weren't even needed. VG247 is reliable, as listed at WP:VG/RS. The Daily Dot can be replaced with this IGN article, which is sourced in part from a NowGamer article, although NowGamer is not considered RS. In that instance, however, Shelby Welinder provides NowGamer proof to her claim that she modelled for the game's artwork. Would you prefer the IGN article? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would, yes. Tezero (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there information available about what exactly the game is depicting in the first image? If so, put that in the caption.
 * As for the second image, mention somehow that it's the game's engine, not real life, in which the Hollywood sign pictured is rendered.
 * Both captions have been reworked. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The text looks well-written and comprehensive from my first glances, but I haven't read it very thoroughly at all yet. Tezero (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The intro may be a little too detailed; five paragraphs is generally reserved for extremely long articles like those for U.S. Presidents. I'd recommend condensing it a little, particularly in the second and fourth paragraphs; it could probably be made into three or four overall. Otherwise, however, the prose looks great, with no major wording issues, and everything's complete. I'll put this on hold so you can look over these relatively minor issues. Tezero (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've cut the lead down a little bit. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, good job. The article passes, so I'll just go through the appropriate motions. Tezero (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)