Talk:Fallout (video game)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Haleth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Taking notes. Will be back with comments on what needs to be improved over the next few days. Haleth (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it has been a week. Are you going to review this article or not? Lazman321 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Sorry for the delay, I've been unexpectedly held up with IRL stuff for the past week or so. The article is generally well written and properly sourced, with no major issues besides some issues I found with grammar and prose.

Lead

 * Replace "most" with "more".
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This should be rephrased as the sentence does not flow well, and the "internally developed" part has incorrect use of an adverb. Either omit it entirely, write it as "internal system" instead or, rewrite as Interplay developed their own system called SPECIAL for the game.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The tone and choice of words is not very appropriate here in my opinion. I suggest rewriting it in a more detached manner, something along the lines of Fallout is credited with reviving consumer interest in role-playing video games, and its karmic system is highly influential within the genre.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * For the sake of consistency, I suggest that you either stick with or omit acronyms to discuss the game's SPECIAL system on this article. One or the other.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Add "status" in front of effects and whitelink the words since an article exists.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The sentences I have highlighted sound almost as if it is written by an enthusiastic fan, and overly casual in tone. I suggest rephrasing them. Replace "longer" with "lengthy" or "long".
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest placing a semi-colon to connect "talking head" and "those types of characters", to reinforce the point the latter sentence is making.
 * Rewritten Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Replace non-playable characters with companion characters, any instances of "Vault Dweller" with the player in this instance, and omit aid them on their journey since it should be written from an out-of-universe perspective.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Replace "at most" with "up to".
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought the player character may be potentially female if the player picks Natalia.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Plot

 * Grammar issue. Should be "dissolution of the European Commonwealth".
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Should be a comma between collapses and leaving.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest one of three pre-generated characters.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Should be In, not With.
 * : This grammatically doesn't make sense. The full sentence is Your suggestion would create  which sounds convoluted. Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the sentence.


 * Omit have before founded, under conflict should be involved in a conflict. Who is Gizmo? I am aware that the character is discussed in the developmental section further down the article, but you should explain here who is he since the reader would usually reach the plot before the developmental section.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Should add "the" in front of wastelanders.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Development

 * Does not make sense. Immerse the player, maybe?
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Should be rephrased. I suggest something along the lines of, Cain described the document as an inspiration for the development team, and a "a major reason why the game came together at all."
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Rephrase it as they wanted to develop it as a sequel to Wasteland.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comma between system and GURPS.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Grammar mistake, omit many.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Add "the" in front of vaults.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a good paraphrase in my opinion when compared to the original source text in Tim Cain's words, so it should be rewritten and recontextualized to better explain to the reader what he was trying to convey.
 * ✅: It was for a different reason; the models would not have had the desired amount of detail. Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's very random to have The view was in cavalier projection in order to arrange the hexes on the hex map in a neat fashion to follow a few sentences about non-linear open world design and the time limit and close the paragraph. It also lacked context, and I am not sure what it is actually trying to say. Suggest moving it to another paragraph and expand the prose.
 * ✅: Though what I did was different. Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Un-abbreviate NPC to non-player characters (NPC's) and whitelink it.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Replace built with made.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The reception section establish that Vault Boy has since developed into a mascot for the entire franchise as a result of its growth. However, within the context of the game's development cycle at the time, Vault Boy was simply presented as a running gag being the in-universe mascot of Vault-Tec, the entity which built the Vaults but is not mentioned anywhere in the article as part of the game's lore.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Should be scripting. The sentence is too short. Consider joining it with the previous sentence to increase coherence and/or expanding it with a bit more detail.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Consider rephrasing it to reflect a more dispassionate tone, like for example Fallout was not yet finished by September 30, 1997, as Interplay...
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Reception

 * Add 1997 behind December, and the in front of shelves.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just say Next Generation criticized the game's isometric view.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Rephrase as Conversely, Green criticized the computer-controlled companions as they have a tendency....
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest putting parentheses on "renaissance".
 * : Why? Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just dropping by to second Haleth on this, and to add that the section about Fallout's importance to the revival of the RPG genre is still too thinly sourced to make the bold, sweeping claims it makes. Such as, "Role-playing games had not been popular since 1995. Fallout helped revive the genre of role playing-games through its karma system." This is a strange pairing of statements, even if a few scattered sources have made them. If RPGs hadn't been popular at all since 1995, then where do we slot in Diablo, Daggerfall, Ultima Online and Shadows over Riva? The RPG slump is widely documented, but the idea that no RPG whatsoever could succeed before the release of Fallout doesn't hold water. Mentioning the karma system is odder still — is the claim that karma caused Fallout to sell 600,000 copies and revive consumer interest in RPGs as a whole? Even if a source has made this specific argument, it's a strange and tenuous one, which the article gives undue weight by stating as absolute fact. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can rework the legacy section, make sure to remove undue information, and add more sources for verification. But you still haven't answered my question. Why do I have to add parentheses around "renaissance"? The word "renaissance" was mentioned twice in the legacy section. Neither time would I ever have to put parentheses around it. The purpose of parentheses is to mention an afterthought or an explanation; the phrase could be left out and the text would still be grammatically correct. If "renaissance" was left out, the text would not make sense. So again, answer me. Why do I have to add parentheses around "renaissance"? Lazman321 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's been a miscommunication. I assumed that Haleth was referring to quotation marks when they used the word parentheses. I might be wrong there — can you confirm, ? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it is one of my word salad moments and rather embarrassing. JimmyBlackwing is correct, I did try to say quotation marks. The reason why is because...I don't believe there is a definitive or widespread use of "renaissance" as a generic term for a cultural revival of some sort in general use, and typically the term refers to specific events. I can see the word being used by journalists who appraised the game's legacy like Seth Schiesel from New York Times, and if so, it should be attributed to the specific author as a statement of opinion. The other instance of the word renaissance is already within a direct quotation so it's fine.
 * Anyway, I did have my concerns about undue weight, and JimmyBlackwing identified and explained the extent of the issues better then I could. I'd like to see your proposed changes about reworking the legacy section actioned. Haleth (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, that's what I thought. Agreed with regard to the use of renaissance. I'll keep an eye on this GAN to see how the legacy issues are ironed out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think. I believe the legacy issues have been ironed out. Lazman321 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Huge improvement on the legacy section. Well done — no complaints here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Add the in front of overworking.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The claim about a troubled production for Van Buren lacked an inline citation. There is no context in the prose as to why Titus Interactive's part ownership of Interplay led to the troubled production.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Afterwards, Titus collapsed and Interplay canceled Van Buren. This sentence is disconnected from the previous instances about Van Buren or Titus Interactive, as it directly follows information about Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.
 * ✅ Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * These are the issues I have detected so far. Placing this review on hold. Haleth (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you rephrase the tone of the sentence you added about Herve Caen? The use of the words "thanks to" is particularly problematic. I suggest something along the lines of resulting in a troubled production due to the controversy surrounding Titus Interactive's CEO, Herve Caen. Haleth (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅: I have changed the tone of the sentence. Lazman321 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks more or less ok to me. I would be interested to see what JimmyBlackwing thinks. Just a few more for your attention:
 * Should be past tense like all the other attributed quotes of Pepe.
 * Add left between days and before.
 * You still have not properly introduced Vault Boy in the prose or give context (as a brief explanation) of the character's in-game role though. Haleth (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have ✅ your requests. In particular, I introduced Vault Boy in the characters sub-section of the plot section. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with your work. Passing the review. Haleth (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)