Talk:Fallout 3/GA1

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

Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria
A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 :</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Please add any related discussion here.
 * Please note that, in regards to images, we use the minimal number possible since the vast majority of images are not free. Adding more than three (including cover art) non-free images is typically frowned on per WP:NFCC. --Teancum (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The story section doesn't need to have any references because it's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; it'd maybe be needed if it was to be an FA, but surely not for GA; and since there is currently 3 non-free images in use in the article, and it is frowned upon to have more than 3, it cannot lack images in general (and to find an image related to the article but in the public domain will be a real bitch); and there ain't much I could say in the caption of the cover art but just "box art"; it doesn't have the BBFC or PEGI or ESRB rating in the image, to identify which region it is from, which used to have it until it was changed about six months ago; the caption should just be for the screenshot images, the cover art in the Halo 3 article doesn't have a caption and that is a FA; so according to your concerns in the review, there ain't any real issues and therefore the article should be a Pass!-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with you on the images issue. Please see my revised review brought about due to your feedback and a review of the article vs similar articles. ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks for passing the other parts of the GA criteria; so I guess you want me to put pictures in the article that is something to do with the game's launch that is not copyrighted (like a conference something)? well I couldn't find a photo from the conference, but I found this picture which is the only thing related to the article in the wikimedia commons, but it looks unneccessary for it; I found pictures in FlickR of the Fallout 3 launch party thrown by Bethesda and held in Los Angeles, the celebrities who attended (like Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Lauren Conrad, and Foo Fighters, who also performed), and people lining up in stores (wow, I should put a section in the article about all of this); the bad news is that all these pictures happened to be copyrighted "All rights reserved", so I cannot upload the file, and since I have 3 non-free images, no more is allowed in the article; lots of video game articles don't have and don't need photos which are in the public domain; I know the Fallout 3 launch party happened to be as big a deal of the Halo 3 launch party (which even has its own page about the Halo 3 marketing), but come on; it's not like the article The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has one; nor Metroid Prime, nor BioShock, and they're all Featured Articles; I think you should get a second opinion about this article or something-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based off of similar articles I will pass this, but I really would like more images. 00:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This notion that there's a "magic number" of three preventing image improvement is ridiculous. It's entirely realistic for an article to include more than three non-free images. Five non-free images is excessive if it's two cover arts and three screenshots, not so if it's something like one cover art, two distinctive screenshots, one soundtrack cover art, and one photograph from a celebrity release party or something (if there's no realistic possibility of a free image). I've done a reasonable amount of work with non-free images and I've never heard that "no more than three in total" is advisable. Not saying this should or shouldn't have passed, just saying. Swarm  u 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)