Talk:Fallout 4: Far Harbor/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 15:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for never getting round to commenting on the peer review—personal life got in the way. I figured I'd take this one to make up for it. Forgive me for nitpicking, but I'll try to be as in-depth as possible.


 * 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.:
 * Lots of edits recently, but all contributive construction; no edit wars and little opposition or vandalism.
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Lead and infobox
 * I dislike that the "Genre(s)" and "Mode(s)" aren't capitalised in the infobox, but I know this is a result of using Wikidata, so I can let it slide.
 * Same. I wonder if would be able to fix that.


 * No apostrophe needed after "Bethesda Game Studios" in the second sentence, due to the use of "the" before it.
 * ✅ Fixed.


 * The first two paragraphs should probably be merged.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Include some sort of brief description of the Valentine's Detective Agency—remember, readers may not have played Fallout 4. This might actually be easier to understand if it begins with mention of the player—i.e. "the player is recruited by the Valentine's Detective Agency". Something along those lines. Up to you.
 * ✅ Done, I think. I've reworded the sentence so that it flows better.


 * Link First-person (video games) and Third-person view (as is done in Gameplay below). Might also be worth adding "perspective" after the latter.
 * ✅ Done.


 * The final lead paragraph has awkward pacing: it begins with a declaration of "generally favorable reviews", and immediately explains what reviewers disliked about the game, before saying what they loved, and what they found average. If the game was received favourably, then typically the article would say why reviewers liked it before describing the criticisms. Not exactly a guideline of any kind, but makes more sense to me to organise it this way.
 * ✅ I changed the order of the sentences so it goes from praise to mixed reviews to criticism.


 * Gameplay
 * "strength, perception, endurance, charisma, intelligence, agility, and luck" feels like overlinking.
 * ✅ Unlinked all except charisma and perception. I changed perception to depth perception.


 * The colon before the list of attributes feels a little unnecessary, but I'll leave this up to you. Same for the colon in the final sentence of the section.
 * ✅ Removed.


 * "At the start of the game, players start with..."—this is the only use of "players" in the article; I'd stick with "the player" for consistency.
 * ✅ Fixed.


 * "...minimum being 1, and the maximum being 10"—per MOS:NUMERAL, this should be "...minimum being one...". For consistency, I'd also recommend changing the surrounding numbers (e.g. "10" to "ten", "28" to "twenty-eight"), but I'll leave it to you. It won't hold up the review.
 * ✅ Fixed.


 * The image caption can probably be reduced to one sentence—i.e. "Like Fallout 4, the player can use the Power Armor in Far Harbor, as indicated by the HUD". Just a suggestion.
 * Changed to Like in Fallout 4, the player can use the Power Armor in Far Harbor, as indicated by the HUD. (bolded the bit that wasn't in the suggestion)


 * "V.A.T.S (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System), a feature first introduced in Fallout 3, is included in Fallout 4 and while using it, the real-time combat is slowed, allowing the player to choose where to shoot the enemy." I recommend revising this sentence—something like ""While using V.A.T.S. (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System), a feature first introduced in Fallout 3, the real-time combat is slowed, allowing the player to choose where to shoot the enemy."
 * ✅ Done.


 * "This can be used strategically" could possibly be followed by a colon, and then the brief list of how it can be used strategically. Not required, though—just food for thought.
 * ✅ Merged that sentence and the following sentence using a colon.


 * "violent, non-player characters"—not sure how necessary that comma is.
 * ✅ Removed the comma.


 * "best and easiest option"—feels a bit editorial, perhaps "simplest".
 * ✅ Done.


 * "Doing things peacefully can have its downfalls" is also a little editorial—just get to the point, i.e. "Peaceful routes can lead to making compromises...".
 * ✅ Reworded.


 * I find it strange that lasers is linked in the lead, but not in Gameplay. Either link it twice, or not at all.
 * ✅ Linked it. I don't remember linking it anywhere, but for consistency I added it to Gameplay.


 * "the factions the player helped" can probably be shortened—perhaps something like "the factions with the most player assistance" or "the most-assisted factions"?
 * ❌ I don't think this accurately represents what the reference says. It's talking about how the player gets rewarded with currency from the assisted faction.


 * Plot
 * This is mostly written well, but some of the paragraphs (specifically the first two, and the final two) are a little short, and can probably be merged.
 * "But he has grown increasingly..."—sentences typically should not begin with a conjunction. I recommend merging with the previous sentence.
 * ✅ Combined the sentences.


 * Release
 * This section should be renamed "Development and release", as it contains some (albeit brief) information regarding the former.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Speaking of which, I was disappointed not to see more development information, but upon searching it looks like you've found all that's available. There's a brief mention by Todd Howard in this interview which I think you could work in, but otherwise I think this is all we're going to get.
 * I added another sentence using the provided reference. In an interview with Andrew Reiner for GameInformer, Howard said people liked larger expansion packs and due to this Far Harbor cost more and took longer to create, as well as using more people..
 * Thanks for adding it; I've left a suggestion below. – Rhain  ☔ 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In the quote box to the right, "Howard continues, talking about learning from feedback" should removed.
 * ✅ Done.


 * "Three months after the official release of Fallout 4, Far Harbor was announced..." → "Far Harbor was announced three months after the official release of Fallout 4...".
 * ✅ Done.


 * Link Bethesda Game Studios.
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The expansion was included in the Fallout 4 season pass but because of the large size of the additional content, the price for the season pass rose from US$30 to $50." → "The expansion was included in the Fallout 4 season pass, the price of which rose from US$30 to $50 due to the large size of the additional content."
 * ✅ Done.


 * "frame rate could go as low as..." → "frame rate could drop to..."
 * ✅ Done.


 * "the Xbox version" → "the Xbox One version"
 * ✅ Done.


 * Reception
 * "and the block related parts were compared to Minecraft—this doesn't really say anything about the game, or how it was received. Is this comparison good or bad? Why?
 * ❌ I don't understand what you mean by this. It was compared to Minecraft due to the blocky sections.
 * It's an interesting comparison, but what does it tell the reader about how the game was received? Are the reviewers happy that the blocky sections remind them of Minecraft, or does it make those sequences feel unoriginal or generic? Some clarification and relevance would be good. – Rhain  ☔ 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added a small bit that says it's due to the correlation between the building aspect of MC and the puzzle section.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Colon isn't really necessary before the quote from Dan Stapleton.
 * ✅ I think I fixed it. I removed a semicolon, if that's what you meant.


 * "Jack de Quidt of the blog (Rock, Paper, Shotgun)"—RPS should certainly not be in brackets like this. For consistency with the rest of the section, I'd recommend removing "of the blog".
 * ✅ This and the following were changed during the GOCE copyedit, I fixed them all.


 * "even though it was "a small part of the release", he regarded it as "very frustrating"." → perhaps "he regarded it as "very frustrating", despite considering it "a small part of the release".".
 * ✅ Done.


 * "He continued saying that the engine insufficient for the intricate puzzle sequences"—appears to be grammatically incorrect, and can be worded better anyway. Perhaps "He also considered the engine insufficient for the intricate puzzle sequences".
 * ✅ Done.


 * "similar to other reviews" is unnecessary, as this has already been proven by the rest of the paragraph.
 * ✅ Removed.


 * "Reviewers were also divided ... admired the storyline and new characters."—these sentences can be shortened, likely merged. Perhaps "Reviewers were also divided over the storyline: Game Revolution admired the story and new characters, while Peter Brown (GameSpot) found it uninteresting.".
 * ✅ Merged.


 * "Chris Sapieha writing for the National Post"—as before, perhaps adding National Post to brackets would be more beneficial, for consistency. If you'd prefer not to do this, I'd recommend adding commas after "Sapieha" and "Post".
 * Changed to "Chad Sapieha (National Post)".


 * Same goes for "Denny Connolly writing for website Game Rant"—if you'd like to omit brackets, at least change it to "Denny Connolly, writing for website Game Rant".
 * ✅ See above.


 * And for "Alice Bell in her review on (VideoGamer.com)"—either remove "in her review on", or change to "Alice Bell, in her review on VideoGamer.com, said...".
 * ✅ See above.


 * Also italicise Game Rant, like the review table.
 * ❌ Already done. It was already in italics, did you mean remove the italics?
 * It wasn't already italicised, but you've since fixed this. – Rhain  ☔ 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "He added that he was done with Fallout 4 and it's DLC and was ready to move onto the 5th installment."—"it's" should be "its". Also, I think you can cut the last half of that sentence (after "DLC") as it doesn't really add anything (either that, or alter it slightly; something like "prepared to move onto a further installment.").
 * I feel like it should be kept so I reworded it as requested.


 * "there was 15 hours of gameplay added, but not all of it good. noting that the puzzle sections may scare away the "purists"."—this is really awkwardly phrased, and grammatically incorrect in parts. I'd suggest revising to something along the lines of "not all of the fifteen additional hours of gameplay were good, noting that the puzzle sections may deter the "purists"."
 * ✅ Reworded.
 * The re-wording still isn't great—consider removing "said there was 15 hours of gameplay added.". – Rhain  ☔ 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * References
 * Reference #12 (from the Bethesda blog) doesn't include the complete URL; replace it with this. I'd recommend archiving too.
 * Unarchivable due to the age barrier. I've changed the URL, though.


 * For consistency's sake, I'd also recommend archiving the three Metacritic links.
 * They use Wikidata. See the discussion on my talk page for more information.
 * Makes sense—thanks for clarifying. – Rhain  ☔ 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Besides those nitpicks, this is an impressive list—well done! Bonus points for archiving.

You've done quite well with this article, but there's still a little way to go. Most of these are just minor suggestions or revisions, or simply my personal opinion on some matters, so it shouldn't take too much work. Let me know if you have any issues with any of my comments, and I'll be sure to clarify as soon as possible. Thanks! – Rhain  ☔ 15:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll take a look at this tonight and I'll try to fix up the mistakes.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   22:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left comments under everything.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, ! I also appreciate the message on my talk page, although in the future a ping will do just fine—save yourself the time. (Either way, I'll still your reply; this review page is in my watchlist.) I added a few replies to some of your comments above. Just a few more notes:
 * There's inconsistent italicisation of Game Revolution in Reception—I'd recommend removing italics upon all instances, since this is what's used in the review table.
 * In Development and release, "PC" should be "Microsoft Windows".
 * Italicise "Far Harbor" in the quote box.
 * I don't quite see the importance or relevance of "in an article on the blog VG247" or "In an interview with Andrew Reiner for GameInformer". In fact, that paragraph in general is a little confusing. I'd suggest a revision to something along the lines of: "The expansion was influenced by feedback on the dialogue system in Fallout 4; the dialogue features in Far Harbor were designed for players to have more options surrounding the ending. The development team also found players were interested in visiting new locations, inspiring Far Harbor. As a result, the expansion required more development costs, time and resources." Just something to consider. Take it as you will.
 * I can't really find much more than that for now, but I'll let you know if I see anything else. Thanks again. – Rhain  ☔ 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the new errors and I've left a few comments above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Few more things I wanted to mention:
 * "The PlayStation 4 version was re-released on 2 June 2016 in order to fix performance issues" almost feels out of place in the first paragraph of the lead. Do you think it would be better placed in the third paragraph?
 * The third paragraph talks about the reception and development has nothing to do with that bit, IMO. I've made a new paragraph about the development and I moved it there.
 * I suggested merging it with reception because I thought making it separate wouldn't include enough information—and merging paragraphs in the lead like that isn't entirely unheard of (example)—but your changes look good. – Rhain  ☔ 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "The player is in control" (lead, paragraph 2) → "The player controls"
 * ✅ Done.


 * The lead doesn't cover any of the game's development. Consider adding a sentence or two, probably at the beginning of the third paragraph.
 * ✅ Done, see comment above too.


 * I'm also not entirely sure about the relevance of that gameplay screenshot. The screenshot in Fallout 4 demonstrates V.A.T.S., a significant gameplay device; a screenshot in Fallout 3 demonstrates the Pip-Boy 3000, which is a huge part of the game; however, the screenshot in Far Harbor just shows the Power Armor, which doesn't seem like a significant part of the game. How about a screenshot of the puzzle sections, or the "block related parts"? They seem to be mentioned quite a few times, and exclusive only to Far Harbor.
 * It's not there to show the Power Armor, it's there to show the design and foggy atmosphere of Far Harbor. I've added another sentence to the caption to show this. It could be replaced with this from this Forbes post.
 * That clarification is what I was looking for, thank you. – Rhain  ☔ 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you merge paragraphs 1 & 2, and 4 & 5 in the Plot section? It's all similar information, and they're pretty short while separated. If you disagree, just let me know.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Do you think the photo of Todd Howard is really necessary in this article? I'd say it should absolutely be used on Fallout 4 (in fact, I'm surprised it's not), but I'm unsure of its importance or relevance here; he's only mentioned very briefly at all in the article.
 * Not done (yet). It was there because it mentioned Howard a lot more before, but it can be removed if you believe it shouldn't be there.
 * I find it pretty unnecessary on this article, at least now that Howard is barely mentioned. With articles like The Last of Us, photos of the developers are good because those developers are mentioned significantly throughout the article (and the caption explains why), but that isn't the case here. I definitely think that photo of Howard should be present on Fallout 4, though. – Rhain  ☔ 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm also a little concerned with the Reception section. It seems to be very focused on the criticisms from the reviewers, despite the game receiving "generally favorable reviews". The structure of the section is also a little confusing; for example, the fourth and fifth paragraphs could probably be merged with the second, since they all seem to discuss the additional content offered in Far Harbor, but without specific focus. Consider a simpler structure for the section: perhaps one paragraph on the reception of the new quests, followed by the "different opinions on the atmosphere and the island's fog", and then a paragraph discussing the puzzle sections (doesn't need to be that exact order). It seems like those were the three main points of reception, according to the lead, so something like that might work.
 * ✅ Restructured the section.

You don't have to change all of these (unless you agree), I just wanted to mention them for discussion. Let me know. – Rhain  ☔ 01:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the comments above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's so much better, thank you. I particularly love the work you've done on the Reception section; I think the structure is a lot better now. And with that, I'm happy to present you with this: . I'll make some minor revisions on my way out, but I think the article looks great. My only outstanding concern is the image of Howard (see my comment above), but this is minor so I'll leave this up to you—I'd appreciate a response to my comment either way. Congratulations! – Rhain  ☔ 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers ! I'll remove the image and place it into the Fallout 4 article. It may have held some use in an older version of the article, but he's only mentioned once now.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)