Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Before going into this review, I can see that an awful lot of work has gone into shaping this article, especially in finding content. I hope this review will go some way to improving it even further and reaching Good Article status. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. I'm happy to help resolve any queries you may have in order to further improve this article. I would reccomend that once these issues are addressed that a peer review is held, requesting a full article copyedit, before resubmission.

So, going through each of the points in turn:


 * It is well written.
 * Infobox - why is the version important for a console game? The release date needs to be cited. Is there a reason why the Sixaxis controller isn't mentioned in input methods?
 * Reply - Its a VG Project standard for the infobox. You mention the generic type of controller and not a specific make. Gamepad covers both consoles with one word. - X201 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You use re-imagined, both in the lead and in Setting. It's jargon and should be either removed or explained at the point where it is first used.
 * ✅ has been reworded to "redesigned rendition", is that better? kollision (talk)
 * Niko being Serbian only needs one source.
 * Is becoming the highest rated game on Gamerankings notable? Have any third-arty news outlets referenced it? It's better to just describe that it had positive reviews.
 * It's unusual to find Development at the start of an article - it's usually found at the bottom, just above reception.
 * There's mention of the engine development, but little discussion of the art direction (gritty realism), audio development and so on, but there is information on this distributed throughout the article. Gather it up and place it here.
 * ✅ Added paragraph on audio development. I think there enough about art direction.
 * No need to title Overview at the start of Gameplay.
 * One thing that's common here is saying that it's been reworked or it's different to previous versions, but there's no description of how it works now, making the text a bit impenetrable without reading further. Since we want to be able toread the article in isolatio, it would be better to explain how concepts such as wanted levels, car physics work in GTA4, then compare it with previous versions. Also note that there is a lot of jargon used in the section, such as blindfire, free aim and locked on. These terms should either be removed from the article or defined when they are first used.
 * It may be better to merge Finale with the rest of the plot, instead of having it as a section on it's own.
 * Setting - where the comparison with San Andreas is used, it may be worth reworking this and placing it into development. Also, you mention that LC is smaller than SA twice in two sentences, which should be reworded to avoid repetition. Again, you've mentioned re-imagined here, which should be explained without the jargon.
 * Characters, The first sentence uses relative and relatively close to eachother and should be reworded.
 * community and online features - there's probably too much detail here. Cross-check it with game reviews in order to pick out the key points. A lot of this stuff should be merged into Gameplay (it's online gameplay) or Development (it's development of online features). The downloadable content should be merged with the appropriate section in Development. As an when it brings in new gameplay elemtns, these should be added to Gameplay.
 * Merging done, "too much detail" not done.
 * Merge Social Club, music downloads and Playstation Home into one section - it breaks up flow if you have a heading followed by a single paragraph of text. Again, it may be appropriate to trim the detail here.
 * ✅, Music downloads merged into Soundtrack section
 * Soundtrack - the opener sounds a bit peacocky - can these comments be cited or toned down? Again, there's no need to mention each radio station in the article, only that there are a number available, with further ones becoming accessible once the player completes certain objectives.
 * Marketing - include in development. Having a major heading followed by a two sentence paragraph breaks flow heavily. Also, remove the inline link to Rockstar Games - it's under External Links, which is sufficient
 * Special Edition - again, place under development. No need to list the content - the image (free use) does that much better.
 * In reception the approach needs to be overhauled. The current prose lists reviews, who wrote them, who they work for, what they thought of the game and what score they gave it. This makes it more inpenetrable to the average reader - they don't need to know this level of information. Instead, rewrite it so that common things that were liked or disliked are picked out and discussed. This approach should also be used in Sales and Impact. Your refernces will tell people the information they need about the facts you state.
 * You state that GTA was the most played title on Xbox Live for w/c 28 April. Who is Major Nelson and why is he important in this case?
 * Major Nelson is the Director of Programming for Xbox Live so he is notable. But does anyone else think this information isn't that important, like it's pretty much expected to be the most played and that months or years from now this information will become irrelevant. kollision (talk)
 * There are a lot of small paragraphs in this section - consider merging them together.
 * Technical issues doesn't warrant a major heading - merge into reception (if it's been picked up on by news sites) or Development.
 * Controversy sections are discouraged. Instead, incorporate the information into Reception.
 * Special Edition - again, place under development. No need to list the content - the image (free use) does that much better.
 * In reception the approach needs to be overhauled. The current prose lists reviews, who wrote them, who they work for, what they thought of the game and what score they gave it. This makes it more inpenetrable to the average reader - they don't need to know this level of information. Instead, rewrite it so that common things that were liked or disliked are picked out and discussed. This approach should also be used in Sales and Impact. Your refernces will tell people the information they need about the facts you state.
 * You state that GTA was the most played title on Xbox Live for w/c 28 April. Who is Major Nelson and why is he important in this case?
 * Major Nelson is the Director of Programming for Xbox Live so he is notable. But does anyone else think this information isn't that important, like it's pretty much expected to be the most played and that months or years from now this information will become irrelevant. kollision (talk)
 * There are a lot of small paragraphs in this section - consider merging them together.
 * Technical issues doesn't warrant a major heading - merge into reception (if it's been picked up on by news sites) or Development.
 * Controversy sections are discouraged. Instead, incorporate the information into Reception.
 * Controversy sections are discouraged. Instead, incorporate the information into Reception.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * Some of the gameplay sections do not cite any sources. If you're referencing the game manual, cite it. If you're using game reviews to explain gameplay concepts that the reviewer described, cite them.
 * Synopsis requires referencing - if reviewers have picked up on plot elements, cite them. If needed, cite the videogame using cite video game.
 * Every score in the scorebox should be sourced and cited.
 * The first section of Controversy, after it's merge with Reception, should be sourced.
 * Some references either have the publisher in italics or are missing a publisher, date or accessdate. Check and ensure that all the reference information is there.
 * Some references do not use the cite template and need to be updated.
 * What makes GTAIV.net a reliable source?
 * What makes Edmunds inside line (edmunds.com) a reliable source?
 * Same for pspsps.tv
 * Same for flickr.com photos
 * Same for kikizo.com
 * Kikizo is a reliable source.
 * Same for thebitbag.com
 * Same for SeekingAlpha.com
 * Information cited is from a conference call transcript. Seeking Alpha is the only site on the Internet that contains free transcripts of the conference calls held by publicly-traded companies. Reliable source.
 * Same for xbox360fanboy.com
 * Same for xbox360fanboy.com


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * The article covers all the key points, but goes into too much detail at times. The section on being well written covers this as well.


 * It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * There's some minor peacock terms creeping in, but these have been pointed out above.


 * It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * It is being updated and improved upon, as you'd expect from a recently released videogame.


 * It is illustrated, if possible, by images.
 * Image:Liberty City GTAIV.jpg - if possible, use Non-free use rationale
 * Image:GTA IV Special Edition copy.png - update the description to include a list of items in the photo. It's mroe relevant to have it here than in the article itself.
 * Image:GTA IV Special Edition copy.png - update the description to include a list of items in the photo. It's mroe relevant to have it here than in the article itself.

I'll be watching this page, as well as my talk page. Should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Keep up the good work!Gazimoff Write Read 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting suggestions. For starters, version is relevant as they released a patch for the game (which is mentioned in the article incidently). Controversy has way too much to be merged with reception, hence why it was moved in the first place. I don't really think it can be trimmed down. I'll try to work on some of the other suggestions though. -- .: Alex  :.  12:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think the article is looking much better already. I'm glad to be able to get rid of all those unecessary sections such as the "Playstation Home" and "Music Downloads" ect. The article looks much more streamlined now.  .: Alex  :.  12:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This just got archived, so I've removed it from the archive back onto the main talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)