Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone/GA1

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

Review.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fail: This article is not even reasonably well written. The prose is confusing and there are many grammatical errors. The article's definition of what is a "Grand Theft Auto clone" is confusing. A better definition might be: "A Grand Theft Auto clone is a video game featuring gameplay similar to that made famous by Grand Theft Auto III." There is a history section yet the "Genre name" section also covers history. The article goes off-topic. It goes from talking about what a GTA clone is to talking about a genre of video game in the "Gameplay" section. The "Origin" section is especially confusing: "Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto III is often credited with pioneering a game genre in 2001."—that is how that section starts. And the "Recent history" section talks about the development of the GTA series. I even dispute whether or not "Grand Theft Auto clone" is even a true video game term.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a fair review, particularly where you suggest that this isn't even a real term. If you read the references, you'll see that "grand theft auto clone" is used pervasively. Have you taken the time to see that the article is verified? My understanding was that a good article review was supposed to offer constructive criticism that would help resolve small grammatical and wording issues. I'm not sure how the "genre name" covers history, except to the extent that it has to explain how the term originated. I'm also unclear on how you are supposed to talk about what a GTA clone is without talking about what kind of gameplay the genre offers. Perhaps you can clarify, or offer more constructive feedback that would allow editors to resolve the issues you perceive. Randomran (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This review was not conducted properly - and I think with an external links section and a more elaborate reviewer, we could get this article past GA. Note to the Reviewer - A very easy way to review would be to divide the review into sections (of the article) and leave bullet points noting points which need fixing in each said section. --haha169 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)