Talk:The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim/GA1

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

Reviewer: D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - While I am not a significant or even minor contributor to this page, I am thrilled to have the opportunity to review this article. I will begin the process shortly. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * While well-written, this portion should include additional details, considering the scope of this game. The mention of the downloadable content and expansion packs should be moved to the first paragraph, with the additional emphasis upon the dates of release. See The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for a good example.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 09:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the same lieu of my last comment, that second paragraph looks a little familiar... I must insist that the second paragraph receives a good rewrite with the same information, as it's currently a copy-paste treatment.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 09:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph should include some of the development aspects, such as the time frame and new features. Following this should be the critical reception portion in its current form.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 09:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * I'd suggest having the gameplay image earlier in this section and on the left-hand side of the screen.
 * ✅ - I've moved it up and to the left but I can't help feeling like it looks a little clumsy that high up. Tell me if you like it where it is. CR 4 ZE (t) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While listing the races, it should be in the format of, "one of several races, including..." This gives a greater degree of specificity and flows better.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weapons such as the bow and arrow combination is discussed with "the bow and arrow" designation. Perhaps all weapons should be discussed with minimal specificity, without "the", and with "a". This way, everything is more of a classification.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A major component of the NPC experience is that creatures in the environment interact with one another via fighting. It would be good to mention this around the topic of dragons and their interactions with others.
 * ✅ - Although the way I've written it maybe makes the sentence a little awkward. How would you feel if I changed "the player" to "players" throughout the section? CR 4 ZE (t) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There may be merit in that approach. I'd say give it a go and see if it flows better. I don't see much wrong with what you've implemented, but if you feel uncomfortable, I'll support your inclination. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest reducing the details about the player's interactions with guards and the mentioning of bounties. However, I've come to realize that this is a core part of the experience, so it may remain.
 * Overall, this is a reasonably well-written section.

Plot

 * My biggest suggestion would be to rename it "Synopsis" and to split it into the subsections of "Characters", "Setting" and "Plot". I understand, this is a deviation from Oblivion, but I feel that the distinction of prominent players such as Alduin, Paarthurnax and others warrants further emphasis.
 * ❌ I don't know that we need two whole sections away from the Plot just to help the reader understand it. I propose an alternative, and that is to provide a more comprehensive opening paragraph (perhaps splitting it off as "Premise" or something similar). But really, the opening sentences of the Plot section place the reader inside the game world, and establish that the plot is framed by the civil war. I can't see how I'd need to get into more detail. CR 4 ZE (t) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's not enough to go off of to fulfill my suggestion, I suppose we can let it lie. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Characters section would give further distinction to the voice actors and the characters they portray, rather than the simple list format of the development section.
 * If you try and find that the characters and cast cannot constitute a full section, let me know.
 * ✅ Given that the cast is portrayed by notable figures, I have added a voice cast list. I have not, however, gone into the development and characterisation of each role as I haven't uncovered any information to do so. CR 4 ZE (t) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The information for the Setting section is already present, so it would largely be a question of reorganization above all else.
 * This is a comment that should correlate with the rest of the article, but is "Dragon" capitalized?
 * ✅ In the context of the game, Dragons are treated as a race of characters. As such I have capitalised all instances of "Dragon". CR 4 ZE (t) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This section has no references. Find a link to the official Prima game guide and utilize that for every paragraph.
 * ✅ Cited Prima's eGuide. I don't have issues numbers etc. from the print version so this was the best I could do. CR 4 ZE (t) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Development

 * I would divide this section into "Concept", "Design" and "Audio". To do this, split the content already present into "Concept and "Design", then incorporate the materials of the "Music" section as the "Audio" subsection for this.
 * This section is pretty poorly organized, as it discusses the technical specifications before the actual design process. For example, the paragraph about the team deciding that the game should be set in Skyrim should be mentioned early on as a probable second paragraph for the proposed "Concept" subsection.
 * The System Requirements box should be put at the top of the "Development" section, before any real written content is provided.
 * Much of this section discusses what the game currently has, rather than an emphasis upon the process of reaching this state. Discussing what powers the game is appropriate, but what is imperative is that this section is organized arduously.
 * Please take everything that correlates with "Concept" and "Design" and separate it accordingly. The information is there, just the organization isn't. This is imperative before further critique may be provided.

Before I go ahead on your points, have a look at this diff. I could set the section out like this instead. Do you think it'd look more organised in this fashion? I could flip Design and Engine around if you think it'll make the section more organised. CR 4 ZE (t) 02:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like the content of your edit, but I would like "Design" before "Engine". D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Release

 * Rename this as "Marketing and release".
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Patches" and "Modifications" subsections should be moved to a new section called "Additional content". Add a link for main articles for Dawnguard, Hearthfire and Dragonborn.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * At the bottom of the article, there is a subsection for "Reception" called "Technical issues". I would move this to the proposed "Marketing and release" section, as there is far more correlation, than there is for reception.
 * ✅ CR 4 ZE (t) 09:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Other than my already-listed suggestions, this section looks pretty good.

Reception

 * It would be beneficial to start this whole section out with a brief synopsis of how the game did overall, with sources borrowed from Metacritic and GameRankings.
 * ✅ I've added an opening sentence, but using many FA-Class reception sections as a model, I haven't mentioned the aggregate scores at all. Most high quality reception sections I've seen dive straight in. CR 4 ZE (t) 03:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The overview for the reception seems a wee bit excessive. It should follow the general structure:
 * A first paragraph that features overall statistics, as well as critical and significant input regarding the game.
 * A second paragraph that discusses the major positives.
 * A third paragraph that discusses the major negatives.
 * An optional fourth paragraph that discusses miscellaneous details.
 * That being said, the excessive nature of this section is overwhelming- cut everything that isn't additive to the measure of the game's reception and see how you do with what's left.
 * ✅ I've culled it down quite significantly. It's certainly not as short as your Dota 2 example, but it's basically been halved in length. CR 4 ZE (t) 03:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the "Sales" subsection, it would be worth mentioning that Dota 2 surpassed Skyrim's record for the number of concurrent players on Steam. This is generally included when regarding former records.
 * The sentence is written "was the fastest selling game to date on their Steam platform". I don't think we should get into the habit of having to reword a game's achievements when another eclipses it, because as I've seen on other articles (particularly CoD articles) it becomes somewhat convoluted. I could change "to date" to "at its time"? CR 4 ZE (t) 03:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * After the reception scope is reduced, remove the subsection header for "Sales" and allow it to serve as a final paragraph before my final suggestion below...
 * Wouldn't that be a little confusing? It doesn't really flow great with the body of the Reception section. I think it's probably better split off into its own little section. CR 4 ZE (t) 03:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be a subsection for "Awards and accolades", considering the success of this title.
 * ✅ I have split it off and will convert to prose and, possibly, a table when I next have a moment. CR 4 ZE (t) 03:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall thoughts

 * This article seems to be well on the way to Good Article status, but the killer is in the organization. My suggestions are general for the most part, so there should be significant work done over this next week. If the upcoming material's quality is conducted in the same lieu as this, however, there shouldn't be any real problem with granting GA status.
 * Numbers leading up to 100 should be written out, with the exception of those in the "Reception" section.

Verdict

 * Due to the outstanding diligence of CR4ZE and their engagement with this article, I am closing this review and rewarding this page with a Good Article pass. To be very honest, this page is not far from Featured Article status. Congratulations! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)