Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017.

Fallout 4: Far Harbor

 * Nominator(s):  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this is the second Featured Article nomination for this article. Since the previous nomination, the article has gone through a few small expansions, and been proof-read multiple times by a couple of editors. I think it's at the standard of an FA, though I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else. If you've got any ideas for the article, please list them! Recently, I've received a bit of FAC mentoring from, who also helped with the final stretch.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, I've been helping Anarchyte with some of the preparation and advising on FAC. It's the first time I've "mentored" another nominator, so please let me know if I've missed something. I'll watchlist this review and offer input if I think it might be useful. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, support. I've been through this thoroughly looking for the sorts of thing I've seen hold up FACs before and and I left some detailed comments on the peer review. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

 * I think the infobox image should have an ALT description/text (I have heard some uncertainty about the value of ALT text, but I would still recommend it for the time being). I would also make sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
 * In the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, the repetition of "Commonwealth" makes the sentence read a little awkwardly. I would suggest revising this to avoid the repetition.
 * Avoid contractions, such "wasn't" in the lead, by spelling it out completely.
 * Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory, and, due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased). I understand why you put these two ideas together, but something about the way it is currently pulled together seems a little off to me and does not mesh these two ideas together as strongly as it could be.
 * Is the "fog" in this expansion pack similar to the gameplay mechanic the "fog of war". If so, do you think it would be useful to link "fog" to "fog of war" (especially since the "fog of war" article includes a section on its use in video games)? I could be over-thinking this though.
 * It's just fog.
 * What do you mean by "Unlike the previous iterations in the Fallout series,"? Did the previous game include more factions/fewer factions? I would make this part a little clearer to those unfamiliar with the series.
 * I removed that preface as it's a tad unnecessary.
 * Add a citation for the last portion of the first paragraph in the "Setting and characters" subsection. Same goes for the end of the second paragraph in the same subsection.
 * Don't synopsis/plot sections not need sources at all, or is it different when talking about the settings or characters?
 * Oh, duh! Sorry for missing that. For some reason, I did not read that as synopsis/plot. You are correct with your comment that they do not need sources. I apologize for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is more of a clarification question, but should titles of quests from the game be put in italics or quotations? I am referencing the reference to Brain Dead in the "Similarities with Autumn Leaves" subsection. Just wanted to make sure.
 * I'm not sure. I put them there just to be safe.
 * Cool, just wanted to check about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Great work with this article. It is a very interesting read, and it is cool to read an article about downloadable content. A majority of comments are rather minor and nitpicky. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, I've addressed all of your concerns, though I left two replies which you might want to look at. I've collapsed what I believe to be complete, if that's okay with you.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing my comments. I can definitely support this. I would greatly appreciate any comments for current FAC. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Misc. from Czar

 * There is a lot of weight put on the setting/endings (if not the plot too)—it's longer than the other sourced sections... I can't imagine why it shouldn't be shorter. Also are there really no sources available for these unsourced parts? Plot doesn't need to be sourced, but it should be verifiable in text if it can. Even a player's guide for the endings, if one's available, would work. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've shortened both sections and added a few sources. IMO the length isn't undue, it only talks about what is necessary.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Haven't read through (still deciding whether I want to spoil the ending) but sources like "Fallout 4: Far Harbor DLC – how to get the best ending" are exactly what I had in mind, so should be good. Those sources also make make the section a good example of how to source plot. A few other cursory points: I'd remove Game Rant (unreliable). Also from what I see at a glance, check the current WT:VG thread about FAC Reception writing re: removing some of the reviewer names, combining sentences & refs, etc. (I know I've gave comments last year, but it's a brave new FAC world) czar  02:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Game Rant source. As for the reception section, I based it off your FA Blast Corps, in a way. I'll read over the discussion you linked me and I'll attempt to make the section more stream-lined.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've gone through and tried to streamline some of the contents. I've also bundled up the references to be at the end of the sentence if it mentions two different websites, unless there's a quotation. Opinion?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The combinations look good but I'd go further and crunch the sentences to remove the reviewer names. However, it's fine to wait and see what other readers would think first. Even as someone familiar with games, I hate carrying the reviewer name in my head when the individual is not necessarily important to understanding the statement. The sentiment is more that one reliable reviewer made a claim, and perhaps that reviewer is associated with a publication (hence why the Blast Corps Reception is light on reviewer names—notice that Donkey Kong 64's Reception is even lighter). So I hesitate at giving a strong prescription on those points, but I do think it's easier to read the fog paragraph, for instance, when I'm not juggling reviewer names and am instead focusing on how it annoyed one reviewer, was complimented by another, and was deemed manageable by yet another. (It's also unclear whether "atmosphere" is referring to the game's ambiance or the literal foggy atmosphere, based on the paragraph.) czar  16:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but if we remove who said what doesn't it become an issue of "reviewers thought that x was good but y was bad"? I'll see what other's opinions are first. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. To answer the question, not necessarily. If the answer is to replace reviewers with two surnames that mean nothing to the reader, it both doesn't illuminate new information while simultaneously making the prose worse (heat without light, etc.) And if "reviewers" is too summative or creates bias, "some reviewers thought" or a variation is an alternative. It's easy to tell which from the references. The point is to explain the game's reception when no source sums it up for us, not necessarily to give an accounting of who thought what. czar  06:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Famous Hobo
Lead
 * Why do we need to know when Far Harbor was announced? This isn't information the reader needs to know immediately. Just list the release date, what systems it was released for, and then move on.
 * The end of the first paragraph feels a bit clunky. For example, you don't mention the game's nuclear fallout setting, which is rather crucial to the game as a whole. I would write something like "The game is set in the year 2287, in the aftermath of a nuclear fallout that destroys most of the United States. In the expansion, the player character is recruited by a detective agency to investigate the disappearance of a young girl living in a remote area." Other things to note: We don't need to know the name of the detective agency right off the bat; we also don't need to know where the detective agency operates, especially if most of the expansion doesn't take place in the Commonwealth.
 * I copied your example verbatim, is that fine?
 * The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island, a landmass off the coast of Maine where the town of Far Harbor is situated. Perhaps remove the bit about the city of Far Harbor, since you haven't introduced the reader to the city yet.
 * Do you only receive bottle caps and experience points from side quests? Having played Fallout 4, I don't think that's right. Also, delink sidequest and link the first use of quest (the sidequest link just goes to the quest article anyway).
 * Changed to simply say quests.
 * There is no mention of the Autumn Leaves debacle in the lead.
 * Added one sentence.

Gameplay
 * I don't like the current screenshot. It's too dark and could be hard for a casual reader to make out what's going on. Try and find a screenshot that's better lit, but still shows the fog effects.
 * The three in this article are good, personally, I like the sunny one on the shoreline because it's easy to view and the fog is still visible. The first one is still dark, though it shows off the fog better. What do you think?
 * Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series and takes place after the events in Fallout 3[2] and is set 210 years after "The Great War", which resulted in the nuclear devastation across the United States. No need to mention its connection to Fallout 3, as it has no relevance to this article. Also, do you really need to link United States? I think everyone knows what the US is.
 * Puzzle sections were not featured in the base game and thus were a new feature. No need to mention they are a new feature. If they weren't in the game originally, then of course its new content.
 * Again with only receiving money and points after completing sidequests and not main quests. I may be wrong though, I don't remember exactly.
 * I've changed it to simply say quests, as even if some of them are sidequests, they're still technically quests.

Synopsis
 * There are three major conflicting factions present in the expansion, all residing in separate areas: the Harbormen of Far Harbor; the synth colony of Acadia; and the Church of the Children of Atom. I know what a synth is, but I don't think the reader will.
 * Added a short description.
 * The expansion starts after the player completes the "Getting a Clue" quest, in which the Sole Survivor meets private detective Nick Valentine, who offers him employment.[19] This entire sentence needs to go. Feels like WP:GAMEGUIDE.

Development
 * Far Harbor was developed by Bethesda Game Studios and was announced three months after the official release of Fallout 4—alongside Automatron, Wasteland Workshop, and teasers of other upcoming expansions—in a blog post on February 16, 2016.[24] The expansion was released on May 19, 2016 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. For the release date, just say May 19. Don't include 2016, as you already mentioned the year in the previous date. If events occurred in the same year, then you can just say the year for the first date.
 * On June 2, 2016, two weeks after the expansion's official release... Drop the date, as just saying two weeks after its release is enough information.

Reception That should be a good first read through. Looks promising so far. The article seems to be in better condition then when it was first nominated, and I think it's almost there. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't get into this section too much, as it seems you're doing some cleanup with the suggestions Czar gave, but I will say that you mention that reviewers disliked the puzzle sections in both the first and second paragraphs.
 * I'm using the first paragraph somewhat like a lead for the rest of the reception. I've already reworded the first paragraph's mention, so IMO it's fine. Also, what's your opinion on the removal of reviewer's names (per the conversation with )?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I've left a few replies above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed the issues that I've fixed, if you believe they're not solved, feel free to remove them from the template.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, good work so far. Here's another batch of comments.
 * The box art has alt text, but the three other images also need alt text.
 * Added some alt text, no idea how to check if it works though.


 * The reception section has some issues in regards to the listed websites. For example, Post Arcade links to The Financial Post, which folded nearly 20 years ago. Instead, you should link it to the National Post, like you do later in the reception section. Also, decide whether to use GameCentral or Metro, as Game Central redirects to Metro, and you interchange the publications throughout the reception section. Finally there is some overlinking of the websites (Destructoid and PC Gamer from what I saw). While your at it, Minecraft should also be delinked, as this was linked in the gameplay section.
 * Is it better now?
 * The external links seem to be freaking out, but from I've noticed, you've archived all the sources, so good for you.
 * Seems like that tool doesn't like Archive.is, which is what all of those blue highlighted links were.

Cheers for the new points. I've left replies above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Alright, we're getting really close, just a few more things I need to bring up.
 * As for whether the prose in the reception section is good, honestly, this has always been difficult for me to decide. Before Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward was promoted, IDV and I had to completely rewrite the reception section twice, because neither of us were that good at it. If you want an expert review on the reception section, I recommend asking Czar to take a look at it again, or politely invite PresN to take a look at it. As for what I think, honestly I think it does its job. It discusses what reviewers liked and disliked, and I felt it was a smooth read. Also, I could go either way when it comes to including reviewer names, but I guess if I had to choose, I prefer at least having the reviewers last name mentioned. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree in that the reception does the job well, and I'd rather leave it as is with the occasional last name and so-on because that's what I'm used to writing.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is my fault since I edited this bit, but I just noticed the definition of nuclear fallout doesn't accurately describe the Fallout setting. Perhaps instead include nuclear war? It doesn't roll off the tongue as well, but the change should be made.
 * Regarding the screenshot, the Geek article has some good ones, but none of them show the HUD, which a vital aspect of the game. One of my friends owns Far Harbor, and I can get a better lit screenshot if you'd like showing the HUD, but at this point, I don't think the screenshot as is will be an issue.
 * I don't mind changing the screenshot, but I believe the current one portrays the content well enough.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A really small nitpick, but in the external links section, their is no Far Harbor website. It simply links to the Fallout 4 website. Perhaps change it to Official Fallout 4 website.
 * I noticed the Vice article on the talk page. Were you going to use that at some point? By the looks of it, it seems to be just a review, and the reception section is already solid. Unless it brings up any new points, I don't think you need to include it.
 * Yeah, I normally just throw sites on there that I think I might get around to using, but I didn't need it. I've removed it from the page.

Once those points are addressed, I'll support. BTW, you can check alt text with the handy dandy altviewer. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the analysis, I've fixed up all the issues and left replies above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll stop pestering you about the screenshot, as it does it's job. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I'll Support. Good job, and I hope everything goes well from here on out. I know the struggle of working on an FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's been open for a while and it hasn't received any more comments, opinions?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FAC is a bit of a waiting game. A month to six weeks is not unusual but I doubt the FAC coordinators would consider this to have had sufficient input yet. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  20:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

 * All three paragraphs of the lead begin with "Far Harbor"; I'd recommend mixing it up once
 * "The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island" - shouldn't 'The' be capitalised her as per how it's stylised throughout the rest of the article?
 * " but some had mixed opinions on the atmosphere and expansion's use of fog" - how about but some had mixed opinions on the expansion's atmosphere and its use of fog
 * "for the action role-playing single-player video game Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series" - I think there's a repetition of Fallout 4 in too much of a close proximity here. Perhaps change it to It is the fifth installment or The game is the fifth installment? Feel free to ignore if you disagree
 * "The player's character also gains experience points" - not 'player character'?
 * "The expansion took influence from the player's feedback regarding the dialogue system in Fallout 4, and how it "didn't work as well as other features"" - I think you can safely lose the quotes here and paraphrase this
 * I think this is fine as-is.


 * Refs 38 and 39 are lacking publishers (the publisher is Ziff Davis)

Those were all of the minor nitpicks I could find during my first read through this article. Overall it is comprehensive, well written and engaging. I noticed a couple of refs are missing publishers but that's minor. Once all of the above are out of the way then I'll take another look at this and will most likely support! JAG UAR   10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the review, . I've fixed up everything.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I'll happily lend my support now. Quite impressed with the reception section too—it reads as cohesive prose rather than a list of reviewers themselves. Definitely preferable for a FA in my opinion. JAG UAR   14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but hit a few issues in the lead. I think I'd like a few more eyes on the prose before we promote this.


 * "There are a variety of puzzles, some utilize lasers and others allow building using blocks." Something not right here.
 * How about now?


 * "Far Harbor was announced three months after the release of Fallout 4...": Maybe this is video game speak, but saying that the game was announced does not seem to work; perhaps something like "the release of Far Harbor was announced"?
 * I didn't see too much wrong with what it was originally, but is it better now?


 * "...and was influenced by player feedback on the base game's dialogue system, and how it was believed that it was not as successful as the other mechanics" And this makes the sentence very long, with two "and"s.
 * Is it better now?


 * "The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory.": I can't quite see the link between this sentence and the ones around it.
 * Is it better now?


 * "Due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased": Can we say why? (I appreciate it's quite obvious, but it would be nice to spell it out)
 * Is it better now?


 * "The PlayStation 4 version was re-released in June 2016 to fix performance issues.": Another sentence seeming a little disconnected from the ones around it.
 * I couldn't think of any way to replace this, so I've removed it for now.

Nothing major, but I'd like someone to take another look just to be sure. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the pointers. I've tried to fix them up. What's your opinion now?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   01:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In case you forgot.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget, but I was looking for further comment on this rather than doing so myself, for it needs further review. I'd rather not give further examples for the moment or I'd have to recuse as coordinator. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp
Lead:
 * "This sparked controversy, though Veer said that he was not upset with the similarities in the games." Does the main text clearly establish that there any real controversy? I would argue that it doesn't.
 * Changed to "discussion".


 * It may be a matter of personal preference, but how would you feel about using small mid-sentence t for the Island, the Institute, etc.? If you don't want to, know worries. I guess the most important thing is that you are consistent.
 * Capitals are fine, IMO.

Gameplay:
 * Is it explained why the Sole Survivor is called as such when there are apparently other humans still alive?
 * I'm not sure, but that'd be too much detail for an expansion anyway. It might be a good idea to include it in the Fallout 4 article, though.


 * "The expansion is set on a radioactive, smog-smothered island": There are 15 occurrences of "fog" or "foggy" in the article, but this is the only occurrence of "smog". Is it really fog, not smog? Or if it's smog, should the other occurrences describe it as such?
 * Changed all to "fog".


 * "A quick completion by killing the other characters is not always the best option as the player will find options to resolve things peacefully by completing more quests given by the factions." Possibly OK (as an interesting turn of phrase), but it a little bit sounds like the reader would initially assume that killing other characters quickly was a good method. Maybe consider rephrasing a bit to put more emphasis on there being different strategies, each with its own potential pitfalls, rather than starting by saying killing is not necessarily the best way.
 * Added "There are different ways to complete quests, all with their own pitfalls." to the start.
 * OK, to all the above, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "To use more stamina-hungry actions, the player must let it regenerate." What does "it" refer to here?
 * Already mentioned: Using V.A.T.S. lowers the stamina
 * It's a bit awkward because stamina is singular but Action Points is plural. Also "regenerate one's stamina" may be used in roleplaying games but is not a common collocation in everyday life. So together I feel these make it less clear what "it" refers to. How about "the player must let the AP regenerate"? Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to: the player must wait until their action points regenerate.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Endings:
 * We are told there are eight possible endings, but it's not clear to me which details of what follows are the endings themselves, and which are possible steps towards one (or more than one) of the possible endings. Moisejp (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by this. The ending section is written fine, in my opinion. Do you have any specific changes for it (or could you rephrase this?)
 * Well, the first sentence says that there are eight possible endings, and I kind of then expected to get a clear idea what each of the endings was. But as I was reading, I wasn't sure which details were the endings themselves, and which were details leading up to endings. For example, as I was reading the second sentence ("The Sole Survivor is faced with a choice: to destroy Far Harbor, to destroy the Children of Atom, or to inform the people of Far Harbor of DiMA's crime and trigger a feud between the Harbormen and Acadia."), I thought, "OK, these are three of the endings." Then I got to the next sentence ("Should the player choose to detonate the warhead, the Harbormen will take control of the island, while if the player destroys the fog condensers, the Children will become dominant.") and I thought, "Wait, are these two more of the endings, or does detonating the warhead refer back a possible way to destroy Far Harbor or destroy the Children on Atom in the previous sentence?" Then I read the next sentence ("In both scenarios, Acadia will be spared, though DiMA will disapprove of the player's choices.") I thought, "Is it relevant if DiMA disapproves? Surely DiMA just disapproving in itself can't be an ending, and must be leading up to another ending, but what?" And so on... I think knowing that there are eight possible endings is interesting to know, but it set my expectations up for a certain kind of follow-up that wasn't delivered—and maybe that's just me. So I guess if anything my suggestion might be to change the first sentence. But as I said, the fact that there are eight possible endings is interesting, so if you decide to keep the paragraph as is, I won't object. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I primarily used this page for the reconstruction of that section a few weeks ago. In my opinion the section is a good summary of what that article contains. With this said, I've removed the bit that said that DiMA wouldn't be happy because I couldn't find anything in the article to say what comes of it.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Development and release:
 * In what way did the dialogue system not work satisfyingly in the original Fallout 4, and what specifically was improved for Far Harbor that gave players more flexibility for the game's ending? I'm guessing maybe simply the options for what to say, and the possible resulting interactions, were more limited in the original? If so, it could be good to clarify this more explicitly. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Expanded a bit.

Reception:
 * "In particular, Stapleton expressed admiration for the new quests but said that the puzzle rooms were "so hard to fail I'm not sure why Bethesda bothered with [them]"." What if you put this sentence in the next paragraph, which also seems to be all about quests and puzzles?
 * Done.


 * The two below sentences are some big overlap in content. What if you tried to merge them—e.g., "Both Peter Brown (GameSpot) and the staff of Game Central noted (favorably?—currently it's not clear about Game Central) the many additional hours of play the side quests provided." Or, if Game Central didn't necessarily praise the feature, at least put the two side by side: "Peter Brown (GameSpot) liked how the side quests provided hours of additional play, a feature that the staff of Game Central likewise noted." These are just ideas, but it feels like currently the section randomly jumps around too much, and then revisits ideas already covered, without apparent awareness of what was already mentioned.
 * Merged.
 * "Peter Brown (GameSpot) commended the addition of "hours of side quests driven by curious characters". "
 * "While GameCentral disliked the puzzle sections, they believed that the DLC added "dozens of hours" through the means of side-quests and other activities." Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "David Ambrosini (IGN) complimented it." This feels weak here to just say he "complimented" it when all other citations get into more specifics about what aspect of a feature each reviewer did or didn't like.
 * Now?


 * "David Soriano (IGN) commended the extensive size of the map but alluded to it being somewhat wasted." It's not clear in what way the map was "wasted". Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm using their words exactly for that part. The article is written in Spanish, so from looking over the translation I can't find what he meant specifically.

Similarities with Autumn Leaves:
 * "Other similarities were discussed in an article by Mat Paget (GameSpot), some of them being that both Far Habor and Autumn Leaves include a "mysterious death of the prime financier of the Vault" ": This sentence begins with "other similarities" but this similarity sounds a lot like what Veer mentioned a few sentences earlier about a "Vault where a strange murder happened".
 * Removed.


 * "He also said that he would have been comfortable even if Bethesda had deliberately used content from Autumn Leaves." This third conditional construction "would have been comfortable even if Bethesda had deliberately used" sounds like Veer is saying he now believes Bethesda didn't deliberately use it, but other quotations contradict this. I think "He also said that he was comfortable even if Bethesda did deliberately use content from Autumn Leaves" probably fits the context better.
 * Replaced.

That's all my comments for now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the comments. I've addressed some and I'll visit the rest soon.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone over the remaining ones. I've collapsed some of the completed ones, hope you don't mind.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm staisfied with all of your above changes and replies, thank you. Remaining minor comments:
 * The article mentions the same specifics of the who the three factions are twice: first in Gameplay, then again soon after in Setting and characters.
 * Is this better?


 * "Non-player characters" is wiki-linked in Gameplay and then again in Development and release.
 * Your merging of content in the Reception section is an improvement. Thank you for putting the Stapleton sentence into the second paragraph. Sorry I didn't notice this before, but it seems like the following sentence also belongs in the second paragraph: "Some, such as Nic Rowen (Destructoid) and Christopher Livingston (PC Gamer), highly praised the addition of new quests[5][6] but many, including Jack de Quidt (Rock, Paper, Shotgun), Chad Sapieha (Post Arcade), and the reviewers for Metro.co.uk's GameCentral, disliked the newly introduced puzzle sections." Another idea: there are so many people praising the new quests and criticizing the puzzles, maybe you don't need to mention all of them. Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How about now?

Thank you for the review,. I've responded to the new comments above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support now. You've addressed all of my concerns, and I feel the article is much better shape. I've also made several copy-edits myself during the review. Nice work on the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes
Hi, unless I've missed them, we'll need the following checks before considering promotion: All of these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Image licensing review
 * Source review for formatting and reliability
 * Spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing (an extra hoop to jump through as I believe this would be the nominator's first FA if successful)


 * Images are in order. Three non-free images is maybe more than normal for an article of this size, but all are used to illustrate vital concepts for which text alone wouldn't be adequate and all have appropriate fair-use rationales. The remaining image is freely licensed via Flickr. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  20:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Jaguar
As requested, I'll comb through the article's sources to see if they're all reliable and formatted correctly:


 * Ref 3's publisher is Ziff Davis
 * Same goes with ref 6, but IGN is not linked here
 * Age verification needed for ref 24
 * Already has a disclaimer.


 * Ref 46 says "National Post", but clicking the link affirms that it's from Financial Post. Although not listed at WP:VG/RS, it is reliable

All of the sources are listed at WP:VG/S and are therefore reliable. I've spent some time checking the sources to make sure they back up what is mentioned in the article and everything checks out, just like I thought it would. The above points are minor nitpicks so with that aside I'll be more than happy to support on the sourcing side of things. JAG UAR   11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review. I've gone ahead and fixed up everything you mentioned .  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments: A fairly minor couple of points, but still seeing little issues. First, the link for Nuka-Cola redirects to the List of fictional beverages but this does not include Nuka-Cola. Also, Nuka-Cola is named in the lead but not in the main body. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "The way the player completes the quests depends on how much investigating they do": Also, I'm not too sure what this means. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've fixed them both.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I've copyedited; please revert anything I messed up. I got rid of the spelling error in the quote from Veer; per Quotations it's OK to correct trivial spelling errors where they don't affect the meaning. A couple of remaining points:
 * "Quickly completing a quest by killing the other characters is not always the best option as the player will find options to resolve things peacefully by completing more quests given by the factions": do you mean that choosing a peaceful resolution instead of a violent one will lead to getting more quests, which is necessary to progress in the game?
 * No, it's saying that after more quests are completed, more peaceful resolutions will become available. I think that sentence is fine as-is.
 * Actually I'm struggling to parse this now. I thought it made sense when I went over it before FAC but now I think at the very least the sentence needs splitting up. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  12:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Harry; I don't think this is clear. For one thing, it doesn't explain why it's not a good idea to kill the other characters.  If killing them completes the quest, and completing quests means more peaceful options become available, then what difference does it make if the player kills them?  And why are more peaceful resolutions desirable in any case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. I think the next sentence does a better job of explaining why it's not always a good idea to peacefully resolve things. The sources don't really have much on why killing everyone is bad, besides it being immoral.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "with Game Revolution stating that it negatively tested the limits of the control scheme": not sure what this means.
 * Is it better now?
 * I don't think that does it. I assume the source for this is "this section has five stages and, as they get harder, the limitations of using this mode becomes frustrating. Movement in particular can be way too confining" from the Game Revolution review.  Here's a suggested rewrite of this sentence and the one before:  "The reviewers for Game Revolution and GameCentral disliked the puzzles, as did Jack de Quidt of Rock, Paper, Shotgun, who regarded them as very frustrating even though he felt they were "a small part of the release".  Both de Quidt and the Game Revolution reviewer considered the engine insufficient for the intricate puzzle sequences." Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've replaced it with that.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

-- Otherwise this looks in pretty good shape; I expect to support once these points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Reviewers including Dan Stapleton (IGN), Chad Sapieha (Post Arcade), Trace Cowen (Complex) and Charles Battersby (Geek) mentioned comparisons to the video game Minecraft when talking about the block-related content added in the expansion": generally I think you could cut a lot of reviewer names in the reception section, but this one stands out in particular -- can't we just say "Several reviewers made comparisons to..."? It's clunky as it stands.
 * Fixed.
 * Thank you for the points. I've addressed them all above.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck one point; replied to the other two above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replied above. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  23:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. The points I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.