Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Theft Auto V/archive1


 * 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 Graham Colm 10:55, 4 May 2014.

Grand Theft Auto V

 * Nominator(s): CR 4 ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 video game, and the latest entry into the culturally significant Grand Theft Auto series. The game's five year development cycle was one of the biggest undertakings in the industry, and the game was subject to enormous hype. It shattered records for the entire entertainment industry and is on track to be the best-selling video game ever. I've worked on this article a great deal over the past six months. Having just culled down Reception and split Development off, I feel the article is well-written and, importantly, at a readable length which is why I feel it qualifies as FAC. CR 4 ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment I just looked at the Controversy section, which can be significantly trimmed. The text often loses focus from the subject at hand. For eg, "Helen Lewis of The Guardian felt Petit's observations were valid, but were stigmatised by gamers who have become 'hyper-sensitive to criticism' " has little to do with GTA V but rather is about an article that criticised it. Another thing is: are those Forbes articles reliable? They're by Forbes "contributors"; basically anybody can become one, and you get paid by the number of hits you generate. I doubt there's any fact-checking etc.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Forbes are used three times in the article. The first reference (#74) is used to support the claim that the game outsold analyst expectations. Dave Thier's bio states that he is a freelance writer - that may be a problem, although his bio also states that his work has been reused by a number of RS. Going off the bio of Eric Kain (#122), he seems much more usable. I'd put Paul Tassi (#125) on par with Thier, but he can easily go as his article is only used in response to another. So I'll let you decide based on their individual merits which, if any, we can keep. Now, I think the whole controversy-within-a-controversy over Petit's review is a mentionable thing, because her comments, and the response to them, really instigated the whole "misogyny?" discussion. CR 4 ZE (t) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, the merge tag at the top of the page shouldn't be a problem for the article. Since the debate's been open for nearly two months, I yesterday asked at the WikiProject and Admin Noticeboard for closure. Because of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)'s content (not much to stand on its own two feet in my opinion), whatever the result of the discussion won't impact this article's content, although I invite anybody to go ahead and close the discussion off as we go forward with the FAC. CR 4 ZE (t) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By chance, the use of Forbes is currently being discussed at WT:VG/RS. The current consensus is that the staff are reliable, but the contributors might not be.  You already have reliable sources for the $800M and gamer-misogyny lines, you don't need Forbes.  And for a defense of the torture sequence, you should try Tom Bissell or Tom Chick. - hahnch e n 04:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration I think the Thier's piece, which we're using to support the claim about the analyst, is a situational okay. I think the key difference is that Kain's and Tassi's work here are opinion pieces about the game's controversy, and I'll happily take them out and replace them upon Hahnchen's recommendation. Now Thier on the other hand is examining the sales GTA V posted on its first day against Arvind Bhatia's estimations. That's objective reporting; comparing one fact against another. So it really becomes a question about Bhatia... Well, I think given IGN is quoting him, it shouldn't be looked at any differently if Forbes is. CR 4 ZE (t) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Forbes' contributor pieces do not have editorial oversight, that in this case, they happen to be correct does not mean they're the best sources available. You already have the Reuters source, Variety can back up Bhatia's estimate. - hahnch e n 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though that's a subjective comment, if there's a better source available I'll happily replace it. CR 4 ZE (t) 07:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now added Bissell's and Chick's pieces into the Controversy section. CR 4 ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I won't be thoroughly reviewing this article because I haven't properly played the game (release it on PC damnit!) Just a quick thing I noticed, there's no mention of microtransactions at all, despite it generating half of TTWO's digital revenue in the last quarter.  That 70% of players have played online might be worth noting in the reception too. - hahnch e n 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a paragraph on GTA Online, but it got moved to the development article when I decided to split it. I can copy the paragraph over to here again? And add that note in Sales perhaps? Does the article need this? CR 4 ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not need the Allianz quote, it's a piece of trivia fluff for Allianz marketing. If it got picked up by secondary sources, it might be worthy of inclusion, but I doubt it.
 * GTA Online redirects to Grand Theft Auto V. The development sub-article is not where readers would go to find information on GTA Online.  While details of the online component's development would sit in the development subarticle, its gameplay, revenue model and reception should not. - hahnch e n 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have inserted a new section into Reception titled "Multiplayer launch", and have written up a paragraph summarising the reviews I was able to collate. Now I need to make a few points here. Firstly, four of the five reviews in the table are considered 100% RS. Destructoid is situational depending on the writer, and in this case Chris Carter is an editor who is also "Reviews Director". The Polish review, GRYOnline.pl, is considered RS. I felt it was necessary to have this one because of the lack of RS to add to the table; the alternative is to add GamesMaster's review, but it's a print medium I don't have, so I can't supply author name, publisher etc. Finally, I have included publication dates in the table. This is because, given the nature of GTA Online's launch, the date of the publication is just as, if not, more important than the review score. Reviews were clearly impacted by the launch issues, so I think it's important the table includes dates next to scores. CR 4 ZE (t) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add too that I'm not going to add the Metro article about GTA Online's revenue to the article, because it is sourced from NeoGAF. CR 4 ZE (t) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can understand why the Metro piece isn't good enough. The MCV piece might still be worth a mention, I also spotted that Bhatia's estimates for GTA Online were picked up too.  You could link those two pieces together in a sentence summing up GTA Online's sales. - hahnch e n 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added some post-release information for GTA Online. Not sure if Bhatia's estimations need to be mentioned though. CR 4 ZE (t) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is no mention of the music or the soundtrack in the reception. Its the first GTA to have an original score, this is important. - hahnch e n 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When I collated reviews while writing Reception, I really only found Destructoid's review gave mention to the sound design. I have inserted it into one of the paragraphs, because I don't know if I have enough for a full one. CR 4 ZE (t) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's plenty more that could be said about the soundtrack. Both IGN and Gamespot touch on it, but what you really need is the Edge review in print (Issue 259).  There's a page long post script about the series' music. - hahnch e n 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been able to get a small paragraph out of those handful of quotes. I have tried unsuccessfully to find scans of the Edge review online. I'd happily buy it, but it wouldn't arrive in my mailbox for a few weeks. CR 4 ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:X201 who may have a copy of that issue. I do have a copy of that issue, but it's in storage and I won't be able to get at it until April.  You can also just buy the digital version. - hahnch e n 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've got it, will sort out a way to get the info to Craze. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All good. I bought it. Will write something up tomorrow. CR 4 ZE (t) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Query. This game has only bee out for about six months. It will, at some point, presumably have an impact and a legacy, which is what an encyclopaedia should be evaluating. Is it not a bit too early to have a 'finished' encyclopaedia article? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have featured articles on living people who's legacy is sure to grow. While an unreleased game has too much left in the air, a game that has been released and appraised is enough for a featured article in my opinion. - hahnch e n 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia article is ever complete. Dishonored is likely to pass even without a Legacy section, because the article is complete with the information available now with no obvious omissions. Inevitably, yes, we'll probably have to add a Legacy section, but that doesn't stop the article from being finished with the content that's presented at present. CR 4 ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

*not now too early, it has yet to be released on PC, and the game has only been out for 6 months. i forsee some pretty significant changes to the article. a Featured Article should be fairly stable in terms of content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a very good reason. You're making presumptions based on future events that haven't happened yet. Has the PC version been announced yet? No. When it does, how exactly do you consider that the article will go under "significant change"? Are we going to have to rewrite the entire article because of a port to another platform? I bet not. The article has remained structurally the same since the successful GAN, except that the readability has been improved with a split Development and culled Reception. I'd say it was stable at the GAN and has remained so since then. CR 4 ZE (t) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, stating that the article could go under "significant change," (and stating that this should prevent the promotion of the article to FAC) simply based on your own personal theories on the direction of the game development, is potentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Rhain1999  (talk to me) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps. I don't mean that it's a bad article. i guess you are right, rockstar, for whatever reason, has been completely silent about the PC release. i did make an assumption, based on the fact that GTA4 was released on pc, and that the PC market is quite large. however, in retrospect, i really don't see why it should stop a FAC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Over a week now and no new comments. Surely there are more editors interested in conducting a review. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. High quality prose and grammar. Mr* | (60nna)  07:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

 * Is Quarter to Three a reliable source?
 * Likewise with NintendoEverything – I've heard of it, but it was seen as iffy in Pokémon Channel's FAC. Here, it draws from a Famitsu source; it'd be nice if you found and cited that.
 * Reception (the non-subsection part) may still be bordering on too long. The points all seem well-supported enough for inclusion – perhaps too much, as I think you could cut out some of the details and redundant quotes.
 * "Depiction of torture" consists of one very long paragraph. Split it somewhere.
 * The article looks fine otherwise. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quarter to Three is Tom Chick's website, and given his reputation in the field he should be okay to use. Hahnchen can probably give a better justification if need be.
 * I did some searching for a replacement for Nintendo Everything, and the only RS I found was VG247, but even then the statement in the prose is different to what is available via VG247 as they appear to be citing a different part of the Famitsu article. Not to mention the fact that the article is sourced from NeoGAF and NintendoLife, which to me comes across as sloppy. I've removed the information. Famitsu appears to be hard to get online, and even if I got it... I don't speak Japanese, so there's no point. It's information more relevant to the Japanese Wikipedia anyway.
 * It's possible to cite Japanese articles; I do it all the time. Some browsers have auto-translators; if not I'm sure you could Google Translate it to get a basic idea. Nevertheless, if you don't want to add it you don't have to, since GTAV is a Western game and this is the English Wikipedia.
 * I disagree. It's been cut down a fair bit, but with a game covered as widely in the media as this, a good-size reception section is kind of necessary. The only way I could see it being cut down even further is if we removed the second paragraph, the one about GTA V being this generation's magnum opus. However, take into consideration Dishonored, which recently passed FAC with a reception section at 1,243 words, and look at that in context with GTA V's slightly shorter 1,111 words. I'm not trying to use WP:WAX, but my point is that for some games, the wide scope of the reviews sometimes necessitates a lengthy reception section and cutting it down too much might not give the reader all the appropriate information they could get. Excepting its development, a game's reception is the most important thing to cover in a WP article.
 * That's fair. I ought to be less knee-jerk about that.
 * Paragraph is now split in two. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Support; my issues have all been addressed. Nice work! Before the large amount of work on GTAV and related articles, I assumed the GTA task force had been pretty much abandoned. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar
Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.


 * That the game was published by Rockstar isn't cited in the article, nor is the "fifteenth" part
 * "Off-mission, ": "missions" needs explanation before introducing "off-mission"
 * general tip to use shorter words and conserve syllables wherever possible to make sentences easier (allow → let/put, utilize → use)
 * "freely roam the state's countryside": is it the state's or the city's countryside? Seemed more like the latter to me
 * "Players control the three lead protagonists simultaneously": would be better to say that the story for all three happens concurrently and that the player swaps player-characters at will rather than introduce the idea that one controller does three things at once. This ¶ can be a bit more precise
 * Infobox video game uses media only where the distribution is ambiguous—not sure it is in this case
 * producer/designer/etc. credits should be sourced and mentioned in the article
 * I don't think the list of Rockstar subsidiaries belongs in the infobox per the developer param description
 * I highly recommend list-defined refs for the future—makes editing much easier for copyeditors
 * First ¶ of Gameplay is out of order—the specific health and law mechanics should follow the basic overview of gameplay: action-adventure, how the characters are controlled, you shoot things, you interact with things, etc. HUD stuff might be best for its own ensuing paragraph. This is to say that "In combat, auto-aim..." jumped into "combat" when the reader doesn't know combat means gunfight here. Similarly, "its halfway point"—halfway of what? What is an "illegal act" or a "mission" (not necessarily a definition, but what does it mean in this game)? These are solid questions for people who know little about video games but want to read about the fastest selling entertainment of all time
 * Try to reduce the semicolons, which are awkward
 * Em dashes aren't spaced, en dashes can be (when used as an em dash)
 * I'll pause here for now since your Gameplay edits might alter the whole section
 * Note geographic parenthetical comma use in MOS:COMMA—it's tricky

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar ♔  11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Rockstar, actually, have been cited. Each of the first two sentences in Development cover both Rockstar Games and Rockstar North with reliable sources giving direct mentions. As for the game being the fifteenth entry, I can't find a reliable source for this. All I get is this, which isn't a fantastic choice. It isn't really an objectionable statement, however I can just remove it instead.
 * I've made the gameplay paragraph in the lead a little more precise now.
 * What's interesting about the media field is that the game had to be shipped on two Xbox 360 discs but only one PS3 disc. Rockstar had to put out an announcement reassuring gamers that there wouldn't be any differences between the versions. Wouldn't that be a mentionable thing? It's covered in a little more depth in the "Overview" section of the Development sub-article. Have a read first before I remove the |media= field.
 * Producer/designer again falls into the category of facts that got moved into the Development page upon the split. I can recycle the citations into the Infobox?
 * That could be true for most games, which is what the Infobox is designed to cover, but how many games can you name that required a core development team plus seven studios split between the UK and the US, and the manpower of at least 1,000 people? I can cite the fact that the game required all that widespread effort, but I can't seem to cite each separate studio's contributions unless you're okay with the game credits as a source. But if you still think the list can go I'll take it out.
 * There are lots of list-defined refs once you get down to the Awards, but it's an editorial preference anyway. You should turn the wikEd gadget on if it bothers you.
 * Added "meter" after "health" and reworded "illegal acts" to "crimes". I'm trying to think of a better way to describe what a "mission" is because any synonymous terms are even more confusing. Can't say I agree completely on the organisation but I'm looking into it. The thing is, we need to give the reader insight into the basic action gameplay mechanics immediately, before we get into the character-switching and the open world design. By the time they get to "In combat, auto-aim..." readers are already aware that there is combat, because the second sentence explains that players use guns and stabby things to kill people. Same for the Wanted system, which needs to be explained ASAP because it's a major underlying mechanic of the game. Now, what I could do is keep all those basic mechanics in the first paragraph, then trim bits from the others into a new second paragraph thoroughly explaining the open world design. Getting into the way the single-player story/switching works first before all that would be very disorganised.
 * The most grammatical correct way to introduce a "for example" is to put a semi-colon there. Other semi-colons are gone.
 * User:Czar, ping. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 08:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Rockstar cites, I meant the whole list of Rockstar NYC etc. from the infobox (I mentioned this above, re: subsidiaries). IBT ref works for me (though it may be citogenesis). I think the infobox media can go—if it's not worth mentioning in the article, is it worth mentioning in the infobox? "Roam" is used twice in the lede. Putting refs in the infobox when the item's not mentioned in the article is totally fine. If it's worth mentioning the transnational dev split, it should go in the prose (not the infobox and definitely not infobox-only). I'm not contending for a total reorg of the Gameplay, just threw out an idea. It does, however, need to read so someone such as my hypothetical person can pick up the article and understand it, which means situating the early, unavoidable jargon. Slogging through the rest now czar ♔  04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the transnational development is already mentioned in the appropriate section, Development. The source used doesn't give mention to each individual studio, so I have commented out the "Additional work" field in the infobox to run this by you. I can use the game credits to cite the development studios. Otherwise they can just remain hidden. I removed the second "roam" in the lede. I cited each individual producer/designer/etc, although I can't help but feel like the infobox looked nicer without citations there... Meh...it's either that, or mention them in the Development section, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to keep Development as short as possible. Though you weren't requiring that I do it, I have reorganised the Gameplay section and explained the open world design first with a little bit more detail. Do you prefer how it's arranged now? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and the IBT ref came across to me as citogenesis as well, which is why I was bit uneasy about using it. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Czar has not yet responded to a ping to evaluate my response. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to contribute during the week. I'll continue over the weekend, but don't let me hold up the review czar ♔  03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Might be worth incorporating the individual dev team leads into the article, but you know the sources better than me. I usually work them in by way of quotes that credit them as "lead writer X". Gameplay reads much better, but I just gave it an edit as I read (as far as I could muster—the in-prose refs, British English, and lack of serial comma throw me off) and I cut out nearly a kB. The whole article can use this treatment, especially considering its current length. There are a few things I see contributing to its distracting verbosity: repeating the game's italicized name instead of saying "the game", lots of "the x of y" constructions where "y's x" could work, long descriptions that are best said as a single word or two, and ideas repeated in adjacent clauses that should be altogether recast as a single or two separate sentences. (The ce link above shows a few examples of each.) I know that in my own writing, I tend to shove too much stuff into a sentence and then have trouble seeing how to fit in everything I want. Instead of making Frankenstein sentences, I see what idea I'm trying to build around (the "cancer" of my sentence) and then recast the sentence around a different idea. Anyway, I feel this prose could use more concision for better flow. It's very long, so would you like to give it a try? I might slog through it, but I don't have much free time for intensive copyediting. czar ♔  20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed down a couple of things, namely some additional critical reviews that were commented out in the table that wasted 2,000 bytes of data. I'll consider working the dev team key people into the prose, but I want to keep that Development section as short as possible. Regardless, it shouldn't hinder the article's featured candidacy. I think as you go down you'll find the prose a little clearer in the Development/Reception/Controversies sections. I've read through these sections many times over and I personally can't find too many ways to make cut-downs. It would need a fresh pair of eyes. I have made some small cuts in Development. The length of the article might seem long, but there's only so much we can do considering the scope of the game in news sources etc. Basically, I'd encourage you to give a run-through and make some final cuts yourself, because this candidate has been open for over a month now and it needs closing soon. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More to come czar ♔  02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lede says Los Santos is based on LA, but that ref was recently removed from the prose
 * Nice plot (saved me the trouble of finishing the game). This said, was there no way to source it? I know you don't "need to", but it would have been worth it for posterity (when the vandals come)
 * "that was meant for Michael instead" → "marked for Michael": clarify this—was it a plot reserved for him or where he was "buried" such that he could start a new life?
 * Plot could do more to explain that Trevor is batshit crazy
 * Usually people are referenced by their surnames—I'm assuming Michael, Trevor, Franklin are called as such because that's how it's done during the game?
 * "Franklin is pressured by Haines": this is a big deal—needs a few more words. Pressured?
 * Do you care about the serial comma? I think it makes things clearer. The prose has been omitting them, but I just removed one from the plot for consistency
 * Added the source back in.
 * My understanding is that when writing about fiction, you need to source claims about plot threads that not every player may encounter on an initial playthrough. As such, the only parts of the plot that really required citing were the three different endings, which I've done.
 * My understanding about WAF is that plots were allowed to be unreffed (to cast aside WP:V) since it's really hard to source for some subjects. I was saying that I think this plot is covered so well that reffing it wouldn't be an issue ♔
 * Looks like your copy-edit covered that.
 * I'm not familiar with anything more than the basic plot, so I was guessing about the purpose of the grave ♔
 * The plot's currently sitting at 769 words, which is already slightly over our target of 700. The idea of a plot section is to give an overview as concisely written as possible. As such, we've mostly kept it to key plot points throughout the game, and there's lots of threads that have been omitted, such as (spoilers) Michael performing odd-jobs for a Vinewood producer, the kidnapping of Michael's family, Trevor's initial business deal with the Chengs etc. I just don't see how getting into more of Trevor's story is going to help readers understand the plot.
 * Doesn't need his story. One or two adjectives would introduce his characteristics that were later called out in specific in the Reception section ♔
 * Most of the characters are referred to by their first names (Michael is often called "Townley", and Steve Haines is almost always just "Haines"). But I think the way that's it's been approached is that Michael, Franklin and Trevor are the characters you actually control, so for the sake of consistency between Gameplay/Plot they're always on a first-name basis.
 * I emphasised the imperative of Franklin being forced to choose Michael's and Trevor's fates a little more. Check my wording, and if you want a little more detail I'll go back and replay the mission to add a little more. If I can remember, Haines wants Trevor dead because of the fact that he's batshit crazy, and Weston, I think, wants Michael dead because he's been screwed over. Something like that...
 * It's more that why do the FIB agents have such a hold over Franklin that he'd be forced to make this call? As it stands, it says he received a phone call and has to make a choice. The group is so tight and they have been against the FIB agents for so long, why would listening be imperative? (Rhetorical question, answer in prose) ♔
 * Here's the thing with the serial comma. Our MOS allows either its inclusion or omission as long as whichever choice is consistent throughout the prose. Now the article strictly adheres to British English, and every British English style guide I can recall recommends against it. There's advantages and disadvantages to it. As long as the usage is consistent, it shouldn't matter. If it's your editorial preference to use it, use it in articles with American English. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My feeling was that it would be helpful in long articles such as these where it could be used a dozen times. I'm still not sure if you're for or against it, so I left it as is. ♔


 * "the open world space, where preliminary models were rendered in the game engine": Models of what? cl
 * "Production of the game world demanded field research trips": demanded? (would be easy to add Los Santos back here)
 * A bit of overuse of "considered"
 * "The team viewed the game as a spiritual successor": Did they view GTA V as the successor or idea of the project? Like, was it that the GTA sequel qua GTA sequel had to inherit the qualities of the other work, or was it just an opportunity to make their next game contain multitudes?
 * "and considered how they could innovate": How did this consideration work? In planning?
 * "Michael is forced by FIB government": forced how? be more specific
 * "a Triad": I don't think this construction makes sense. Members of the Triad? A branch of the Triad, perhaps?
 * Might want to explain that Trevor's reunion with Michael wasn't with vengeance (maybe he thought he was dead?)
 * "Rockstar collaborated with several retail outlets to provide special edition releases": needs more info—what was different about them, generally?
 * "Rockstar also ran a viral marketing strategy with a website": was it Rockstar or another ad company?
 * I know you said you looked this over, but I killed a ton of gerunds in this section alone. Avoid "-ing" constructions where possible, as they're overused
 * Clarified.
 * Looks like you clarified that.
 * It's used twice.
 * Not throughout the article, and I already changed a couple ♔
 * Uh...still not sure what the issue is? The sentence explains that they considered the game a spiritual successor to their previous games...
 * I was asking about the rest of the sentence—I didn't quote the whole thing ♔
 * Refined.
 * Refined.
 * True. Though your edit exacerbated things by removing the mention of Wei Cheng, who is one of the main antagonists.
 * I'm not sure Cheng's mention is vital to the plot section when the Triad is already there ♔
 * I wrote a little clarification there but I'm not sure how it sounds (really tired at the moment). I'll come back to it later and see if it needs rephrasing.
 * Added mention of the additional content that came with pre-orders, although it's not an exhaustive explanation for concision purposes.
 * It was Rockstar.
 * K. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine to just respond that the bullets are acknowledged or were changed instead of responding individually. And editing while tired may not be a good idea if it makes you snippy czar ♔  15:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More to come czar ♔  02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC) czar ♔  03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Critical acclaim" can be a controversial phrase. Now, all of games, GTA V may deserve it, but I'd still quote it as a phrase from a RS where possible.
 * I'd move the mention of the games it ranks behind to footnote notes—it's more trivia than essential to the (long) Reception section
 * I didn't see PSU.com on the WP:VG/RS list—might want to take it there for confirmation, though the staff looks okay if I trust their bios
 * Many of these quotes can be paraphrased, especially for want of space in this section
 * "Los Santos, a city featured in Grand Theft Auto V.": were there other cities?
 * This section's major structural problem is that a few sentences are constructed in a "X was acclaimed, Y person said Z" format that ends sentences only citing the "Y said Z" and not the "X was acclaimed". That portion of the sentence needs the refs necessary to defend that claim. This is a flow issue.
 * I disagree, but I've added a "review round-up" from CVG to back the claim.
 * That's a good idea that I followed through on.
 * I'll take it there just in case.
 * Reception's sitting at just over 1,000 words (including the caption). Dishonored, for example, passed happily with over 1,200. I'd say that, while it's long, it's essential to the reader's understanding because GTA is historically most widely known for its very positive reviews. There's a good mix of quotes and paraphrasing, and I noticed in your recent copy-editing you paraphrased a few more. I'd contend the balance is good now.
 * I refined the image caption just slightly.
 * I disagree completely. I've reviewed your work before and I know you like to cite everything, but if I went through on your point here the section would be muddled with redundant citations. Here's why. Take the paragraph "The story and characters—particularly Trevor—polarised reviewers". Now there's no footnote at the end of that sentence, because it's a point that is expanded upon further in the prose. There are 13 citations throughout the paragraph each used to refer back to the opening sentence. There's no reason to over-cite. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider Dishonored Reception excessive, but I didn't get around to reviewing it (as you know, I put a lot of time into my reviews—jeez, the copyedit alone—and the longer the article, the greater the time commitment). My expectation for such sections would be to stick to high-level critiques and to collect "redundant citations" from meta-reviews as much as possible for the boldest claims. The thing is that GTA and Dishonored are totally capable of that quality due to their broad coverage. There is room for each Reception ¶ to sparkle by making sure its contents actually pertain to the idea of the ¶, but I'll leave it as a friendly suggestion. I think you misinterpret what I meant with the last bullet. The way it is now, I had broken sentences with two clauses into separate sentences, such that the ¶s have topic sentences now. Before ("X was acclaimed, Y person said Z"), the citation would appear to cite both the X and YZ clauses. Citing that separated topic sentence (for the sake of WP:V) is up to you. czar ♔  03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the way Reception is now, and you've made some good copy-editing here and there so it should meet the "brilliant" criteria. Re the topic sentences, this was an approach I took on in my big cull (this section used to be about 1,500 words I think) to get things as short as I could. There used to be topic sentences like we have now. The ones now are best left uncited. Rhain1999 is working on your last batch of points about the Awards section. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1,508, to be exact. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Escapist generally isn't reliable (WP:VG/RS)—consider killing it
 * " for broadening the scope of the game": I don't know what this would mean, so I removed it
 * Remember that when you use a one-off's surname and don't mention their parent outlet, we have no idea who they are (e.g., "McDonald felt that the licensed music": who the hell is McDonald?, "Gerstmann agreed that the score")
 * "felt that the game's mission design": did this jump from heist missions to regular missions? cl
 * GTAO GameSpot review by "Petit, Petit" fixed
 * "felt that in spite of the improvements, 'the auto-targeting system is twitchy": did this just switch from driving mechanics to shooting mechanics? Needs better signposting
 * "a single lead protagonist whose moral complex was muddled": not sure what this meant, cl
 * The prose in the Reception sentence drags and isn't quite brilliant... more variance from "X of Y (website) said Z"

czar ♔  06:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "and the Social Club service": needs explanation
 * "during load screens for early missions": "load screen" is jargon
 * Online section's history can be summarized more since many of the details are not necessary for this article (other than the major events of the botched launch), but it isn't imperative
 * "This broke the previous record set by Call of Duty: Black Ops II ...": make this a refn, asides not immediately relevant to the text
 * "the largest digital release": in downloads? revenue? specify
 * "beat the lifetime sales of Grand Theft Auto IV": overall? worldwide? it jumps back and forth
 * I'm not removing The Escapist. It's considered situational because of Yahtzee's popularity, but Greg Tito is a senior staffer who's been there nine years. He makes some perfectly valid commentary about the game. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was just for consideration, and I'm not sure the reliability concerns are localized to Yahtzee ♔
 * Everything else has been fixed. Load screen has been wikilinked the first time and reworded the second time. As for the multiplayer launch, I'll leave that to you at a point one day where you get the sub-article you created to a more suitable length. Almost all of it is just recycled from this section, which doesn't merit summarising here just yet. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone copied the Reception section, but the rest was newly written. ♔


 * Awards: consider killing rowspan
 * "Xbox 360, and won the latter": cl
 * Would help to know why it matters to be nominated for these awards—it just reads as a laundry list of accolades right now, which isn't helpful
 * In most cases of this list, the number of nominations doesn't matter. I'd group the mentions where the game won the Game of the Year and then group all like comparisons (awards for best audio, etc.) I started to trim along these lines in the last ¶ of Awards but it can go further

Okay, that's it for now. I think the issues are surmountable. For anyone reading this far, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar ♔  13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is undue weight on controversies. Look how long they are compared to the other sections. It can still use trimming, especially in the By the Book mission description. Might want to break out the section into its own article so it can be kept brief in this one
 * (Now that it's been trimmed a bit, I think the weight is okay—it just looks bad by length)
 * "had an underlying commentary that made the violent content necessary": which was?
 * I've recently re-written the Awards section to reflect your notes on it, so be sure to take a look. -- Rhain1999  (talk to me) 09:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also made a couple of fixes to the plot, and refined that sentence in the Controversies section. Looks like all of your points have been covered. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two abandoned ref errors at the bottom of the page—likely inadvertent, but wanted to check czar ♔  13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Couple of very small typos from Rhain, that's all. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 13:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, sorry about that! I should have taken a better look at the article after my edits. -- Rhain1999  (talk to me) 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * They kill only Haines at the end? Not Norton too? czar ♔  13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, Norton lives. He's loosely considered a "good guy", because he brokers the Ludendorff deal and gives Michael his new life. And they all live happily ever after. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So... CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC) czar ♔  14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I take longer to respond during the week—I typically only review over the weekends because that's when I can steal the time. Here are a few more
 * Isn't the Awards section missing more pre-release awards? There's nothing about E3 awards, for example
 * I'm not sure how the mentioned nominations were chosen, e.g., the "nomination at the Game Developers Choice Awards" does not seem consequential compared to winning awards from so many other sources. I'd recommend removing the nominations unless they are utterly vital (perhaps such as Biggest Disappointment noms, but even there I'd contend it likely isn't worth mentioning)
 * Did y'all see my suggestion about rowspan and readability?
 * The -ing gerund thing (mentioned above) is happening again in the Awards section rewrite (fixed, but I'm only halfway through the section for now)
 * GOTY mentions were missing. I added them, but they need refs (not sure how you want to mention Slant, if necessary)
 * It's been well-documented that Rockstar have historically been absent from media conferences to promote their games. I'm quite certain, for example, that they haven't been to E3 in a decade. (Some background). It's a deliberate marketing approach, and it's clearly worked in the past. As such, nope, there's almost nothing when it comes to pre-release awards. The nominations may not be necessary in prose, but I'd say they should be left in the table. (We could, in future, split the table off into something like "List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V"). Now I'm personally terrible when working with tables (I scarcely have to use them), so I'll have to leave it to someone else (pinging Rhain) to deal with rowspan. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely keep the nominations in the table—I only meant the prose. In absence of preview awards, it may be worth including at least something somewhere on the great level of anticipation for the game. And if there is only one pre-release award in the whole section, might be worth just putting that first instead of using the topic sentence that makes it seem that there will be plenty of pre-release awards. czar ♔  19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have commented out the GOTY awards you added. Rhain and I were only able to find this source for GamesTM, which is completely unreliable (amplified by the fact that it actually cites Wikipedia as a source... citogenesis clusterfuck). In the meantime I'm pinging Hahnchen who may have GamesTM, but I can't find GamePro. And I'd rather not keep having to buy archives online. The pre-release anticipation was mentioned in the article, but this is (again) fact that got split off into the Development sub-article. I've added the statement back into the Development section. Now, as for the table, again, I have no idea how to work with them, but I have experimented with killing the "rowspan" parameter and all I seem to do is mess it up. Not sure how to handle this one. Can we just bring another editor in to have a look and make a decision? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do have the relevant GamesTM issue, but it's not something I'll have access to until late May as it's in storage. Their website suggests it's issue 142. I'm not sure how notable magazine year end awards are, GTA V will have had too many to list. - hahnch e n 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * GOTY awards from major publishers would be quite vital information for the Reception section's completeness, no? Checking the 2013 versions of the Dishonored list of GOTY/#1 awards won, I don't think GTA V list would be much longer. Here's an unreliable source that purports a whole bunch more wins, if you'd like to try the more notable ones. czar ♔  17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is done. That took close to two hours to go through, back-check, add in prose and cite. So if you don't like the way I've set it out, spare my sanity and change it yourself. That's covered everything now hey? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't appreciate the jabs and snippiness. The Awards section is not 1a-ready and I know the editors involved are capable of making it brilliant, professional prose, but this encyclopedia is too big to pour time into articles where I'm made to feel unwelcome. So, support on prose and I'll edit a few last things on my own. czar ♔  00:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. My comment wasn't meant as a personal jab, rather, it was an ironic statement about how numbing it was (on my part) to sort through and get all those awards into the prose. Sorry if it came across some way else, but social science shows that 93% of communication is non-verbal which lends to misinterpretation in text-based communications. I do appreciate your comments and copy-editing. I'll have a read-through of the Awards section and see if I can make the prose shine a little more. One thing I do note with you is that you don't seem to like semi-colons. In that big long sentence about the year-end awards, there's not much of a better alternative without getting into choppy sentences or prose skewered by emdashes. In any regard, I'll continue to look at ways to refine the prose throughout the section. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nicereddy

 * In "Gameplay", the multiplayer character/avatar is mentioned in second paragraph, where its mentioned that the southern point on the HUD compass represents the multiplayer character. While the three single-player characters are mentioned a few sentences prior, the multiplayer character isn't mentioned at all before this sentence, which is fairly confusing. If you could add a quick sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph, before the mention of the compass, I think that'd help clarify.
 * In the "Development" section: "The game required five years' work by a team of over 1,000 people...". I was wondering if this was grammatically correct, specifically the "five years'", as it looks off to me, but I could be wrong.
 * In "Plot", the FIB links to the actual Federal Bureau of Investigation page, which may be a bit confusing for readers.
 * In "Multiplayer launch", I think the following is a bit awkward: "Upon launch, users reported difficulties connecting to the game's servers and the Social Club service, or freezes during load screens for early missions." Specifically, the "or freezes during load screens for early missions." I'd also note that "the Social Club service" is fairly vague, and I don't believe it was mentioned previously in the article.
 * Also in the first paragraph of "Multiplayer launch", the phrase "A technical patch was released on *date*" is repeated twice only two sentences apart. You may want to reword one of these.

Other than that, the prose is fantastic, the article covers everything I'd expect, non-free imagery is used reasonably, and the sources seem reliable. I would consider archiving the references you're using (as I've done with Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike: Source's references, for example), since I've seen a pretty huge number of featured articles erode over time thanks to link rot. I think the longevity of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability is reliant heavily on archiving references, and this would save you a lot of annoyance in the future. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, a lack of archives would be a silly reason not to support the article's promotion. If you can fix the issues I've listed above, I'll gladly add my support. Fantastic job to everyone involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, . I have attempted to clarify the compass system in "Gameplay". That sentence in "Development" wasn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, although it wasn't the best wording, so I have reworked it. I removed the wikilinks from the "Plot" and instead added a note explaining that the FIB and IAA were parodies, and sourced the claim. I have attempted to clean up those couple of awkward sentences in "Multiplayer launch". Please review my changes, and if you're happy, I'd love for you to throw down a Support vote. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Apologies, as I had nearly forgotten! All of my issues seem to have been fixed, and as I said in my previous comment, the prose is fantastic, the references all cite legitimate sources, non-free image use is minimal, and the article covers all material I'd expect. Really great job! --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX
Several things to address:


 * Lead
 * Make note that it is the first game in the series with multiple playable characters


 * Reception
 * "According to review aggregating website Metacritic, the game received an average review score of 97/100 for both consoles, and according to GameRankings, the game received an average review score of 97.01% and 96.20% for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively." is lengthy. Try splitting it into something like "MetaCrtic calculated an average rating of 97/100 for both consoles. GameRankings calculated an average rating of 97.01% for the PlayStation 3 and 96.20% for the Xbox 360."
 * ref#77 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than simply The Telegraph
 * Multiplayer launch
 * GTA$500,000 → GTA $500,000
 * Awards
 * ref#142 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just Telegraph


 * Controversies
 * Depiction of torture
 * Remove ref#26 (Daily Mirror)- it's a tabloid
 * Accusations of sexism
 * like ref#77, ref#154 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just The Telegraph or Telegraph
 * Legal actions
 * Find a better source than ref#161 (New York Daily News) or remove altogether. If the detail is to be included, "US$20 million" should read "US $20 million"

After these are addressed, you have my support for this becoming FA. Good luck! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything has been taken care of. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work. That should do it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Delegate comment

 * Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * approved the images in his comments. Would you like to see a full review? I can page some editors for an additional review of images if needed. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing for images (note that I'm coming from WT:VG where Cr4ze asked for help):
 * File:Grand Theft Auto V.png is cover art with proper rationale.
 * File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg is a game screenshot to demonstration sourced commentary on the gameplay, that's fine.
 * File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg is a game screenshot to showcase the game's engine and the similarities to the real city of LA, both backed by sourced discussion, so okay.
 * File:Grand Theft Auto V torture sequence.jpg is a game screenshot from one of the game's controversial missions (a scene involving torture, but here showing a scene where the player-character is selecting which torture weapon to use). This is a bit of a tricky case. No question the scene is of critical discussion, but the screenshot itself is not indicative of why (not played, but as I've read, you actually see the torture happening). I would consider it might be better to use a shot here that shows the torture about to be enacted - eg we see the victim about to be struck or the like - as to make a screenshot use here more appropriate along NFC lines. Using this specific shot begs the question if it is really needed.  But that's a point of debate to build on. --M ASEM  (t) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll happily replace the image, but what I liked about the one we had now was the fact that there was an on-screen prompt for the player to pick a weapon, which reinforces that it's imperative to mission progress to torture the victim. There are, however, replacements available. Take your pick. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of those, I'd recommend a shot of the actual waterboarding. The IGN shots are relatively dark. I'd pick the one with the water canister, but I'd recommend using an image that actually illustrated the action that needs illustration. czar ♔  15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree this might be a better shot. While a facet was that there were a number of ways to torture that the user could chose from, that really doesn't need a visual guide to show. But to show that the game actually showed the player doing this is what struck a nerve and the commentary on this scene and thus would be a clearly allowed screenshot moreso than the choie of tool. --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's four images that I have made as replacements. My inclination is to go with Trevor pulling Mr. K's tooth out (#2) because it's the most up-close and graphic. Although, they all would serve a similar purpose. What are your suggestions? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They're still quite dark. Have you tried lightening them? Also I thought the waterboarding scenes were more effective than the tooth extractions, no? Did they not show well? (Currently working on my review above) czar ♔  01:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would go with the tooth-pulling image as well after some brightening. While none of the images show Mr. K's face that well, the tooth-pulling image gives the clearest view of Trevor's face. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The waterboarding segment also features a close-up camera on Mr. K's covered face with water being poured onto it. The camera switches between the view from the screenshot I snapped, immediately to the close-up just as Trevor begins pouring. Trevor is barely seen on-screen there (you see a hand and two feet) so that I feel would lose the impact of the image. My inclination is still towards the tooth-pulling, because featured on-screen are the faces of both men, a contextual prompt and a close-up view. If I do a re-up of either image, can somebody else do a lightening touch-up with Photoshop for me? I don't have the program. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that tooth-pull is a better choice. Also, one more thing I noticed- remove ref#97 (Metro, which is a tabloid) or replace with a better source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, the point of using non-free images (and this is what Masem was stressing) is that it should be showing something that just isn't possible from text description alone. So a picture of Trevor standing with pliers would not be as effective as an image of an actually traumatic action, such as seeing the target in the throes of the action. Whether or not we see Trevor doing it isn't the point. I can try lightening whatever you choose to upload czar ♔  02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The shot that I suggested wasn't just of Trevor standing there with pliers. He's towering over Mr. K ripping his tooth out. It would have been just as powerful a shot, however I'm going with the waterboarding shot only because the camera angle in the pliers scene doesn't clearly show Mr. K's mouth enough. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Can anyone try lightening the colour palette of the replacement image? Masem? Czar? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be lightened? (Just asking here) - the core elements (the victim on their back, the character about to waterboard them) are visible. But if it is believed this can be lightened, I Can do that. --M ASEM  (t) 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd contend it may be a little hard to make out for some readers. A little lightening would make the action on-screen a little clearer, wouldn't it? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 15:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I brightened the shot and think it looks better. Feedback? czar ♔  04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the extra clarity looks great. Thanks. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Are the supports/review comments sufficient enough for closing? CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 03:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I counted a dozen instances of "the game" in the lead, which seems excessive. I realise you don't want to use the game's title all the time either but there might be a few instances you can just say "it" or something else. Same goes for the rest of the article, where by my count there are about 90 instances each of the title and "the game"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on that. I have gone through and reduced as many of these instances as I can. Take a look. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks, that's improved things. Spotchecking prose/phrases, it seems close now but not quite there so I can't in all conscience promote it as is; as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and was planning to review a few articles, I may just recuse myself from delegate duties for another pass at the prose later today and allow my colleague Graham to close it as he sees fit afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. I notice that you've made a couple of changes here and there yourself. If you find bits of prose that don't work for you, I encourage you to fix them, but some minor copy-editing here and there wouldn't interfere with your role as a delegate would it? I mean, whatever you deem appropriate, but I would like to have my very first shiny gold star atop an article. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What would be your approach for closing? If you have outstanding objections regarding the prose I'll happily work at them, unless you were planning to do a run-through yourself. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Torchiest on sources
I looked at this version. I checked sources 1, 4–5, 7–12, 29, 31–35, 48, 55–59, 62, 67, 69–74, 93–100, 105–116, 123–138, 140–142, 144–152, 202, and 206–208.

I found a few problems: Everything else I looked at checked out fine. —Torchiest talkedits 04:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Source 4 is used to support "[Key members of the game world production team] ... shared their photo and video documentation with the design team." I can't really find that. The closest I've found is "We sent out quite a large team on a number of occasions who spent time with location scouts, architectural historians, off-duty police, DJ Pooh and our own research team. ... We’ve shot over 250,000 images and hours of video. We’ve driven all over Los Angeles and out into the surrounding desert, towns, and forests. Throughout the project I’ve visited California quite a number of times, sometimes with the art team and sometimes meeting up with [Rockstar co-founders] Sam and Dan Houser and [longtime series producer] Les Benzies." But that doesn't quite match up with the claims, as far as I can tell. Is there somewhere else in the source that supports the text better?
 * Source 5 is used to support "Rockstar North began to develop Grand Theft Auto V in 2008, following the release of Grand Theft Auto IV." The source, dated 2013, says "Grand Theft Auto V arrives after four years of development".
 * Source 9 is used to support "The Internet lets players purchase properties such as homes and businesses, and trade in stocks via a stock market." That is not in the source, which in fact says "you won't be able to buy property". I did see that Source 71 supports those claims though.
 * Source 11 is used to support "If players commit crimes while playing, the game's law enforcement agencies may respond as indicated by a "wanted" meter in the head-up display (HUD)." That doesn't seem to be in the source either. I found "In this new game, we can still try to escape the circular zone that flashes on the mini-map when cops come after our malcontent protagonist(s)." That's semi-related, but not a clear match.
 * Source 34 is used to support "Key members of the game world production team took field research trips throughout the region" but I don't see anything about that. It's just a mention of a trailer.
 * Source 35 is used to support "Google Maps projections of Los Angeles were used by the team to help design the road networks of Los Santos." That source never mentions Los Angeles, although it does include a quote from Aaron Garbut: "“We do a lot of Googling and StreetView scoping,”".
 * Source 71 doesn't fully support "Critics concurred that Grand Theft Auto V was one of the best games of the seventh generation era of video game consoles, and a great closing title before the emergence of the eighth generation." Although 70 and 72 do, 71 only supports the first half of the sentence.
 * Source 108 is used to support "Three days after release, the game had surpassed one billion dollars in sales, making it the fastest selling entertainment product in history." But that is actually Take Two's guess in the text: "We believe this marks the fastest that any entertainment property, including video games and feature films, has reached this significant milestone." Not sure if that is essentially fact or not. although I see multiple sources report it as such.
 * Source 133 is used to support "an honourable mention by Canada.com", but the source gives it that honour for multiplatform. It also calls it Xbox 360 game of the year.
 * Source 138 is used to support "second by ... the Canadian edition of The Huffington Post", but the source actually lists it at number five.
 * Source 149 is used to support "the game was named the Best Xbox Game by ... Cheat Code Central," but the source lists Bioshock Infinite as its Best Xbox Game Winner 2013.
 * Source 152 is used to support "Rockstar Games and Rockstar North won ... the BAFTA Academy Fellowship Award at the 10th British Academy Video Games Awards." I only see nine nominations for the game itself, and nothing about actual winners.
 * Thanks for conducting a source review. I'll get back to you some time either today or tomorrow. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost everything has been taken care of. Some bits of information got moved around, others were outdated, and so on... With Source 35 (now Source 34), Garbut is talking about the research for LA. He also talked about it prior to this interview, in the big Game Informer feature from 2012 (Source 29). Game Informer ask him about the research they did on LA to create Los Santos. His exact quote is "We pored over the various online mapping and street-view tools". There are scans of that preview readily available online if you wish to check. So I've added this source in addition to support the claim. Both sources are referring to the same thing, just his wording was slightly different.
 * With regards to Source 108 (now 107), I agree that "We believe" might appear to be rocky, but the claim has been echoed by countless reliable sources (see here) and has sort of become fact. We go with what the sources say. Take Two have never gone on record to deny the attribution since. It was also featured In the news, so I think the claim is justified. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are scans for Source 29. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Few more items:
 * The stock trading item still isn't supported by what is now source 9, which only says "GTA IV's mobile phone returns, but a lot of its features have been altered. You can use it to access the internet." I added the source I found above support that claim. In fact, I pulled source 9 from the article completely, since it was a really early source with less-than-perfect information, supplanted by more comprehensive reporting later.
 * You removed the source support the part about the HUD and wanted meter, but the following ref to source 11 doesn't quite support all the details either. The HUD in particular isn't mentioned, just some of the mechanics of being chased.
 * I'm fine with your point on the fastest time to reach $1 billion. It's been widely reported.
 * The main issue with the Google Maps point is that the article didn't specifically mention Los Angeles. But the new source looks good.
 * Just fix the HUD part and I'll be ready to support on sources. —Torchiest talkedits 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I found a replacement. I also swapped out the GamesRadar review for a preview to support the fixed-wing aircraft addition. Just a more direct mention, that's all. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 13:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on sources. —Torchiest talkedits 13:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.