Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive3

Fallout 4: Far Harbor
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to try FA again sometime soon. Please be as honest as you can with all the comments. Cheers,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Comments by The1337gamer

 * In Development and release: What's the purpose of the Todd Howard quote? I don't think quotes should really be used unless it is a controversial subject that could be misinterpreted or it would very difficult paraphrase or express in an editor's own words. The quote itself is pretty bad as he's not conveying his point very clearly and it's not obvious what he's actually talking about immediately.
 * IMO the quote adds to the article as it's talking about what went through the dev's heads when they had the idea for the expansion. I think it can stay for now, unless others also believe it should go.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In Development and release: What's the purpose of the external video link? It's not really adding value to the article itself. It's just directing readers away from the article to marketing material.
 * Removed.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In Development and release: "FPS" is used but it is not clear what it is an abbreviation for. Add FPS in brackets after the first mention of "frames per second".
 * Done.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In Reception: Christopher Livingston (PCGamer) – PCGamer → PC Gamer
 * Done.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry
— HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Check my edits carefully in case I've cocked something up.
 * They seem to be fine. The only one I changed was this because I'm fairly certain that not all of the residents on the island are Harbormen (haven't actually played this game though). According to VG247, "the residents of Far Harbor will wipe out Acadia." They haven't specified if they're Harbormen or not, so I think it'll be safer to leave it as is.
 * There are a variety of puzzles, such as directing lasers to hit targets There's got to be a better way to phrase that than "directing lasers", and what else would you be doing with them besides aiming at a target?
 * Changed to: some utilize lasers and others allow building using blocks. Is that better? I still think that bit needs a tad bit of work.
 * was influenced by player feedback on the base game's dialogue system What does this mean? You should either explain what was wrong with the dialogue system (what's a dialogue system?) or snip this from the lead.
 * I've expanded both the lead and the dev section to include what a dialogue system is. I've added a bit onto the lead to say what was wrong with it.
 * Actually, I've removed the bit from the lead explaining what a dialogue system is because the sentence was getting pretty long.
 * 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—a one-time purchase offering all of the game's expansion packs—was increased That's a run-on sentence and won't pass muster for FA criterion 1a.
 * I've removed the —a one-time purchase offering all of the game's expansion packs— fromt he lead because clicking season pass tells the reader exactly what they are and it's unnecessary in the lead.
 * after performance issues were fixed This will come as a surprise to readers. If it's not worth elaborating on what the issues were in the lead, maybe rephrase to performance issues were fixed in a re-release or something.
 * How about: The PlayStation 4 version was re-released in June 2016 to fix performance issues.
 * A short paragraph on Fallout 4 itself would be useful background. Don't assume the reader knows about it already (I don't)
 * Added a short paragraph to the lead. Let me know if it's in the right place.
 * is similar to the base game in the sense that the player character (the Sole Survivor) is tasked with investigating a character's disappearance Following on from above, how is that similar.
 * Expanded
 * Also, if he's the sole survivor (of what?), who tasked him?
 * I've put Sole Survivor in "". That's what his character name is, he isn't the only person left alive.
 * a company run by detective Nick Valentine Who is Nick Valentine? Does this matter?
 * He's only mentioned one time other than that, so I've removed that part of the sentence.
 * to investigate what happened to is poor grammar, and we've learnt in the sentence before that we're investigating a girl's disappearance
 * Fixed.
 * Peaceful routes can lead to making compromises such as keeping secrets This is poor grammar, and I'm not sure what it's trying to say
 * Expanded.
 * were not featured [...] thus is a new feature inconsistent tense
 * Fixed.
 * Upon completion of side quests, the assisted factions reward the protagonist with bottle caps It's not clear until this point that the side quests are jobs you do for other characters
 * Expanded
 * I would put the synopsis section first rather than he gameplay section. I gather the current format is the way it's normally done, but the other way would make a lot more sense to the reader.
 * This came up in the RE5 FAC, but I'm not sure if moving the sections around would be a good idea without proper discussion. Here's the guideline, though it isn't set in stone. I'll bring up the idea of moving stuff around in the FAC when I nominate it to try and get a discussion going.
 * fanatically devout follower of Atom What is Atom?
 * The Church of Atom. I've made it more clear.
 * The Institute will send agents What's The Institute? Ditto Brotherhood of Steel, the Railroad.
 * Expanded.
 * You have highly praised the addition of new quests [...] disliked the newly introduced puzzle sections and in the very next paragraph highly praised the addition of new quests but disliked the puzzle sections
 * Rewrote the latter-most sentence.
 * Generally, punctuation should go outside quote marks (MOS:LQ)
 * Changed them. If I missed any that still need changing, please let me know.
 * Matt Wittaker said the fog... Try and mix this up a bit so you don't have so many sentences starting with X said Y (I know this isn't easy in a section like this and it's a common flaw in articles like this)
 * I've changed that one. Do you want me to try to change any other "saids"?
 * Cheers for the suggestions, . I've addressed some of them, and I'll be back in half an hour to an hour to address the rest.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   04:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've gone through and answered all of your points.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   05:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm satisfied with almost everything. It was quite a long list, but your edits are very much improvements. What's left:
 * The background on Fallout 4 belongs somewhere other than the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the article.
 * The section order: I'll leave this up to you. The reason I suggested swapping them is that you end up introducing a lot of concepts in "gameplay" that would be better-suited to the plot section, which causes duplication, but then I wouldn't want someone coming in telling me how to arrange one of my carefully laid-out war memorial articles.
 * And the quotefarm in the reception section. You might be okay leaving this and seeing if it comes up at FAC. It probably will, but somebody there might have a better suggestion.
 * HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  09:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved the FO4 stuff from the lead, do you think it's enough background info (located in Gameplay now)? I'm fine with switching the sections around, but I'd like to discuss it first on the FAC page. Do you think it's safe to start it, and if it is, should O ping the users that left comments in the last one?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Fixed ping   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's enough background. You've covered the basics so that the reader understands where they are; they can go to the main article if they want more. Yes I think it's safe to start the FAC. By all means see what others have to say about the section order. And personally, I would drop hand-written notes on the talk pages of previous reviewers rather than ping them (it shows more effort and is less easily forgotten). :) HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  09:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)