Wikipedia:Peer review/Grand Theft Auto V/archive1

Grand Theft Auto V
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FA Class. I would like to make sure that the coverage is broad, the content is organised and the prose is engaging. This article makes use of a number of supplemental non-free media and I'd like to make sure their usages are appropriate.

Thanks, CR 4 ZE (t) 11:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nicereddy
 * I think the screenshots add a lot to the article, but their low quality degrades their ability to properly give the reader any sense of the "improvements over Grand Theft Auto IV" which are mentioned throughout the article. I realize this is a limitation imposed by free-use rationale, but if the screenshots could be made higher resolution given the reasoning that the graphical fidelity is highly relevant to the game and its influence on video game culture and technology I think that could be a great improvement.
 * There are occasional usages of vague terms referring to different people or groups of people. For example, in the lead section the following is written: "Its depiction of violent themes, including Trevor's use of torture, and treatment of women polarised commentators, with some labelling the game as inherently misogynistic.". The use of "some" and "commentators" with reference to the group(s) of people who labelled the game as "inherently misogynsitic" is vague, as it makes no mention of specific peoples which it refers to.
 * Also in the lead, "To innovate the core structure of its predecessors..." sounds very odd to me. Perhaps "innovate on the core structure" or something similar? Minor nitpick, but I wasn't sure how to improve it myself.
 * Perhaps this is a Wikipedia style rule I'm unaware of, but the lead section completely lacks any references whatsoever. This may simply be my own ignorance, but if it isn't against any rules I'd suggest adding references?
 * In "Reception", I think the following line could be improved: "GameRankings rates its as the second-best PlayStation 3 and third-best Xbox 360 game of all time.". This immediately begs the question of what games are ahead of it on PS3 and Xbox 360 respectively, but that remains unanswered.
 * Any reason why the lead section fails to include the abbreviation "GTA V"? Defense of the Ancients, for example makes mention of its acronym "DOTA" in the first sentence of the article. I think most others would agree that "GTA V" is a pretty universally recognized acronym for the game's title, with many of the articles used as references throughout the article referring to it as such.

Overall a fantastic article! Really well-done, kudos to all the editors involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

Not bad. I would only say that I think Reception's too long, and the screenshots may be fine as they are (unless you've already changed them). Tezero (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Response from CR4ZE

Thank you both for the comments. Nicereddy, I assume you're referring to File:Grand Theft Auto V development.jpg. I think with regards to that image, the elements that I am trying to exemplify it look okay enough at that resolution. But it maybe isn't the best choice; I will see if I can find a better replacement and not compress it down to much. File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg has a similar problem, so I will try to find another replacement for that. According to WP:LEADCITE, we don't specifically need citations in the lead if the statements are revisited in the body with citations. So for example, the fourth paragraph makes a lot of big calls about the game's anticipation and sales performance, but we haven't cited there because it's already cited reliably in the body. Makes leads look less cluttered. The "GTA V" abbreviation isn't totally necessary, because we've used the full unabridged title throughout the article with zero instances of "GTA V". The abbreviation is so straight-forward it doesn't matter which we use, but in your Dota example there's uneven usage of both. I'd rather just have the full "Grand Theft Auto V" title used consistently throughout the entire article. Typing "GTA V" into the search bar brings the user to the page anyway. I'll work on your other points, because I fully agree with all of them.
 * As a note, some articles are considered to need citations in the intro. Generally they're required for controversial points or unexpected statistics, e.g. a video game selling 10+ million copies and being the best-selling on its console, or basically everything in Feminism. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tezero, I agree that the Reception section has grown to be a little overwhelming, but I'm not sure which bits are best to cut out. I was thinking of culling down that last paragraph significantly and merging it into the first, because it's really just a collection of quotes about how fantastic the game is. The penultimate paragraph is important because it reveals the story/characters issue which was the only resounding complaint about the game. What would be your suggestions for cut-downs? CR 4 ZE (t) 10:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry; didn't see this. As for Reception, I don't think any whole paragraph should be cut; rather, each should be trimmed to reduce redundancies. In the second paragraph, for example, the phrase "the character switching element" is repeated several times in similarly structured sentences. Since Bertz's, Bramwell's, and Edge's opinions on the subject are basically the same, you could combine them into one sentence. Tezero (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for your comments. I am closing the peer review. CR 4 ZE (t) 05:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)