Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 3/archive1

Fallout 3

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it looks close to being a good article, (apart from the plot section) and I want to know what I can do to improve this article. I don't have a copy of the game but if anyone else does, I suggest to put sources into the plot/story section, just by playing the game and typing in the quotes necessary for the paragraphs in that section

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJH comment:

Well, I think the 'Setting' section needs a lot more development. Per the title, it should be focused on the setting, but instead drifts into a lead-in to the plot. Everything from "The player character (PC) lives..." down to "...and learn why he left" should be moved to the next section. Instead, this section should discuss at a general level the ruins of Washington D.C., building interiors, the subway passages, fallout shelters, the surrounding wilderness, radiation, lighting conditions and the passage of time, plus weather (or lack thereof). In addition to better coverage of the factions, it can also talk about the primary adversaries of the game: the raiders, supermutants, ghouls, humans and robots. Finally, there should be some discussion of the AI, scavenging, general categories of gear (including, importantly, the types of available weapons), the scarcity of ammunition, traders and merchants, radio broadcasts, and social interactions with NPCs.

The 'Setting' section can easily be made as long as the current 'Plot' section. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

I'll undertake a review of the article. The writing looks good but I will make some copy edits as I go along.

Lead

This looks good for now, not sure if it's complete until I read through the article. Keep WP:LEAD in mind and make sure every topic in the body is summarized in the lead.
Now that I've read the article I think you should add a piece about the controversies to the lead section.

Gameplay

Karma is linked, which is fine, but the link is not the first mention of the word. "Karma" is in the first paragraph and should be linked there instead.
Along the same lines you talk about Karma in the first paragraph but don't define it until the second. This is awkward, look into ways to introduce Karma in the first para if possible or move discussion of its impact until after you've defined it.
"Positive karma actions" You're using "karma" as an adjective. I think it's "karmic", though you may want to check that out.
There's two sources at the end of the Health and weapons section. Are there other sources for the rest of the material in this section? What about a game manual?
VATS section has no ref this should be remedied.

Plot

There are a lot of small two-sentence paragraphs in the setting subsection, these should be combined for readability.
At some points "wasteland" is capitalized and at other points it isn't. This should be consistent. I think if it is a proper noun then it should be capitalized.
What is "the Enclave"? This hasn't been defined and since I don't have the game or any experience with the game I have no idea what this is.
There is no source for the story portion of the plot and only one for the setting. I looked at several video game articles that are GAs such as Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos, The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, and Super Mario Bros. 3 (which doesn't have a plot section but combines it into a "Gameplay" section). All of them have sources for their plot sections so this should be added before you take the article to GAC.
Not knowing the game at all I have no suggestions for additional information other than perhaps discussing side quests that can be undertaken. Also when or how can the character meet the dog? This is inferred but there is no mention of this in the plot section.

Development

"Bethesda's Fallout 3 however, was developed from scratch, using neither Van Buren code, nor any other materials created by Black Isle Studios." This sentence should be referenced.
Per WP:OVERLINK terms can be linked once in the lead and once in the body of the article. Bethesda Softworks is linked twice in this section. Liam Neeson is also linked twice, once is enough.
There is some mixture of topics in this section. You have elements of the release information here in this section. This should be moved to the next section. You also have a review of the audio, which should be placed in the Reception section. More to come in the review. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and release

Washington monument is linked multiple times.
There are some tense agreement issues. In the same sentence you have past and present tense wording. Check throughout.

Downloadable content

put (DLC) after the first mention of "Downloadable content" if you're doing to use the acronym later.
"As of September 18, 2009, the Trophies for the additional content were on view if the user had played with Trophies enabled; those that had received a platinum trophy before they were enabled would now have only 53% of the available trophies." Is this a glitch? I'm not sure why this information is here.
Spell out NXE, linking isn't enough.

Reception

There are a couple of single sentence paragraphs in the award subsection. These should be either expanded or combined with other paragraphs.

References

Refs 11, 39, and 82 appear to be dead links, please check. Also 79 has a dead link tag, this should be checked.
Refs 75, 104 are just urls, put it into the {{cite web}} template and add publisher and accessdate.

Overall

I think you're well on your way. Fixing this stuff should help you sail through GAC.
You may want to check the fair use rationale on your images, it seems to be somewhat minimal. I would look at images in some FA video games and see what they have. I could be wrong I'm not an image expert but it's worth checking. This concludes my review, if you have questions please contact me on my talk page as I don't watch review pages. Please consider reviewing an article here or at GAC to help reduce the ever-present backlog. Thanks and best of luck to you. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]