Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout (video game)/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2022 [1].

Fallout (video game)

edit
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm, I guess. The last candidacy only had one responder, and they voted "support", so I will be bringing this article back for a third candidacy before the two-week mark. I'm pretty sure everyone gets the gist by now: Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed by Interplay that helped revitalize the genre for PCs. Anyway, I'll soon be pinging a group of people who helped review this article for GAN, PR, and previous FACs to help. Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GAN reviewer @Haleth:; peer reviewers @RogueShanghai: (don't feel obligated) and @Shooterwalker: (who also participated in the first candidacy); first FAC reviewers @Buidhe:, @Spy-cicle:, @Ovinus:, @JimmyBlackwing:, and @Darkwarriorblake:; and second FAC reviewer @CactiStaccingCrane:. Lazman321 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, source-text integrity is FA-class, based of my reviews at the last candidacy and a quick source check now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Ovinus

edit

Seeing as source-to-text integrity was previously an issue, I will provide a second opinion; I may also review the article in full.

  • [4]: Fine
  • [5]: Can't check
  • [35]: Fine but please fix archive link, prefer [2]
  • [68]: Fine, but I wouldn't say "a document called Vision Statement", I would just say "a vision statement" (lower case)
  • [70], [75], [78], [95], [101], [135], [155], [165], [178], [183]: Fine

Looks good from those 14 checks. Ovinus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your spot checks. I fixed the archive URL and tweaked the vision statement sentence according to your recommendation. If you want to check citation 5, you can find the intro on YouTube. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64

edit
Whole lotta comments

Should have my review in within the next few days. I'll likely do some minor copyediting while I review. JOEBRO64 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the writing needs some cleaning up before this article is ready for promotion. My more specific comments mainly pertain to the lede to give you a sense of what I'm talking about. In addition, I'll give some more general copyediting advice for the rest of the article.

  • As a general comment, hit Ctrl+F and look for every mention of "the game's", "of the game", "in the game", etc. In my experience, you'll find that in almost all cases, it's unnecessary. Some examples include "The game's combat is turn-based", "The game's quests were intentionally made morally ambiguous", "took up a huge chunk of the game memory", and "over 100,000 units of the game had been shipped by December 1997"
  • I think my main issue with the writing is that it seems to be overly verbose in places. Take, for example, "Fallout's main creator, Tim Cain, worked on it at Interplay as early as 1994." I think this can be revised to "Tim Cain began working on Fallout in 1994". "[A]s early as 1994" is not only wordy, but it casts doubt on whether development began in 1994, and referring to Cain as "[the] main creator" raises questions (what makes Cain the "main creator"?). Not to mention, neither aligns with the content in the article, which says that Cain created Fallout and development began in 1994. You also don't need "at Interplay" since the first sentence of the lede establishes that this is an Interplay game.
  • Other examples of how you can say the same thing using less words and have the lede better reflect the article's content:
    • "It began as a game engine framework, inspired by the tabletop role-playing game GURPS published by Steve Jackson Games. → It began as a game engine based on Steve Jackson Games' tabletop role-playing game GURPS. Adding "framework" after "game engine" is tautological (game engines are frameworks), and you can get rid of the passive voice by using Steve Jackson Games as a possessive. "inspired by" implies that GURPS only served as inspiration for Fallout, which makes the lede's next sentence confusing—it's unclear that Fallout actually started as a GURPS game.
    • "After a period of collaboration between the companies, the license was eventually dropped (Interplay citing creative differences—Steve Jackson objected to the game's excessive violence); Cain and designer Christopher Taylor then created a new character customization scheme, known as SPECIAL." → "After Steve Jackson revoked the GURPS license, objecting to the excessive violence, Cain and designer Christopher Taylor created a new character customization scheme, SPECIAL."
    • "Considered the spiritual successor to Interplay's 1988 role-playing video game Wasteland, Fallout drew artistic inspiration from 1950s literature and media emblematic of the Atomic Age." → "Interplay considered Fallout the spiritual successor to its 1988 role-playing game Wasteland and drew artistic inspiration from 1950s literature and media emblematic of the Atomic Age." Games can't "draw inspiration" since they're inanimate objects—developers are the ones who do the drawing.
  • I don't think you need to say the game was released "with modifications to comply with the European market" in the lede—it's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, and "modifications" creates more questions than answers. (What's being modified? Why?)
  • "Fallout received critical acclaim upon release"—"Upon release", "upon its release", etc. is almost never, never necessary. Readers understand that games aren't reviewed until they're finished—not to mention they're often reviewed shortly before they come out.
  • "Among other games"—like what? I think you can bin this entirely.

I'll come back and take another look once the article has undergone a copyedit. I guess you could construe this as a light oppose at present, but I think content-wise, this article is great. I think you just need to go back and search for redundancies, tautologies, run-ons, and the like. If copyediting isn't your forte, I recommend the essays WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Spot the ambiguity, and WP:ELEVAR—they'll help you weed out the bigger issues. JOEBRO64 23:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I will be honest. Copyediting and writing prose that is "of a professional standard" as per WP:FACR has never been my forte. Nonetheless, I have tried my best and have copyedited Fallout. There might be some things I missed, but the writing should be substantially improved. One thing I will note is that Steve Jackson did not revoke the license. Interplay dropped the license in response to Jackson objecting to the violence contained in Fallout. Lazman321 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - thank you for correcting me on the Steve Jackson thing, I'd misread. I'll give the article a reread within a day or two and will probably do some additional copyediting where I see issues. I think you've done an excellent job researching. JOEBRO64 10:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the midst of doing a thorough read of the article and copyediting. Once I'm finished, I'll post any lingering questions/concerns here. JOEBRO64 14:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of comments following copyedit.

  • I was confused by "eighteen skills" - we've only mentioned nine so far. "Eighteen" comes out of nowhere
  • It said "The protagonist, known as the Vault Dweller,[b] has seven primary statistics...Two other statistics set during character creation are skills and traits." I do not think I need to clarify it anymore. Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Character creation" subsection suffers from a little WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm afraid it won't read comprehensibly to someone unfamiliar with video games. I'd advise trimming it down to the essentials and try your best to use plain English.
  • Don't have any comments about Development or Release, nice work
  • I think the reception section needs some more work. There are far too many direct quotes that could easily be paraphrased or just don't explain much. Examples:
    • "March Stepnik of PC PowerPlay predicted that Fallout would revive the genre" doesn't tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked the game.
    • "Dan Elektro of GamePro said that Interplay successfully created a "real role-playing game". I don't see how this is meaningful reception. GamePro saying this is a role-playing game doesn't sound like a judgement of its quality to me—it sounds like just stating a fact. I would find a more meaningful assessment.
    • "Butcher said "the look and sound of the game" combined with the "moody and ambient music"..." → "Butcher said the aesthetics, audio, and melancholic, ambient music..." Scare quotes like this can almost always be paraphrased.
    • "The karma system in Fallout was also praised." Why? If it's worth noting that it was praised, provide examples of what critics liked.
    • I would recommend excising the reviewer names from prose and just attributing the opinions to the publication they're writing for. It's easier to follow, and most game critics tend to be non-notable (I personally only include the names of ones that have articles, like Jim Sterling)
    • Generalizations like "Critics praised the character system" and "The post-apocalyptic setting and story were praised" could be challenged, I think they need direct refs to back them up.
  • The topic sentences still need direct references to back their statements up. Again, they're generalizations that could be challenged—readers should know how we're coming to this conclusion. JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the essay WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to write a good and encyclopedic reception section. These issues extend to the Retrospective reception subsection in Legacy.
  • I think the Series subsection needs work, especially the third paragraph. It sort of falls into WP:PROSELINE territory—it's just "[game] was released on [date] to [X] reviews" over and over again. This isn't the Fallout (series) article, we don't need to list every single Fallout game that's come out. I'd say the first paragraph is fine, but the last two need to be condensed.

I'll come back for another read once these comments have been addressed. JOEBRO64 13:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I believe I have addressed all your comments. Lazman321 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Please respond. This FAC won’t end until you vote, so either vote or at least comment. I know you saw my edits. Lazman321 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got caught up with other things. I have another a few more comments:

  • See my reply regarding skills above
  • See my reply regarding generalizations above
  • "The Electric Playground found that "all of Fallout's skills can be used to some advantage, and WILL alter gameplay."" This doesn't really tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked the skills or not.
  • I've added a few {{Clarify}} tags to things that were unclear for me in the Reception section.
  • Done: I have addressed both instances.

JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I am finished with your requests. Anything else? Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well done. JOEBRO64 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB from previous review Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Anarchyte

edit

Will do soon. Anarchyte (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks not done.

  • Much of gameplay is sourced to a primary publication. This isn't inherently bad, but just a consideration.
  • Archive for 40 is useless and this isn't much better. Unlikely to be able to support any claims outside an appearance in the top10 list.
  • In the archive currently being used in the page, the text is white. You have to highlight it in order to read it. Judging by the other pages, the background was probably supposed to be black, but due to some archiving error, the background turned up white. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RPG Codex is inconclusive on WP:VG/RS, but might be fine due to it being an interview. Can you confirm their reliability in these situations?
  • If there is little reason to doubt that a source conducted a legitimate interview with someone involved with development, the interview can be used as a primary source. The interviews have pictures of their interviewees, so they might be legitimate. However, I might bring this up at WT:VG/S. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Yeah, I'm aware that interviews can bypass the perceived unreliability of a website. I'm just unfamiliar with the site, so I wanted to confirm that it was reputable in this regard. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllGame source seems to meet the situational requirement. Should be fine here.
  • Ref 179: Work is Motherboard (Vice).
  • Ref 180: Primary. Looks good, all except release date is backed up by the RPS source. I assume there were no alternatives?
  • Ref 1: Could you please expand on this article's reliability? VG/RS lists the source as reliable, but the discussion was a decade ago and had one participant.
  • Ref 8: Author is Ray Ivey.
  • Ref 12: Author is Nebojsa Radakovic.
  • Different archive versions of the review seem to indicate different authors. That is why I left it out.
  • Ref 83: URL is dead.
  • Ref 99: Work seems to be The Washington Post. See top left of article.
  • Done while still preserving the Orlando Sentinel by moving it to the via parameter.
  • Ref 100: Author is Steve Boxer.
  • Ref 146: Authors are Wes Fenlon, Samuel Roberts, Jody Macgregor, Austin Wood.

All other sources are considered reliable to the best of my knowledge. Note that I didn't do detailed spot-checks. Anarchyte (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed most of your concerns. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting about RPG Codex. It's normal to carve out exceptions for interviews, if the interview can be verified as authentic, and the claims made in the interview aren't overly self serving or biased. That said, I don't think RPG Codex is doing any heavy lifting here that couldn't be replaced with a somewhat better source.[3] Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On VG/RS TheGamer isn't doing much better in the reliability field. There's a carve-out for work past August 2020 as being reliable, though this has been disputed on the talk page and no obvious consensus has been reached. We'll wait to see if anything comes of this discussion, but my hunch is that these interviews are fine. Also noting that all other issues I've raised above are resolved. Will be happy to support unless someone opposes RPGCodex on WT:VG/RS. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there is little opposition to keeping the interviews. @Anarchyte: Would you like to support? Lazman321 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I'm satisfied that RPG Codex can be used as interviews only. I support this nomination on the basis of the above source check. Anarchyte (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

edit

Can confidently support this article. The article was very close when I reviewed it, and a lot of work has been put in to take it a step further.

I would still like to see the list of influences given more detail:

  • Deux Ex is a highly notable game and Warren Spektor cites Fallout as an influence: Development of Deus Ex
  • Wasteland 2 bring things full circle, and is inspired by Fallout, which is based on Wasteland
  • It is worth mentioning that some of the games in the "influenced" list included personnel from the Fallout series (which makes the influence more clear)
  • It's also worth noting that Metro 2033 and Atom RPG are both post-apocalyptic games

Good work on this, and good luck getting it over the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I have edited the influence section to address your two bottom requests, but I am less inclined to incorporate the top two requests due to a lack of sources that directly state that Fallout influenced Deus Ex or Wasteland 2, at least as far as I'm aware. If you do find some sources, feel free to let me know and provide links. Lazman321 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found some time to look into this.
  • Warren Spector cited Fallout as one of the influences on the original design for (what would eventually become) Deus Ex.[4]
  • Here's some stuff about "closing the circle" between the Fallout and Wasteland 2. Fargo seems to clearly focus on the influence of the original Fallout, and less so the Bethesda versions. [5] There are also lots of other sources that make the comparison, though I'd consider Fargo to be more authoritative.[6][7][8]
There is some room for interpretation about how much the influence is there, but considering the influence of all the titles mentioned (Wasteland, Fallout, Deus Ex), I think it's worth a mention. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Okay, I have added those two games. Lazman321 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fallout_(video_game)/archive3&oldid=1113939196"