Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Here's my two cents. This is my first GA review, so I'm going to get into as much depth as I can.

WP:WIAGA

for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B.
lists
:
Unimportant details in Gameplay, use of weasel words. Long list of artists in Soundtrack.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an
appropriate reference section
:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Particularly in the Gameplay section, there is a lack of sourcing.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B.
Focused
:
Is it neutral
?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are
copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
:
All except File:Grand Theft Auto IV gameplay.jpg which doesn't cite original source.

B. Images are provided if possible and are
suitable captions
:
Questionable use of File:GTAIV Niko and Dimitri.jpg and File:Grand Theft Auto IV Episodes From Liberty City.jpg

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Very close, but I'm going to go through each section and point out some of the problems that are plaguing the article.

Infobox

No need to use the same source three times for the Windows release date. I would source the game engine, too.

Lead section

Concisely written. I would source "Grand Theft Auto IV was widely anticipated". Who anticipated the game? Are there pre-order sales figures you can use to support the claim?

In the lead section, and indeed throughout, there's inconsistencies in using the full title or the acronym GTA V. Pick one and stick with it.

Generally speaking, this section needs a lot of TLC. The entire section is too long, and I don't mean in respect to its "length", I mean in respect to the amount of fluff and unimportant details that get away from describing the core gameplay. Vehicles and Communication don't need their own sections. The entire section overall could do with a cull on all the fluff details.

"Quite like its predecessors, the core gameplay of GTA IV consists of giving the player a large, open world environment in which to move around freely". This sentence is confusing to the reader. "The core gameplay consists of giving" and "in which to move around" make for poor syntax. You can be more direct in this sentence: "Quite like its predecessors, GTA IV allows the player to free roam a large, open world environment", or "GTA IV gives the player a large, open world environment to freely roam", or something similar would be better.

"Side missions such as locating and destroying criminals in the police car database or participating in street races can keep the player occupied for hours". This sentence needs work. You should put a comma between "database" and "or" to indicate that you're moving on to another gameplay mechanic. The part that I highlighted in bold needs to go completely - "can keep the player occupied for hours" is borderline

WP:NOTADVERTISING

.

Combat

The fact that the game is played in third-person is important so it needs to go under "Gameplay", not here. You don't need to list every single new melee attack the player can perform, and there's no explanation on what "alternative" punching is. You should cut these examples down from 6 to 2-3. I'd go with dodging and blocking, disarming an opponent and/or counter-attacking.

Again, in the next paragraph, you don't need to list every possible way Niko restores health. We're not writing a game guide. "Call for paramedics" and "call for girlfriend" should use "calling" because this muddles what tense you're writing in.

The paragraph about the Wanted system needs much more sourcing to support claims like "with the focus on making them more realistic". You don't need to list every authoritative force that comes after the player either, and "In this case the army is not available in the game" is deceptive. I don't think you even need to include this statement, but what do you mean by not available? The reader could take that as being "the Army is not available for the player to play as". The fact that the helicopter becomes a gunship and uses sharp-shooters at five stars is irrelevant. You're explaining the core function of the Wanted level, not every precise detail.

Relevance of the previous methods of changing clothes and collecting bribes? You're writing a section on "what are the core gameplay mechanics of GTA IV", not "what's different from other GTA games". The last sentence "However, this move is only possible [..]" is fragmented by all those commas. Either rewrite it or split it in to two.

Vehicles

No need to write "and even city buses". Again, it's bordering on WP:NOTADVERTISING (and even city buses! This price is never to be repeated!). "The main game also lacks parachutes, though they were later introduced in [TBOGT]"; fix this sentence. To avoid switching tenses, you can say "though they are introduced in [TBOGT]" and you'll need to source this claim. "The service is very cheap, as the cost is only $1 per station", again, fluff details, and it's a very poorly written sentence at that. The next two sentences are major fluff also.

Communication

No need to introduce the mobile phone as "Whiz Wireless". "Set up prospective dates" - as 'dates' has a number of meanings, you should choose a different word or elaborate this further.

Multiplayer

In the sentence "It supports up to 16 players [...]" you don't have to put the amount of PC players in brackets, and you can say "and allows them to explore the entire city" instead of using "players" again.

The second paragraph is only a sentence long and could be merged into the third paragraph instead. What are ranks? The non-gamer doesn't know what a rank is, so explain there's a leaderboard that the player is ranked on.

The third paragraph lists too many multiplayer modes. I'd take out one and merge paragraphs three and four together

Grand Theft Auto III isn't wikilinked in the Communication section, but is when it's reintroduced in Multiplayer. There's no sourcing in the fourth paragraph. You'd need one for the claim about Bomb da Base. Also, the GTA III mission should be written as "Bomb Da Base" not Bomb Da Base.

Synopsis

Main characters

I'm starting with this section because I don't know that it adds anything to the article, and it could just be merged into others. The points about the characters not returning from earlier entries, and the use of low-profile actors, could go in the third paragraph of Development instead. That leaves you with the last paragraph. I'm not sure how the fact that the game isn't connected to earlier entries is important. You could justify that if the claim was sourced, which it isn't, and move that down into Development as well. Additionally no source on the interconnection between Grand Theft Auto V. I have sources from developers' mouths that indicate only minor characters from GTA IV will pop up in GTA V, so I don't know that this claim isn't a particularly relevant one, especially in its current source-less state.

Plot

The opening paragraph doesn't describe the plot of the game, it describes the lead character's backstory.

I would try to cull down this section to describe Niko's interactions with the key characters. This section is 1,300 words which is too long.

Also, there's no need to making headings for the "Deal" and "Revenge" endings.

This section doesn't need a lot of work, really. It's pretty good, just a little too long.

Setting

This section would be fine with a couple more sources. You need to source the claim that "Francis International" is based on JFK. Other than that I don't have any problems with this section.

Soundtrack

Oh dear... The first paragraph does not source the soundtrack inclusions. "Notable" is a

weasel

term. To top it off you've listed over two-dozen different artists. This paragraph is probably the article's worst offender.

Conversely, the second, third, and fourth are pretty much OK. The second paragraph is lacking citations for the talk show hosts and the comedians. Paragraphs three and four are fine.

Development

This is one of the best-written sections of the article, but it's not 100% perfect. First paragraph is great. Second paragraph is mostly great, but the quote from Aaron Garbut is a bit too long, so perhaps you could paraphrase some of it in your own words. Also the claim about Liberty City being the series' biggest city could be trumped by GTA V. To make this a non-issue, you could rework the sentence ever so slightly, and there are lots of ways you can do this. My suggestion would be "The Grand Theft Auto IV rendition of Liberty City is far more detailed and larger in size than earlier entries in the series". It's also a little bit more of a neutral statement. I'll leave that up to you to decide. 'What is San Andreas?', enquires the non-reader. You haven't introduced San Andreas as the setting of GTA IV's predecessor Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. A minor issue, which is easily fixed - just explain what San Andreas is.

In the third paragraph there's no need to wikilink Dan Houser again. The second sentence changes tenses when you quote Dan Houser, so this sentence needs to be reworked. Firstly, put a full stop after "said Dan Houser". Then find a way that you can rework the sentence so that you don't change tenses from 'the game doesn't have a strong cultural influence" to "said Dan Houser. Maybe try "as explained by Dan Houser" or something similar. Another point - after you've introduced someone with their full name you can just refer back to them with their surname, you can just say 'Houser' instead. I can see that you change between full name and surname throughout the section, and there's no need to do this.

Fourth paragraph is great.

In the fifth paragraph, it reads fine but I'd make a couple of word choices to be more succinct. I would insert "later" in the sentence "It was revealed that technical difficulties [...]". You've wikilinked Xbox 360 three times and PlaySation 3 twice. Both need to be wikilinked only once. I don't know that you need three independent sources just to prove the PC release date. Pick the most reliable and well-written source and remove the other two. I'd also remove the point about the Star Wars game being a more expensive project and just rephrase that sentence to say that GTA IV was at the time one of the most expensive games ever developed.

Episodic content

Source the initial Xbox 360 exclusivity for the DLCs, and again as you've already wikilinked the consoles in the big daddy Development section you don't need to keep wikilinking them here. No need to source 3 times for TBOGT's release, again pick the best one; having plenty of sources is nice, but it's even nicer when you get it down to a better number. Having three citations after a statement doesn't make it more accurate. One (maximum two) reliable sources will suffice. I'd organise this section a little differently too. Do one paragraph on TLOD, including its release date and Johnny, and do the same for TBOGT. The statement from Jeronimo Barrera should be in past tense. In the last paragraph, you'll need to put a comma after "was listed on line stores" if you're going to have a citation there. Otherwise split this sentence into two.

Community features

The first paragraph is fine, but the second paragraph is out of date. What happened with the "heavy support" for PSN that Rockstar mentioned?

Windows version

This section could probably just go into that last paragraph of Development (and then split the paragraph in two so it's not too long). Same problem with over-referencing on refs #85,6,7&8. If you want to keep the references, I'd suggest you bundle them together - see

WP:BUNDLING

on how to do this.

Reception

Critical reception

I have a generally unpopular opinion, and you can debate me on it, but I have a disdain towards the term "universal acclaim". To me, "universal" literally means that the Gods and Angels sing praises from the high heavens about the glorious mortal creation that they knew as GTA IV. It's a term which to me butters up the acclaim of a game too much. I'd much prefer you said "the game received acclaim from video game critics", "received widespread acclaim from various video game critics", "was acclaimed by video game critics" etc. That's a personal opinion and you can take it at face value, but I feel strongly that "universal acclaim" takes on a biased tone.

So let's put that on the backburner, and save it for a peer review down the line where we can throw walls of texts at each other over which term is better.

Back to the review - okay, there's no source on GameRankings rating GTA IV being the fourth-best game ever, but that's an easy find. In the second sentence of the OXM review, you don't need to say "the magazine also stated". The problem herein is that you're using a lot of quotes from reviews about how good the game is, without actually describing which aspects of the game the reviewers liked. In that case, this section's going to need to be rewritten slightly so that you use less quotes and more sentences like "GameSpot editor Justin Calvert gave the game a perfect 10. In his review, he praised [this aspect of the game], and [this aspect of the game]. He also found [this aspect of the game] enjoyable". You get the idea. Having general quotes thrown around about how good the game is doesn't actually tell us which individual bits were good about the game. You could structure this section in paragraphs that deal with different aspects of the games that the reviewers liked and didn't like, for example:

PARA 1
ASPECT 1 [Story]
REVIEWER 1
REVIEWER 2
REVIEWER 3

et cetera. But, I'll leave that up to you to gauge. So long as the problem of being too general is fixed, that's fine.

Commercial success

This section is pretty close to perfect. Again, I'd recommend bundling a few of those references together. I'd also look at how you could merge those last three paragraphs into the rest of the section (if you bundle them together, perhaps), just so that you don't have two-line paragraphs. This section is really thorough, though, so well done.

Awards

Unfortunately, the citation needed tag debases the award from Electronic Gaming Monthly - this is an ASAP fix, because not even B-class articles should have these tags. Everything else is well-sourced, so again, well done.

Controversies

This section is pretty OK, if a little short. I know you have a main article for this, but you could avoid one-line paragraphs again by fleshing out just a little. Also you need to source MADD requesting ESRB change the game's rating. That's it though. Nothing major.

References

No retrieval date on ref #'s: 7, 26, 35, 45, 46, 50, 59, 62, 69, 151, 199, 200, 201. Some are missing dates too.
Ref #61 is a dead link.
Ref #'s 29 & 30 are exactly the same.
Ref #'s 10 & 84 need further information.
Ref #'s 156, 157 & 158 have an inconsistent date format.

Most references are looking fine.

Images

File:Grand Theft Auto IV cover.jpg is fine.
File:Grand Theft Auto IV gameplay.jpg doesn't cite the original source.
File:Liberty City GTAIV.jpg is fine.
File:GTAIV Niko and Dimitri.jpg is fine, but I don't see how it adds anything to the article. I'd remove it.
File:Mural ad GTA IV NYC.jpg is fine.
File:Grand Theft Auto IV Episodes From Liberty City.jpg is fine, but again I don't really see how this adds anything to the GTA IV article when there's an article for Episodes from Liberty City anyway.
File:Replay editor.jpg is fine.
File:MichaelHollickCC08.jpg is fine.

Result: ✗ Fail - This article is still really close, but there's too many problems particularly with the Gameplay and Synopsis sections, per Criteria 1. There's an abundance of sourcing in the Development and Reception sections, but not enough everywhere else, per Criteria 2. I love the game and I'd love to see the article pass as a Good Article in the future, but it just can't in its current state.

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 09:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]