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

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: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]

Full list of comments following copyedit.

• I was confused by "eighteen skills" - we've only mentioned nine so far. "Eighteen" comes out of nowhere

• What are you talking about? No examples of skills are provided in the gameplay section. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I confused statistics and skills as being the same thing—I think it needs to be clearer that they're different. JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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
  use plain English
  .

• Done I think. I have removed descriptions of the seven primary statistics. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• Done: I've added to the sentence. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • "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.

• Done: Removed. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • "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.

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The karma system in Fallout was also praised." Why? If it's worth noting that it was praised, provide examples of what critics liked.

• Done: Provided an example. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • 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
    )

• Done, with the exception of the PC Gamer reviewers. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • 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.

• Those are both topic sentences, which is encouraged by both
  MOS:VG. Most other generalizations do have direct refs supporting them. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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]

• Done: Fine, I added direct citations to the topic sentences.Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 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.

• Done: Condensed the last two paragraphs of Series subsection. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Done: Paraphrased sentence to tell the reader that the Electric Playground liked this aspect. Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]