Talk:Fahrenheit (2005 video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 09:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. If you don't hear anything from me by Saturday next, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Cognissonance (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cognissonance: Alrighty, I think I gave give you a few things.

Infobox

Just a suggestion, but putting the additional developers and publishers in a Notes section. Makes it less overwhelming.
- Also a suggestion, but putting the release dates into a collapsable format will also help make the infobox look less overwhelming.

I usually prefer everything to be visible. Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a series for Fahrenheit, it's just a standalone title.

The people on wikidata say it becomes part of a series after it gets remastered. Cognissonance (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing happened with Observer (video game). Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It's rather short. Barely anything on the gameplay, and the other versions should be put in the first paragraph after the original release version and date.

I'm a minimalist with leads, boiling everything down to the essentials. One plot summary, one line from gameplay as the section isn't large, a little more from development, etc. For chronology's sake, I prefer that the remaster comes after mentions of reception and sales, as it was ported long after the original release. Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe say how long it was in production as part of expansion, as that's mentioned in the text. Not essential.

It already says it took two years to make. Cognissonance (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" It sold over one million copies." - Maybe changed to "Selling over one million copies, Quantic Dream considered the game a commercial success."

Gameplay

Image caption, at least add a full stop. As it stands, it looks like someone started typing then stopped without finishing.

It is not a full sentence, so it shouldn't have a full stop. Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Can you mention the ending variants here?

As with many articles with multiple endings, if I'm doing most of the plot work myself, I only write what has to happen. Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Development

~~"Fahrenheit was developed by Quantic Dream,[2] whose founder David Cage served as writer and director.[29]" - Maybe split this into two sentences, thus: "Fahrenheit was developed by Quantic Dream.[2]~~ Company ~~founder David Cage served as writer and director.[29]"~~
When you mention Vivendi Games, did they publish their previous title, or were they attached to Fahrenheit, or what?

The previous game isn't mentioned here, so don't know why you would think that. I added "initial" as Vivendi was the first publisher of Fahrenheit. Cognissonance (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex scenes were omitted from this version, but included in Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy Remastered, which launched for Windows, Android, iOS, Linux, and macOS in 2015, and PlayStation 4 in 2016.[2][40]" - This sentence just seems to transition very abruptly from the omitted sex scenes to an 'oh, there's a remastered version'. There should be some transition, or if there's more information on its production or origins or similar a smaller section on the remaster.

That line refers to North American censorship of the original game and the lack of censorship in the remastered version. Cognissonance (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

There are rather a lot of quotes here. I'd rephrase and paraphrase some of them. Not all, but some.

I gotta disagree, I think it strikes a good balance between objective description and quotations, like in Tales of Monkey Island or most my GAs. Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

All refs are missing accessdates. Not essential or really GA relevant, but something to note.

I don't use accessdates in my sources. Cognissonance (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5 is just a website page, which can be edited by users apart from site staff. Have you an alternative journalistic source for that date? If you haven't it can pass, but it's a bit of a question mark.

I scoured the web to just find that one. Cognissonance (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 31, 32, 34 and 35 are different URL types of the same page, but otherwise identical. Is there a reason for this? If you like, you could use the ^{: page number} code for it.

They all have the same title and I prefer not to embellish in that parameter. If there is a working page= parameter I could add a number on each of them. Cognissonance (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's some stuff for you to be going on with. Not a huge amount, mostly fiddly stuff. Basically the article's sound. Once you've addressed or explained the above, I'll give the article another look through. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Addressed some of it and explained the rest. Cognissonance (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cognissonance: You've made valid points. I think it's mostly come down to style preference. On the whole, this can Pass. Congrats! --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]