Talk:Obsidian Entertainment/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll finish this review tomorrow JAGUAR 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]- The company's location in Irvine, California might be good to mention in the first (short) paragraph of the lead
- "that was founded by ex-Interplay employees" - since this is the first mention of Interplay, I'd write this out as that was founded by ex-Interplay Entertainment employees for clarity
- "They approached Electronic Arts, but it didn't result" - did not
- "Disney Interactive Studios green-lit Obsidian to develop a prequel" - I'm not sure if 'green-lit' sounds informal, so I would recommend Disney Interactive Studios commissioned Obsidian or something similar
- "The team developed a prototype and was a year into development when the CEO of Disney changed" - 'changed' sounds vague. How about was replaced?
- "As was the case with The Sith Lords, the development team did not thoroughly scrub New Vegas of bugs" - 'scrub' sounds informal (but the part about glitches is surely true, I inadvertently broke the game when I first played it!)
- "There is also a desire to work on another Fallout game" - this seems outdated as I remember Fallout 4 was the final segment Bethesda was allowed to publish, or something? If I'm correct, maybe this could be reworded to After the release of New Vegas or something similar
References
[edit]- There are double quotes in the title of ref 36
On hold
[edit]This is a well written article and should have no problem passing once all of the above are clarified. 
JAGUAR 16:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: Thanks for the review! I think I have addressed the problems you have raised. The quotation mark of ref 36 is part of the source's title, so I didn't change it. Thank you once again. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them! I didn't realise the part about ref 36, but that's my bad. Anyway, this article meets the GA criteria now so it's good to go.
JAGUAR 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing them! I didn't realise the part about ref 36, but that's my bad. Anyway, this article meets the GA criteria now so it's good to go.
