Talk:Rockstar Vancouver/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 05:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing prelude: I review like an FAC in which I go from top to bottom and make suggestions as I go. I tend to focus on prose clarity and conciseness. If you disagree with a comment, I'm happy to discuss - unless it would make the article fail the GACR, I don't usually die on hills for my suggested changes.

Lead

Can we include years for Bully and Homeworld? They have no given year but the other games in the lead do
"The studio also developed"... this makes it seem like the Beta 5 update applied to all 3. Maybe "The studio developed the Beta 5 et etc...as well as..."?
Split paragraph at "Take-Two Interactive" maybe?

History

Include years for Homeworld & Cataclysm?
I feel like paragraph 1 could be split, maybe at "the nascent"

Acquisition...

It feels odd that this section covers 10 years vs the opener that covers 4 years - can it be split? (Splitting would also mean a shorter header, which is a bonus)
Para 2 in this section covers two topics, the other studios and Bully. Needs a split - paragraphs should discuss one idea.

I really have minimal comments here. The prose is crisp and concise and just enough context is given to introduce things and people without overexplaining. Sources are reliable, no concerns about facts/paraphrase on a quick spot check of a random few. Earwig shows no hits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, @Premeditated Chaos! I made a few changes that I believe should satisfy your comments. The only item I'm not entirely sure about is the position of "(2006)" for Bully in the lead: I had originally put it in the chronologically ordered part (now paragraphs 2 and 3), but you seemingly requested it moved up to the game's first mention. Did I interpret this correctly? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it works better on first mention. Changes look good, I'm happy to pass this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.