Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive1

Fallout 4: Far Harbor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it a lot since I created it, yesterday, and I wanted some feedback on what I could incorporate into the article or how I could improve it. One thing I'm not too sure about is the plot section, which I'll probably need help with. I'll also need to expand the release section, too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be honest. I don't think there is enough content in the article. I suggest merging Fallout 4: Automatron into the article and then you can move the entire page to Fallout 4 downloadable content like how we handle the one for Destiny or the one for Saints Row: The Third, especially when there are three more DLC coming. As for the actual page itself, the content is a bit too light. It seems you assume players know the main game, but you still need to include a very brief gameplay section, similar to this example. The main point of having a DLC is that it adds bunch of new content, but the article does not really talk much about that. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: I agree that Automatron could be merged into a large article, along with the Wasteland Workshop pack. Far Harbor has receieved enough press to warrant it's on article, but I have doubts about the others. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I forgot I listed more references on the talk page. With these sources, would Automatron still to need to be merged, or could it be a stand-alone article and then mention it, along with Far Harbor, in the main article? There's obviously not enough coverage for Wasteland Workshop, so that'll just be included there, unless I find more sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it as summary style: you write everything that needs to be said about the DLC in due weight in the main game article, but if you have even more sources (several reviews, info on its development, [1]), it's a possibility to spin out separate articles on the DLC while summarizing their contents in the main article. But use WP:VG/RS, not Game Rant, PC Invasion, GameWatcher, etc. This is to say that the way to justify the separate article is to show that there is enough sourcing that wouldn't belong in some section of some parent article. czar 14:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reviews for this DLC content so I think it's fine to leave it on its own, though I think AG is right about the rest of the recent announcements—better off in a combined DLC article than on their own. Major omissions from the article in question: Development section, italics for blogs with original content, screenshot of gameplay specific to this pack, if relevant. The reception is kind of disjointed as it's written—it should have more continuity between successive sentences. Also, consensus is to not use GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic.czar 06:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: All of the pages AdrianGamer listed above use both Metacritic and GameRankings, but I'm willing to remove it if necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian linked Fallout 4, the Destiny DLC, and the SR3 DLC: the first two don't use GR, and I actually wrote the last one—just haven't updated it since the new consensus czar 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. In the peer review for Fallout 4: Far Harbor you mentioned how the reception section was a bit muddled/disjointed. How should I rewrite it, could you provide some examples of good, well-written reception sections? Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
— my talk page

"ratings of 78/100, 75/100 and 79/100 for the PC, PlayStation": 75/100 means nothing to a reader apropos of nothing—they want to know whether the reviews were positive and how they compare to other titles at the time and in the series. Unfortunately, the latter is hard to find in a reliable source. But at least for our purposes, listing the individual aggregate scores in the prose, especially when there is little to no difference between the scores, doesn't do much good (e.g., five point spread might as well be a rounding error when a score is out of ). Instead quote Metacritic's language to categorize the aggregate: The game received "generally favorable" reviews, according to video game review aggregator Metacritic.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove GR

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When using |archive-url= in a citation, you also need to use |archivedate= |deadurl=no so that the title link goes to the original instead of the archived version (switch to "yes" when the link goes dead)—the {{cite web}} documentation has more on this

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of style, I recommend structuring the section with (1) a paragraph about the reviews as an aggregate (scores, major complaints/praise from reviewers), and then (2) paragraphs either by reviewer or by game element. For example, "The majority of the reviewers disliked the puzzle sections" should have multiple footnotes from reviewers that plainly said this. (I should note that this veers towards original research—better would be a single source that has characterized the lot of reviews with summary statements, e.g., Metacritic. Make sure that any claim made from stacking refs is plain in the sources.) Breakdown by game element means that you can dedicate entire paragraphs to a specific concept (environment design, visual design, sound, technical design) if you have enough material to write such a paragraph—otherwise you need to find ways of combining the major points of the authors. Breakdown by reviewer is a little lazier and not as great to read, but best when there is little continuity between different reviews and each reviewer wrote enough to get their own paragraphs. In both approaches, each paragraph is both self-contained and builds on its surrounding paragraphs.

I turned in into a few seperate paragraphs about each topic, with the finaly one being everything that didn't fit anywhere else, is that better? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Corps is now featured—it does a decent job of the breakdown by game element. A paragraph starts with controls but ultimately discusses level and gameplay design. Another starts with graphics and sound, then discusses graphics, then sound. A paragraph discusses originality and precedent in the game industry. Last paragraph discusses sales.
For example, your second paragraphs starts with story and goes to puzzle design, uniqueness, bang for buck—it's all over the place. If the Reception was a single paragraph, you would have little choice, but here you can put the puzzle concerns together, the gameplay concerns together, the length of time and the bang for buck together, etc. And I would kill the review scores in the prose—they're already in the table.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the features that was praised by reviews": This is passive voice (the features were praised by reviewers) but you make it active by switching the order (the reviewers praised X feature). Also needs multiple citations, unless you have a gold mine source that provided a meta-review for the lot.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"criticised the storyline of Far Harbor, saying it was unable to create an interesting story": It's almost always better to recast when you need to repeat the subject. "found Far Harbor's story uninteresting" You can remove lots of "it"s this way and drive down the length (the bad length—extra words where fewer will do). This leaves room for more content.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I typically don't leave reviews—it takes me forever. But hopefully this is helpful. Try Blast_Corps#Reception as a recent example of Reception with flow. czar 15:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the amazing rundown, Czar. I've changed the reception section as proposed. For the gameplay, should I compare the gameplay differences between the base-game and the DLC? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much better! I might be able to take a closer look later this week. It might be interesting to compare the base game and DLC gameplay if you have the sources and it doesn't veer into OR czar 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I've added a gameplay section. How can I improve it? I couldn't find the sources to do the comparison, sadly. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the nature of a standalone DLC article is that you'll need sources from the original article to explain the basic gameplay. You should assume that readers have only a cursory knowledge of video games but want to know about this topic, so they likely don't know much about Fallout 4 and would need to know its basic gameplay to understand what Far Harbor adds. In terms of being true to the sources, I would preface such a recap as: "Far Harbor is an expansion of the main game, Fallout 4. It builds upon the basic game, which ..." so it's clear that the basic game explanation can come from sources about the basic game. czar 15:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the gameplay section so it now includes more info on the base game's features. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: There's now a more defined gameplay section, should it still be expanded or is it good as-is? I've also left a message on WT:VG asking if anyone has any screenshots. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Work from the assumption that the reader is competent but doesn't know anything about Fallout—what is the game about? What do you do? What kinds of mechanics does it have? It only needs to be cursory and you can direct them back at F4's article for more info, but it should at least tell you how the game plays—it's not exempt from that simply because it's an article that expands on the original. I would also talk about "the player" rather than plural, since it's a single-player game. Things like SPECIAL should be explained on first usage too (SPECIAL is an acronym for role-playing character attributes amongst which the player distributes stat points, etc.) czar 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Czar: I've expanded it more. It now talks about V.A.T.S and the Pip-Boy, along with a bit more detail surrounding the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. attributes. Also, would it be possible to use this image from this article using the non-free screenshot rationale? It displays V.A.T.S very well. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we usually do a single screenshot per article so the reader can get a feel for the visual look/function of the game—is there another shot more characteristic of Far Harbor? But that VATS shot looks like a better version of the shot currently used in Fallout 4. I'd change it boldly if you feel confident or otherwise bring it up on the talk page. czar 07:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated File:Fallout 4 V.A.T.S. Screen.jpg. This Rock, Paper, Shotgun articles contains a few nice sceenshots. I think this one works the best, what about you? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the DLC's content so I'm not a good judge of what is most representative, though I think the one you chose is the most visually interesting/revealing of the bunch. Only drawback is that it might look like mud as a low-res thumbnail. (I'd clarify the Power Armor reason for why the HUD looks like that though.) czar 08:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Eh, doesn't look too bad. We can always update it to a different one if a better one is found. I've added a short summary of the Power Armor too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer, Czar, and Rhain: Would you say this is on its way to GA? This (besides Rust (video game)) is probably the most I've ever expanded an article, so I'm not too familiar with writing GA's. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While every article is technically on its way to GA, this one is more or less there. (My comments above were ultimately about GA criteria.) For next steps, I'd make sure the lede reflects the body of the article and consider using the single column {{vg reviews}} in lieu of the wasted space in the current multi-column format. I haven't read the whole thing through, but it'll be more or less ready for GAN by then. czar 14:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I've expanded the lead to incorporate more information, such as the gameplay section. I also changed the template, as suggested. I'll put it up for GAN soon, but there seems to be a long backlog, so I'll still be able to fix it while it's there. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now a GAN. I'm closing this Peer Review. Thanks for all the input. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]