The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:48, 15 August 2014 [1].

---

Development of Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t • c) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participation Guide
Support
CR4ZE (nominator), Rhain1999, URDNEXT, XXSNUGGUMSXX, Tezero, JimmyBlackwing
Comments/No vote yet
Nick-D, Nergaal, Nikkimaria, Dank
Oppose
None

The development of Grand Theft Auto V was one of gaming's biggest undertakings. Developer Rockstar North are based in Edinburgh, but they've always done American cities justice. Making GTA V's open world required visits to California, with photo and video footage documenting the journey. An entire score was written. All of the main parts were mo-capped. This article covers all bases, thanks to the developer's many interviews with journalists. I feel it's written well enough to be up to scratch with other featured articles. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from URDNEXT[edit]

• Support! I love Grand Theft Auto and I was wow'd by how well it's written. It has more info then any other website on the subject. URDNEXT (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

• I will be leaving comments here within the next week or two. Sound good? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't wait. You were a big help with the main article's FAC, too. CR4ZE (t • c) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It was my pleasure helping you get GTA V itself to FA :). Now for the commentary on this.....

• Give a time range in the lead for when the development began
• "published by Rockstar Games"..... released
• "its release was widely anticipated"..... something about this just doesn't feel right. I'm not doubting its factual accuracy, but it seems either misplaced or poorly phrased.
• "sources allegedly close to the developer"..... how about giving the names of these "sources"?
• "first acknowledged the existence of"..... maybe first confirmed would be better
• "did not meet its original projected release date"..... here you should include what date this was scheduled for
• "Early in Grand Theft Auto V's development" → "Early in the game's development"
• Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref should not be used more than once in a row per paragraph (i.e. don't use ref#90 more than once in a paragraph without uses of other refs in between the uses of ref#90)
• Metro is not a reliable source
• When using multiple articles from a common source (i.e. multiple IGN refs), only link the work in the first ref used from the common source
• "Buzzfeed" is not a reliable source
• The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized
• Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ' (check the refs for this)
• Do not use stylizations

There's my 2¢. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've taken care of everything above. Some feedback—the development timeframe is murky territory. I'm seeing sources that say four years (putting it at 2009-13), but others say immediately following GTA IV (2008-13). BuzzFeed are direct interviews with key people involved in the game, and the facts being cited are coming out of their mouths, not the journalists'. Hollywood Reporter was, but it was using the wrong field. Couldn't pick up quote mark violations, can you point them out? Stylisations pertaining to what? Cheers, keep the comments coming. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay. I've taken another look through the article and it seems to all have been taken care of. I was referring to different capitalizations in terms of stylizations, but now can't see it. I'll take your word for the Buzzfeed links and ambiguous starting time, though would ideally link to a different site. In any case, I now officially support! Outstanding work. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

Not sure if I'll post a full review, but I do have a few comments:

• Given that it's been recently announced that this game is being ported to PCs, is this nomination premature?
• The article appears to have been written entirely from the perspective of the game's developers (complete with lots of quotes from them). Surely industry experts, reviewers and critics also have perspectives which should be included (eg, was the development process unusually smooth or difficult? Why are all the three playable characters male?, etc)
• Watch out for peacock prose and corporate jargon. From skimming the article I spotted stuff like "Grand Theft Auto V was envisioned to exceed the core mechanics of the Grand Theft Auto series", "The three interwoven stories had a positive critical reception and confirmed the team's confidence that building Grand Theft Auto V around this model was an innovative decision" and "co-opted a number of other studios owned by parent company Rockstar Games to facilitate development"
• "Rockstar North, the core 360-person team behind the game" - exactly 360 people all the way through the development of the game? Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The recently-announced port is covered in the main article, and main development (as covered in this article) has been complete since 17 September 2013. There could be merit in having something on the port here but there's no real development information out there yet.
• Third-party sources can't give as much insight into a game's development because they aren't in any way involved with it. They can comment on the game's development, like estimating the development budget and time, both of which are covered. I don't see any scope issues, because I haven't seen any solid development information come out written from an objective third-party.
• I don't think the examples you cite are peacock, but they're on the border of jargon, yes. Is there more throughout? I'll likely run through a self-copy-edit and have your point in my mind.
• The source unambiguously says 360. If it was 360 all the way through or not is irrelevant because that's what the source says, and going beyond that would be WP:OR. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

• the article does not clearly give a framework for when the development started. It just says after GTA4, but when was that without clicking on links?
  • Actually it does that but only very late in the article
• I would find it interesting for the intro to estimate the number of people involved in creating the game
• aren't there pics of people involved in creating the game?
• potential power of both consoles => ????
• the first section quote needs quotation marks
• the collapsed table needs a title
• I think promotion and delay and leaks should be moved at the end of the article
• Grand Theft Auto V was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.=> but was released on other platforms too
• Is the name Los Santos just random, or was it chosen for a specific reason?
• shouldn't be there some form of concluding section like criticism or acclaim?

Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Nergaal!

• This has been mentioned above; sources are saying different things about the exact development time frame. We'll look into it.

I meant say that you should have: "GTA5 started being developed right after GTA 4 was released in 20xx"

• We can't really estimate how many people were involved in creating the game; we must rely on references.

Article says somewhere that over 1000 people were involved in programming? Say in the intro something along the lines "over 1000 ppl were involved in the programming alone"

• Pictures of the development team definitely exist. I'll look into adding some, if you wish.
• I'm unsure as to what you're confused about; "potential power of both consoles" seems like a fairly straightforward sentence. Please elaborate.

"potential power of both consoles" is in the text. which 2 consoles? gen 7 or 8? wii or not?

• Added quotation marks.
• Added title.
• Promotion" and "Delay and leak" are both related to the Business part of development, which is why they are at the top.

What i meant is sthe article should start with a background, then with the actual development, then with the promotion. I don't see the point in splitting the article into 2 sections when you can have 3 chronological ones. isn't this article about the chronology part of the series?

• That statement remains true; the game was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. When it is released for other platforms (or when development information of such is released), then more information shall definitely be added to the article.

What I meant is that the article needs to clarify that the game went beyond the 2 consoles

• I'm not sure where the name "Los Santos" came from; it's been used since Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004), so it's unlikely that you'll be able to find the source of origin.

give it a shot

• The Reception of the game can be found at the main article. This article is about the development only, so there's no need for critical response here.

-- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try and track some free shots of the developers/key people. If not, are you cool with non-free? On the article's structure, I wrote this using Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, whose layout I like. I'm open to deviating from that. I doubt there's anything on the origins of Los Santos's name, because I've read possibly every interview and feature and found nothing. If there was, it'd probably be something from a GTA San Andreas interview back in 2003, and using that would broach WP:SYNTH imo. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

CR4ZE, do you need more comments? If so, I can look the article over and give some. Tezero (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, sorry didn't see this. I'd love to get some comments from you if available. Cheers, CR4ZE (t • c) 03:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I remember passing this for GAN, and now, after a few minor wording and grammar (yes, I know it's UK English) changes, which you can revert if you'd like (please look at all of them first, though), I'm confident in giving this my approval. Well done. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Grand_Theft_Auto_V_development.jpg: FUR could be expanded, particularly to fill in the "n.a." parameters
• File:GTA_V_Main_Theme.ogg's FUR also should be expanded, and what is the length of the original piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. I think I've taken care of everything. CR4ZE (t • c) 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite: you've indicated that the 30-second non-free sample is from a piece with a total length of 2:34. Per WP:SAMPLE, "samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter" (my emphasis). 10% of 2:34 is only 15 seconds. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: Done—shortened to 15 seconds. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from JimmyBlackwing

My main focus at FAC is criterion 1a, so that's what I'll be reviewing here. Since this article is extremely long, I'll take a page from Tony1's book and base my review on the lead and on samples from the body.

• "began following" — This wording makes it sound like GTA V is stalking GTA IV. "Began after" is a possible alternative.
• "its predecessor" — Grammatically, this entails that GTA IV was the predecessor to GTA V's development, rather than to the game itself.
• "Grand Theft Auto V was released ... It was released by Rockstar Games" — Repetitive phrasing like this is like whiplash to the reader, and I'm noticing it throughout the article. Try to change up the sentence structures.
• "entry into" — "Enter into" means to become involved in something. GTA V is the fifteenth entry in the GTA series.
• "the core team" — Where was this team located? If it was at Rockstar North, then that isn't made clear by the word "oversaw".
• "spiritual successor to previous projects" — Should be mentioned that these are non-GTA products, and the relationship between the team and the products in question needs to be clarified.
• "A widely-anticipated game, Grand Theft Auto V's promotion began with its unexpected announcement in 2011." — This sentence structure does not deliver its contents (widely-anticipated game, GTA V's promotion, unexpected announcement) cohesively.
• "the draw distances it could render" — Dangling participle, since it's not made clear whether "it" is the engine or the game.
• "their system architectures" — Ditto. Try "the systems' architectures".
• "multiple character design" — Unclear as to whether the character design are [sic] multiple or the design includes multiple characters.
• "uses ... to record the voices and movements" — Unless the voices and movements are being recorded in real-time, then this should be in past tense.
• "who collaborated closely for many years" — Is this relevant for the lead? Either way, it doesn't make much sense in its current form.
• Besides these issues, the lead's flow is a bit rough overall. Sentences don't flow or flow together as well as they should. Definitely a job for a copyeditor.
• A few samples from the body:

• "Houser said ... He said ... He said" — When three sentences in a row begin with "X said", the page starts to read a bit like slam poetry, rather than an encyclopedia article.
• "The central theme ... The mission content ... The team's decided" — Ditto. (Also, the third contains a typo.)
• "they had become familiar with the hardware" — The game's hardware?
• "the first game in the series ... because it would be a first for the series" — The repetition problem again.

• From randomly scanning the article, the prose isn't too bad, but it's high on repetition and rigid phrasing. I recommend getting a copyeditor to go over it—particularly the lead, which was the roughest part I saw. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review, JimmyBlackwing. In preparation for this FAC I sent this article to WP:GOCE. Baffle gab1978 did some extensive work. Do you mean to say the article might be in need of another copy-edit to the same degree? I can go through and self copy-edit or perhaps ask at WPVG. Pinging Czar if you're interested. re: overuse of "said", prior to the copy-edit the article almost always used variations of "said", but Baffle gab changed them to "said" in good faith knowing I had intentions for FAC, which lead me into thinking "said" is the most neutral term to use. If you're finding it over-used, I can go through and try to balance by introducing some variation. I think I've taken care of everything else. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work on the lead. Seeing that, I think you could probably just self-copyedit the article; don't bother calling in the GOCE. As for "said", that's certainly a neutral term, but there's nothing wrong with swapping in "commented", "stated", "opined", "noted" or even "felt" from time to time. Variation (within limits) livens up prose and makes it more compelling to read. Anyway, the body's prose is generally solid: it's definitely not in "total rewrite" territory. However, it has rough patches here and there. For example:

• "He expressed plans to co-write a thousand-page script and said the company's workflow when creating a new game in the series typically was creating the game's city and developing the lead cast based on the chosen city." — A huge snake, and very difficult to read because of unnecessary word repetition (creating, game, city).
• "an announcement ... the announcement ... the announcement" — From the third paragraph of Rumours and announcement, another example of unnecessary repetition.
• "It was narrated by one of the protagonists, Michael De Santa (Ned Luke) and depicted several shots of the game's open world accompanied by the song "Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake" by English rock band Small Faces playing throughout." — Should be present tense if the trailer still exists. Also, the grammar entails that "depicted several shots etc." is one of the protagonists; and "playing throughout" can be cut without any loss.
• "it introduced back-stories of the lead protagonists and featuring" — "Back-stories" should be prefaced with a "the", unless the "of" is changed to a "for". Also, "featuring" should be "features".
• The article mentions "September 2009" and "November 2009", even though changing the second to "that November" (with relevant tweaks to make that phrasing fit) would improve readability without sacrificing clarity. Lower down, I see 2 November 2012 and 14 November 2012 mentioned within three sentences, when the second could be replaced with "November 14", "the 14th" or even "12 days later". Unnecessarily long dates (which I see throughout this page) can make an article read like a dry business file. When it comes to dates, shorter is always more readable.

• Basically, it needs a bit of grammar and punctuation cleanup, alongside some general loosening-up of the prose. Add some variation where words or sentence structures repeat themselves unnecessarily. The bones are there, but they're a bit robotic right now. After you've finished, I'll give the article a thorough read to make sure everything's in order. Good work so far. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an update to say that I have seen this, and I've been very busy these past few days but will have more time to work on this soon. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, JimmyBlackwing, I think I've solved everything above. Care to take a look? I'll have another run-through of the article tonight as well. CR4ZE (t • c) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great. I notice that the date overkill is still around, though. Here are a couple of rules of thumb. If multiple dates from the same year appear consecutively, axe the year after its first mention in that chain. Readers will just presume that the year is the same. If multiple dates from the same month appear consecutively, it can be best to axe the date entirely for something more casual, like "later that month", "X days later", etc. I'll give the article a top-to-bottom read now and fix any small problems I come across. I'll leave you to handle the date issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just finished reading it. Made a few tweaks, but it's a really fantastic article—the kind of thing that'll be used as a model in the future. Clean up the date issue and I'll support in a heartbeat. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! (I think). Please take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm very impressed with this article. An incredible piece of work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Source for the editions table?
• FN12: why the duplication?
• be consistent in whether you include location and publisher for periodicals
• Be consistent in how IGN is treated
• Compare FNs 1 and 42 and 59 (and others)
• FN21: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria:. All done, I think. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Nikkimaria. Let me know how you find the changes. If you find everything up to scratch, this should be good to go for FA. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to promote this now as it looks to me like pretty well all of this has been addressed, however pls double-check IGN in FNs 19, 20 and 72 -- you seem to use italics and publisher Ziff Davis elsewhere but in these three you're missing Ziff Davis and two don't use italics.

• Don't know how I managed to miss those! Duly noted. Thanks Ian. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

• Working now. Please don't edit; VisualEditor doesn't have true section editing so I'm afraid I have to tie up the whole page. I shouldn't be too long, but there's a lot to do.
• "The development of Grand Theft Auto V": I changed this to "The development of Grand Theft Auto V". WP:LEAD says to avoid bolded links, because it won't be obvious to non-Wikipedians what a slightly different shade of blue means.
• "a spiritual successor": I don't know what that is.
• "environmental tasks": ditto.
• "based on Los Angeles": "based on" is vague; I'm substituting more exact descriptions. Our Los Santos article says the city has "similar landmarks and districts but in different locations and under different names." - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "a team of producers": I'm not sure what that means: musicians? music producers? financial supporters? If the point here is to say they hired several people, it's usually better to say how many people were hired. the game producers? How many? - Dank (push to talk)
• There were a lot of things in the lead that I knew I didn't like, but wasn't sure how to reword. I had to guess in some cases. If I got anything wrong or you don't like what I did, revert it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to stop there without supporting or opposing. I hope the work on the lead was helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dank: I didn't love your changes to the lead if I'm to be honest, but if it works for you, it works for me. "spiritual successor" is a pretty common term, but it's wikilinked anyway. Not sure how you want me to approach that. Everything else is done. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I stopped; as I read through the article, I decided we probably weren't going to see eye-to-eye. Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But are you good with what I've done insofar? I need an okay so the delegates don't read it as an outstanding objection, or would you like to continue the review on? CR4ZE (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC coords: I don't oppose the promotion of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.