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 Graham Colm 10:55, 4 May 2014 [1].

Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 video game, and the latest entry into the culturally significant Grand Theft Auto series. The game's five year development cycle was one of the biggest undertakings in the industry, and the game was subject to enormous hype. It shattered records for the entire entertainment industry and is on track to be the best-selling video game ever. I've worked on this article a great deal over the past six months. Having just culled down Reception and split Development off, I feel the article is well-written and, importantly, at a readable length which is why I feel it qualifies as FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment I just looked at the Controversy section, which can be significantly trimmed. The text often loses focus from the subject at hand. For eg, "Helen Lewis of The Guardian felt Petit's observations were valid, but were stigmatised by gamers who have become 'hyper-sensitive to criticism' " has little to do with GTA V but rather is about an article that criticised it. Another thing is: are those Forbes articles reliable? They're by Forbes "contributors"; basically anybody can become one, and you get paid by the number of hits you generate. I doubt there's any fact-checking etc.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes are used three times in the article. The first reference (#74) is used to support the claim that the game outsold analyst expectations. Dave Thier's bio states that he is a freelance writer - that may be a problem, although his bio also states that his work has been reused by a number of RS. Going off the bio of Eric Kain (#122), he seems much more usable. I'd put Paul Tassi (#125) on par with Thier, but he can easily go as his article is only used in response to another. So I'll let you decide based on their individual merits which, if any, we can keep. Now, I think the whole controversy-within-a-controversy over Petit's review is a mentionable thing, because her comments, and the response to them, really instigated the whole "misogyny?" discussion. CR4ZE (t) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the merge tag at the top of the page shouldn't be a problem for the article. Since the debate's been open for nearly two months, I yesterday asked at the WikiProject and Admin Noticeboard for closure. Because of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)'s content (not much to stand on its own two feet in my opinion), whatever the result of the discussion won't impact this article's content, although I invite anybody to go ahead and close the discussion off as we go forward with the FAC. CR4ZE (t) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, the use of Forbes is currently being discussed at WT:VG/RS. The current consensus is that the staff are reliable, but the contributors might not be. You already have reliable sources for the $800M and gamer-misogyny lines, you don't need Forbes. And for a defense of the torture sequence, you should try Tom Bissell[2] or Tom Chick[3]. - hahnchen 04:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration I think the Thier's piece, which we're using to support the claim about the analyst, is a situational okay. I think the key difference is that Kain's and Tassi's work here are opinion pieces about the game's controversy, and I'll happily take them out and replace them upon Hahnchen's recommendation. Now Thier on the other hand is examining the sales GTA V posted on its first day against Arvind Bhatia's estimations. That's objective reporting; comparing one fact against another. So it really becomes a question about Bhatia... Well, I think given IGN is quoting him, it shouldn't be looked at any differently if Forbes is. CR4ZE (t) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes' contributor pieces do not have editorial oversight, that in this case, they happen to be correct does not mean they're the best sources available. You already have the Reuters source, Variety can back up Bhatia's estimate. - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though that's a subjective comment, if there's a better source available I'll happily replace it. CR4ZE (t) 07:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added Bissell's and Chick's pieces into the Controversy section. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paragraph on GTA Online, but it got moved to the development article when I decided to split it. I can copy the paragraph over to here again? And add that note in Sales perhaps? Does the article need this? CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need the Allianz quote, it's a piece of trivia fluff for Allianz marketing. If it got picked up by secondary sources, it might be worthy of inclusion, but I doubt it.
GTA Online redirects to Grand Theft Auto V. The development sub-article is not where readers would go to find information on GTA Online. While details of the online component's development would sit in the development subarticle, its gameplay, revenue model and reception should not. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted a new section into Reception titled "Multiplayer launch", and have written up a paragraph summarising the reviews I was able to collate. Now I need to make a few points here. Firstly, four of the five reviews in the table are considered 100% RS. Destructoid is situational depending on the writer, and in this case Chris Carter is an editor who is also "Reviews Director". The Polish review, GRYOnline.pl, is considered RS. I felt it was necessary to have this one because of the lack of RS to add to the table; the alternative is to add GamesMaster's review, but it's a print medium I don't have, so I can't supply author name, publisher etc. Finally, I have included publication dates in the table. This is because, given the nature of GTA Online's launch, the date of the publication is just as, if not, more important than the review score. Reviews were clearly impacted by the launch issues, so I think it's important the table includes dates next to scores. CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add too that I'm not going to add the Metro article about GTA Online's revenue to the article, because it is sourced from NeoGAF. CR4ZE (t) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can understand why the Metro piece isn't good enough. The MCV piece might still be worth a mention, I also spotted that Bhatia's estimates for GTA Online were picked up too.[6] You could link those two pieces together in a sentence summing up GTA Online's sales. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added some post-release information for GTA Online. Not sure if Bhatia's estimations need to be mentioned though. CR4ZE (t) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I collated reviews while writing Reception, I really only found Destructoid's review gave mention to the sound design. I have inserted it into one of the paragraphs, because I don't know if I have enough for a full one. CR4ZE (t) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty more that could be said about the soundtrack. Both IGN and Gamespot touch on it, but what you really need is the Edge review in print (Issue 259). There's a page long post script about the series' music. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to get a small paragraph out of those handful of quotes. I have tried unsuccessfully to find scans of the Edge review online. I'd happily buy it, but it wouldn't arrive in my mailbox for a few weeks. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:X201 who may have a copy of that issue. I do have a copy of that issue, but it's in storage and I won't be able to get at it until April. You can also just buy the digital version. - hahnchen 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've got it, will sort out a way to get the info to Craze. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I bought it. Will write something up tomorrow. CR4ZE (t) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article is ever complete. Dishonored is likely to pass even without a Legacy section, because the article is complete with the information available now with no obvious omissions. Inevitably, yes, we'll probably have to add a Legacy section, but that doesn't stop the article from being finished with the content that's presented at present. CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*not now too early, it has yet to be released on PC, and the game has only been out for 6 months. i forsee some pretty significant changes to the article. a Featured Article should be fairly stable in terms of content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very good reason. You're making presumptions based on future events that haven't happened yet. Has the PC version been announced yet? No. When it does, how exactly do you consider that the article will go under "significant change"? Are we going to have to rewrite the entire article because of a port to another platform? I bet not. The article has remained structurally the same since the successful GAN, except that the readability has been improved with a split Development and culled Reception. I'd say it was stable at the GAN and has remained so since then. CR4ZE (t) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, stating that the article could go under "significant change," (and stating that this should prevent the promotion of the article to FAC) simply based on your own personal theories on the direction of the game development, is potentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps. I don't mean that it's a bad article. i guess you are right, rockstar, for whatever reason, has been completely silent about the PC release. i did make an assumption, based on the fact that GTA4 was released on pc, and that the PC market is quite large. however, in retrospect, i really don't see why it should stop a FAC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week now and no new comments. Surely there are more editors interested in conducting a review. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. High quality prose and grammar. Mr*|(60nna) 07:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Quarter to Three is Tom Chick's website, and given his reputation in the field he should be okay to use. Hahnchen can probably give a better justification if need be.
  • I did some searching for a replacement for Nintendo Everything, and the only RS I found was VG247, but even then the statement in the prose is different to what is available via VG247 as they appear to be citing a different part of the Famitsu article. Not to mention the fact that the article is sourced from NeoGAF and NintendoLife, which to me comes across as sloppy. I've removed the information. Famitsu appears to be hard to get online, and even if I got it... I don't speak Japanese, so there's no point. It's information more relevant to the Japanese Wikipedia anyway.
  • It's possible to cite Japanese articles; I do it all the time. Some browsers have auto-translators; if not I'm sure you could Google Translate it to get a basic idea. Nevertheless, if you don't want to add it you don't have to, since GTAV is a Western game and this is the English Wikipedia.
  • I disagree. It's been cut down a fair bit, but with a game covered as widely in the media as this, a good-size reception section is kind of necessary. The only way I could see it being cut down even further is if we removed the second paragraph, the one about GTA V being this generation's magnum opus. However, take into consideration Dishonored, which recently passed FAC with a reception section at 1,243 words, and look at that in context with GTA V's slightly shorter 1,111 words. I'm not trying to use WP:WAX, but my point is that for some games, the wide scope of the reviews sometimes necessitates a lengthy reception section and cutting it down too much might not give the reader all the appropriate information they could get. Excepting its development, a game's reception is the most important thing to cover in a WP article.
  • That's fair. I ought to be less knee-jerk about that.
  • Paragraph is now split in two. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; my issues have all been addressed. Nice work! Before the large amount of work on GTAV and related articles, I assumed the GTA task force had been pretty much abandoned. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rockstar cites, I meant the whole list of Rockstar NYC etc. from the infobox (I mentioned this above, re: subsidiaries). IBT ref works for me (though it may be citogenesis). I think the infobox media can go—if it's not worth mentioning in the article, is it worth mentioning in the infobox? "Roam" is used twice in the lede. Putting refs in the infobox when the item's not mentioned in the article is totally fine. If it's worth mentioning the transnational dev split, it should go in the prose (not the infobox and definitely not infobox-only). I'm not contending for a total reorg of the Gameplay, just threw out an idea. It does, however, need to read so someone such as my hypothetical person can pick up the article and understand it, which means situating the early, unavoidable jargon. Slogging through the rest now czar ♔ 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: the transnational development is already mentioned in the appropriate section, Development. The source used doesn't give mention to each individual studio, so I have commented out the "Additional work" field in the infobox to run this by you. I can use the game credits to cite the development studios. Otherwise they can just remain hidden. I removed the second "roam" in the lede. I cited each individual producer/designer/etc, although I can't help but feel like the infobox looked nicer without citations there... Meh...it's either that, or mention them in the Development section, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to keep Development as short as possible. Though you weren't requiring that I do it, I have reorganised the Gameplay section and explained the open world design first with a little bit more detail. Do you prefer how it's arranged now? CR4ZE (t • c) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the IBT ref came across to me as citogenesis as well, which is why I was bit uneasy about using it. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to contribute during the week. I'll continue over the weekend, but don't let me hold up the review czar ♔ 03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth incorporating the individual dev team leads into the article, but you know the sources better than me. I usually work them in by way of quotes that credit them as "lead writer X". Gameplay reads much better, but I just gave it an edit as I read (as far as I could muster—the in-prose refs, British English, and lack of serial comma throw me off) and I cut out nearly a kB. The whole article can use this treatment, especially considering its current length. There are a few things I see contributing to its distracting verbosity: repeating the game's italicized name instead of saying "the game", lots of "the x of y" constructions where "y's x" could work, long descriptions that are best said as a single word or two, and ideas repeated in adjacent clauses that should be altogether recast as a single or two separate sentences. (The ce link above shows a few examples of each.) I know that in my own writing, I tend to shove too much stuff into a sentence and then have trouble seeing how to fit in everything I want. Instead of making Frankenstein sentences, I see what idea I'm trying to build around (the "cancer" of my sentence) and then recast the sentence around a different idea. Anyway, I feel this prose could use more concision for better flow. It's very long, so would you like to give it a try? I might slog through it, but I don't have much free time for intensive copyediting. czar ♔ 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed down a couple of things, namely some additional critical reviews that were commented out in the table that wasted 2,000 bytes of data. I'll consider working the dev team key people into the prose, but I want to keep that Development section as short as possible. Regardless, it shouldn't hinder the article's featured candidacy. I think as you go down you'll find the prose a little clearer in the Development/Reception/Controversies sections. I've read through these sections many times over and I personally can't find too many ways to make cut-downs. It would need a fresh pair of eyes. I have made some small cuts in Development. The length of the article might seem long, but there's only so much we can do considering the scope of the game in news sources etc. Basically, I'd encourage you to give a run-through and make some final cuts yourself, because this candidate has been open for over a month now and it needs closing soon. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come czar ♔ 02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added the source back in.
  • My understanding is that when writing about fiction, you need to source claims about plot threads that not every player may encounter on an initial playthrough. As such, the only parts of the plot that really required citing were the three different endings, which I've done.
My understanding about WAF is that plots were allowed to be unreffed (to cast aside WP:V) since it's really hard to source for some subjects. I was saying that I think this plot is covered so well that reffing it wouldn't be an issue ♔
  • Looks like your copy-edit covered that.
I'm not familiar with anything more than the basic plot, so I was guessing about the purpose of the grave ♔
  • The plot's currently sitting at 769 words, which is already slightly over our target of 700. The idea of a plot section is to give an overview as concisely written as possible. As such, we've mostly kept it to key plot points throughout the game, and there's lots of threads that have been omitted, such as (spoilers) Michael performing odd-jobs for a Vinewood producer, the kidnapping of Michael's family, Trevor's initial business deal with the Chengs etc. I just don't see how getting into more of Trevor's story is going to help readers understand the plot.
Doesn't need his story. One or two adjectives would introduce his characteristics that were later called out in specific in the Reception section ♔
  • Most of the characters are referred to by their first names (Michael is often called "Townley", and Steve Haines is almost always just "Haines"). But I think the way that's it's been approached is that Michael, Franklin and Trevor are the characters you actually control, so for the sake of consistency between Gameplay/Plot they're always on a first-name basis.
  • I emphasised the imperative of Franklin being forced to choose Michael's and Trevor's fates a little more. Check my wording, and if you want a little more detail I'll go back and replay the mission to add a little more. If I can remember, Haines wants Trevor dead because of the fact that he's batshit crazy, and Weston, I think, wants Michael dead because he's been screwed over. Something like that...
It's more that why do the FIB agents have such a hold over Franklin that he'd be forced to make this call? As it stands, it says he received a phone call and has to make a choice. The group is so tight and they have been against the FIB agents for so long, why would listening be imperative? (Rhetorical question, answer in prose)♔
  • Here's the thing with the serial comma. Our MOS allows either its inclusion or omission as long as whichever choice is consistent throughout the prose. Now the article strictly adheres to British English, and every British English style guide I can recall recommends against it. There's advantages and disadvantages to it. As long as the usage is consistent, it shouldn't matter. If it's your editorial preference to use it, use it in articles with American English. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling was that it would be helpful in long articles such as these where it could be used a dozen times. I'm still not sure if you're for or against it, so I left it as is. ♔
  • Clarified.
  • Looks like you clarified that.
  • It's used twice.
Not throughout the article, and I already changed a couple ♔
  • Uh...still not sure what the issue is? The sentence explains that they considered the game a spiritual successor to their previous games...
I was asking about the rest of the sentence—I didn't quote the whole thing ♔
  • Refined.
  • Refined.
  • True. Though your edit exacerbated things by removing the mention of Wei Cheng, who is one of the main antagonists.
I'm not sure Cheng's mention is vital to the plot section when the Triad is already there ♔
  • I wrote a little clarification there but I'm not sure how it sounds (really tired at the moment). I'll come back to it later and see if it needs rephrasing.
  • Added mention of the additional content that came with pre-orders, although it's not an exhaustive explanation for concision purposes.
  • It was Rockstar.
  • K. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to just respond that the bullets are acknowledged or were changed instead of responding individually. And editing while tired may not be a good idea if it makes you snippy czar ♔ 15:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come czar ♔ 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

czar ♔ 03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, but I've added a "review round-up" from CVG to back the claim.
  • That's a good idea that I followed through on.
  • I'll take it there just in case.
  • Reception's sitting at just over 1,000 words (including the caption). Dishonored, for example, passed happily with over 1,200. I'd say that, while it's long, it's essential to the reader's understanding because GTA is historically most widely known for its very positive reviews. There's a good mix of quotes and paraphrasing, and I noticed in your recent copy-editing you paraphrased a few more. I'd contend the balance is good now.
  • I refined the image caption just slightly.
  • I disagree completely. I've reviewed your work before and I know you like to cite everything, but if I went through on your point here the section would be muddled with redundant citations. Here's why. Take the paragraph "The story and characters—particularly Trevor—polarised reviewers". Now there's no footnote at the end of that sentence, because it's a point that is expanded upon further in the prose. There are 13 citations throughout the paragraph each used to refer back to the opening sentence. There's no reason to over-cite. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Dishonored's Reception excessive, but I didn't get around to reviewing it (as you know, I put a lot of time into my reviews—jeez, the copyedit alone—and the longer the article, the greater the time commitment). My expectation for such sections would be to stick to high-level critiques and to collect "redundant citations" from meta-reviews as much as possible for the boldest claims. The thing is that GTA and Dishonored are totally capable of that quality due to their broad coverage. There is room for each Reception ¶ to sparkle by making sure its contents actually pertain to the idea of the ¶, but I'll leave it as a friendly suggestion. I think you misinterpret what I meant with the last bullet. The way it is now, I had broken sentences with two clauses into separate sentences, such that the ¶s have topic sentences now. Before ("X was acclaimed, Y person said Z"), the citation would appear to cite both the X and YZ clauses. Citing that separated topic sentence (for the sake of WP:V) is up to you. czar ♔ 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the way Reception is now, and you've made some good copy-editing here and there so it should meet the "brilliant" criteria. Re the topic sentences, this was an approach I took on in my big cull (this section used to be about 1,500 words I think) to get things as short as I could. There used to be topic sentences like we have now. The ones now are best left uncited. Rhain1999 is working on your last batch of points about the Awards section. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1,508, to be exact. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

czar ♔ 06:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not removing The Escapist. It's considered situational because of Yahtzee's popularity, but Greg Tito is a senior staffer who's been there nine years. He makes some perfectly valid commentary about the game. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was just for consideration, and I'm not sure the reliability concerns are localized to Yahtzee ♔
  • Everything else has been fixed. Load screen has been wikilinked the first time and reworded the second time. As for the multiplayer launch, I'll leave that to you at a point one day where you get the sub-article you created to a more suitable length. Almost all of it is just recycled from this section, which doesn't merit summarising here just yet. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone copied the Reception section, but the rest was newly written. ♔

Okay, that's it for now. I think the issues are surmountable. For anyone reading this far, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently re-written the Awards section to reflect your notes on it, so be sure to take a look. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I also made a couple of fixes to the plot, and refined that sentence in the Controversies section. Looks like all of your points have been covered. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two abandoned ref errors at the bottom of the page—likely inadvertent, but wanted to check czar ♔ 13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of very small typos from Rhain, that's all. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry about that! I should have taken a better look at the article after my edits. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Norton lives. He's loosely considered a "good guy", because he brokers the Ludendorff deal and gives Michael his new life. And they all live happily ever after. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: So... CR4ZE (t • c) 04:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

czar ♔ 14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been well-documented that Rockstar have historically been absent from media conferences to promote their games. I'm quite certain, for example, that they haven't been to E3 in a decade. (Some background). It's a deliberate marketing approach, and it's clearly worked in the past. As such, nope, there's almost nothing when it comes to pre-release awards. The nominations may not be necessary in prose, but I'd say they should be left in the table. (We could, in future, split the table off into something like "List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V"). Now I'm personally terrible when working with tables (I scarcely have to use them), so I'll have to leave it to someone else (pinging Rhain) to deal with rowspan. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely keep the nominations in the table—I only meant the prose. In absence of preview awards, it may be worth including at least something somewhere on the great level of anticipation for the game.[7][8] And if there is only one pre-release award in the whole section, might be worth just putting that first instead of using the topic sentence that makes it seem that there will be plenty of pre-release awards. czar ♔ 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out the GOTY awards you added. Rhain and I were only able to find this source for GamesTM, which is completely unreliable (amplified by the fact that it actually cites Wikipedia as a source... citogenesis clusterfuck). In the meantime I'm pinging Hahnchen who may have GamesTM, but I can't find GamePro. And I'd rather not keep having to buy archives online. The pre-release anticipation was mentioned in the article, but this is (again) fact that got split off into the Development sub-article. I've added the statement back into the Development section. Now, as for the table, again, I have no idea how to work with them, but I have experimented with killing the "rowspan" parameter and all I seem to do is mess it up. Not sure how to handle this one. Can we just bring another editor in to have a look and make a decision? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the relevant GamesTM issue, but it's not something I'll have access to until late May as it's in storage. Their website suggests it's issue 142. I'm not sure how notable magazine year end awards are, GTA V will have had too many to list. - hahnchen 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOTY awards from major publishers would be quite vital information for the Reception section's completeness, no? Checking the 2013 versions of the Dishonored list of GOTY/#1 awards won, I don't think GTA V's list would be much longer. Here's an unreliable source that purports a whole bunch more wins, if you'd like to try the more notable ones. czar ♔ 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: It is done. That took close to two hours to go through, back-check, add in prose and cite. So if you don't like the way I've set it out, spare my sanity and change it yourself. That's covered everything now hey? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate the jabs and snippiness. The Awards section is not 1a-ready and I know the editors involved are capable of making it brilliant, professional prose, but this encyclopedia is too big to pour time into articles where I'm made to feel unwelcome. So, support on prose and I'll edit a few last things on my own. czar ♔ 00:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. My comment wasn't meant as a personal jab, rather, it was an ironic statement about how numbing it was (on my part) to sort through and get all those awards into the prose. Sorry if it came across some way else, but social science shows that 93% of communication is non-verbal which lends to misinterpretation in text-based communications. I do appreciate your comments and copy-editing. I'll have a read-through of the Awards section and see if I can make the prose shine a little more. One thing I do note with you is that you don't seem to like semi-colons. In that big long sentence about the year-end awards, there's not much of a better alternative without getting into choppy sentences or prose skewered by emdashes. In any regard, I'll continue to look at ways to refine the prose throughout the section. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nicereddy[edit]

Other than that, the prose is fantastic, the article covers everything I'd expect, non-free imagery is used reasonably, and the sources seem reliable. I would consider archiving the references you're using (as I've done with Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike: Source's references, for example), since I've seen a pretty huge number of featured articles erode over time thanks to link rot. I think the longevity of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability is reliant heavily on archiving references, and this would save you a lot of annoyance in the future. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, a lack of archives would be a silly reason not to support the article's promotion. If you can fix the issues I've listed above, I'll gladly add my support. Fantastic job to everyone involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Nicereddy. I have attempted to clarify the compass system in "Gameplay". That sentence in "Development" wasn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, although it wasn't the best wording, so I have reworked it. I removed the wikilinks from the "Plot" and instead added a note explaining that the FIB and IAA were parodies, and sourced the claim. I have attempted to clean up those couple of awkward sentences in "Multiplayer launch". Please review my changes, and if you're happy, I'd love for you to throw down a Support vote. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Apologies, as I had nearly forgotten! All of my issues seem to have been fixed, and as I said in my previous comment, the prose is fantastic, the references all cite legitimate sources, non-free image use is minimal, and the article covers all material I'd expect. Really great job! --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

Several things to address:

Lead
  • Make note that it is the first game in the series with multiple playable characters
Reception
  • "According to review aggregating website Metacritic, the game received an average review score of 97/100 for both consoles, and according to GameRankings, the game received an average review score of 97.01% and 96.20% for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively." is lengthy. Try splitting it into something like "MetaCrtic calculated an average rating of 97/100 for both consoles. GameRankings calculated an average rating of 97.01% for the PlayStation 3 and 96.20% for the Xbox 360."
  • ref#77 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than simply The Telegraph
Multiplayer launch
  • GTA$500,000 → GTA $500,000
Awards
  • ref#142 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just Telegraph
Controversies
Depiction of torture
  • Remove ref#26 (Daily Mirror)- it's a tabloid
Accusations of sexism
  • like ref#77, ref#154 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just The Telegraph or Telegraph
Legal actions
  • Find a better source than ref#161 (New York Daily News) or remove altogether. If the detail is to be included, "US$20 million" should read "US $20 million"

After these are addressed, you have my support for this becoming FA. Good luck! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Everything has been taken care of. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. That should do it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment[edit]

@Ian Rose: Nicereddy approved the images in his comments. Would you like to see a full review? I can page some editors for an additional review of images if needed. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing for images (note that I'm coming from WT:VG where Cr4ze asked for help):
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V.png is cover art with proper rationale.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V combat.jpg is a game screenshot to demonstration sourced commentary on the gameplay, that's fine.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg is a game screenshot to showcase the game's engine and the similarities to the real city of LA, both backed by sourced discussion, so okay.
  • File:Grand Theft Auto V torture sequence.jpg is a game screenshot from one of the game's controversial missions (a scene involving torture, but here showing a scene where the player-character is selecting which torture weapon to use). This is a bit of a tricky case. No question the scene is of critical discussion, but the screenshot itself is not indicative of why (not played, but as I've read, you actually see the torture happening). I would consider it might be better to use a shot here that shows the torture about to be enacted - eg we see the victim about to be struck or the like - as to make a screenshot use here more appropriate along NFC lines. Using this specific shot begs the question if it is really needed. But that's a point of debate to build on. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I'll happily replace the image, but what I liked about the one we had now was the fact that there was an on-screen prompt for the player to pick a weapon, which reinforces that it's imperative to mission progress to torture the victim. There are, however, replacements available. Take your pick. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of those, I'd recommend a shot of the actual waterboarding. The IGN shots are relatively dark. I'd pick the one with the water canister, but I'd recommend using an image that actually illustrated the action that needs illustration. czar ♔ 15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd agree this might be a better shot. While a facet was that there were a number of ways to torture that the user could chose from, that really doesn't need a visual guide to show. But to show that the game actually showed the player doing this is what struck a nerve and the commentary on this scene and thus would be a clearly allowed screenshot moreso than the choie of tool. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: @Czar: Here's four images that I have made as replacements. My inclination is to go with Trevor pulling Mr. K's tooth out (#2) because it's the most up-close and graphic. Although, they all would serve a similar purpose. What are your suggestions? CR4ZE (t • c) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're still quite dark. Have you tried lightening them? Also I thought the waterboarding scenes were more effective than the tooth extractions, no? Did they not show well? (Currently working on my review above) czar ♔ 01:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the tooth-pulling image as well after some brightening. While none of the images show Mr. K's face that well, the tooth-pulling image gives the clearest view of Trevor's face. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The waterboarding segment also features a close-up camera on Mr. K's covered face with water being poured onto it. The camera switches between the view from the screenshot I snapped, immediately to the close-up just as Trevor begins pouring. Trevor is barely seen on-screen there (you see a hand and two feet) so that I feel would lose the impact of the image. My inclination is still towards the tooth-pulling, because featured on-screen are the faces of both men, a contextual prompt and a close-up view. If I do a re-up of either image, can somebody else do a lightening touch-up with Photoshop for me? I don't have the program. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that tooth-pull is a better choice. Also, one more thing I noticed- remove ref#97 (Metro, which is a tabloid) or replace with a better source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, the point of using non-free images (and this is what Masem was stressing) is that it should be showing something that just isn't possible from text description alone. So a picture of Trevor standing with pliers would not be as effective as an image of an actually traumatic action, such as seeing the target in the throes of the action. Whether or not we see Trevor doing it isn't the point. I can try lightening whatever you choose to upload czar ♔ 02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The shot that I suggested wasn't just of Trevor standing there with pliers. He's towering over Mr. K ripping his tooth out. It would have been just as powerful a shot, however I'm going with the waterboarding shot only because the camera angle in the pliers scene doesn't clearly show Mr. K's mouth enough. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brightened the shot and think it looks better. Feedback? czar ♔ 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the extra clarity looks great. Thanks. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Are the supports/review comments sufficient enough for closing? CR4ZE (t • c) 03:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I counted a dozen instances of "the game" in the lead, which seems excessive. I realise you don't want to use the game's title all the time either but there might be a few instances you can just say "it" or something else. Same goes for the rest of the article, where by my count there are about 90 instances each of the title and "the game"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for picking up on that. I have gone through and reduced as many of these instances as I can. Take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that's improved things. Spotchecking prose/phrases, it seems close now but not quite there so I can't in all conscience promote it as is; as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and was planning to review a few articles, I may just recuse myself from delegate duties for another pass at the prose later today and allow my colleague Graham to close it as he sees fit afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I notice that you've made a couple of changes here and there yourself. If you find bits of prose that don't work for you, I encourage you to fix them, but some minor copy-editing here and there wouldn't interfere with your role as a delegate would it? I mean, whatever you deem appropriate, but I would like to have my very first shiny gold star atop an article. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: What would be your approach for closing? If you have outstanding objections regarding the prose I'll happily work at them, unless you were planning to do a run-through yourself. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Torchiest on sources[edit]

I looked at this version. I checked sources 1, 4–5, 7–12, 29, 31–35, 48, 55–59, 62, 67, 69–74, 93–100, 105–116, 123–138, 140–142, 144–152, 202, and 206–208.

I found a few problems:

Everything else I looked at checked out fine. —Torchiest talkedits 04:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for conducting a source review. I'll get back to you some time either today or tomorrow. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything has been taken care of. Some bits of information got moved around, others were outdated, and so on... With Source 35 (now Source 34), Garbut is talking about the research for LA. He also talked about it prior to this interview, in the big Game Informer feature from 2012 (Source 29). Game Informer ask him about the research they did on LA to create Los Santos. His exact quote is "We pored over the various online mapping and street-view tools". There are scans of that preview readily available online if you wish to check. So I've added this source in addition to support the claim. Both sources are referring to the same thing, just his wording was slightly different.
With regards to Source 108 (now 107), I agree that "We believe" might appear to be rocky, but the claim has been echoed by countless reliable sources (see here) and has sort of become fact. We go with what the sources say. Take Two have never gone on record to deny the attribution since. It was also featured In the news, so I think the claim is justified. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are scans for Source 29. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Few more items:
  • The stock trading item still isn't supported by what is now source 9, which only says "GTA IV's mobile phone returns, but a lot of its features have been altered. You can use it to access the internet." I added the source I found above support that claim. In fact, I pulled source 9 from the article completely, since it was a really early source with less-than-perfect information, supplanted by more comprehensive reporting later.
  • You removed the source support the part about the HUD and wanted meter, but the following ref to source 11 doesn't quite support all the details either. The HUD in particular isn't mentioned, just some of the mechanics of being chased.
  • I'm fine with your point on the fastest time to reach $1 billion. It's been widely reported.
  • The main issue with the Google Maps point is that the article didn't specifically mention Los Angeles. But the new source looks good.
Just fix the HUD part and I'll be ready to support on sources. —Torchiest talkedits 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I found a replacement. I also swapped out the GamesRadar review for a preview to support the fixed-wing aircraft addition. Just a more direct mention, that's all. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:04, 27 April 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.
More