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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:07, 1 September 2014 [1].

List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participation Guide
Support
CR4ZE (nominator), Rhain1999, Tezero, SNUGGUMS, Cowlibob, PresN
Comments/No vote yet
None
Oppose
None

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria and comprehensively covers GTA V's many year-end accolades. I had a peer review open prior to this nomination that got no comments and went stale, so I can only assume that this list is good to go all the way. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also support, as a major contributor. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

It's close. My concerns are only stylistic/organizational:

Keep consistent whether you link all instances of a publication or just the first one in the sources. For example, Metacritic uses the former style, and Destructoid the latter.
I'm concerned about the allocation of information into the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the lead. Why is the Best Xbox Game accolade in the third paragraph but the Best British Game in the fifth? Why are some graphics/technical-related awards in the fifth and others in the fourth? I mean, maybe there's some hidden rationale I'm not seeing, but to me it looks kind of haphazard. Why not try an organizational style like this?

First paragraph as normal: anticipation and release.
Second paragraph as normal: reviews. (God, it sickens me to even look at this because I dislike Western open-world games and the general "we're so edgy and jackass-ish" GTA style so much, but whatever. Most people don't.)
Third paragraph: All awards for the game in general, whether among all games or among all Xbox 360 or British games.
Fourth paragraph: All awards for specific aspects of the product.

"GameTrailers' Game of the Year Awards ... Top Three" - Ambiguous. Were they unable to decide beyond their three favorites, is it traditional that they only narrow it down to three, or did it only make it up to the top three before being knocked out? You might want to include a footnote to elaborate on which of the first two it is, or if it's the third, just say "3rd Place" or something. "Top Three" in that context makes me cringe like I do when my dad touts UIUC as having a "top 3" Computer Science program (he contrasts this with "just" having a Top 5 one) when it is unequivocally in third place.

Tezero (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Tezero, I think I've taken care of everything. Take a look and bask in the glory of the world's greatest Western open world game. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your attitude, so I'm oppo- Nah, just kidding. Support. Great job; maybe I should try this game sometime. (I actually have the GTA collection from Steam, although I've only played a couple hours each of GTAIV and San Andreas and haven't touched the rest. This one wasn't included.) Tezero (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As if you weren't hooked after San Andreas. Go pick up GTA V when it finds its way into Steam's discount bin and I very much doubt you'll regret it. Thanks for the support. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like the first of its kind. So it's a great opportunity to create a prototype for others. My main issues are structure and some content changes. The lead In the intro first paragraph, include what the game is about briefly for laymen and keep when it was announced and the awards it won in anticipation. Second paragraph should be when the game was released, briefly sales of the games/records it broke etc. Gamerankings and Metacritic are review aggregators so the sentences about them should be something like: Gamerankings, a review aggregator, surveyed x number of reviews and assigned an average review score of.... No need for choice quotes Third paragraph should start something like Grand Theft Auto V received awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for.... Then talk about how it did at major award ceremonies. Fourth paragraph should start with any other important to mention minor awards/nominations for aspects of the game or the game itself not included in the third para. This paragraph should finish with what end of year awards it won or generation awards. Also don't include community or general public awards as they're basically internet polls. Infobox wins and nominations --> awards and nominations include the number of each award won and nominations received at each award ceremony as a dropdown Main table Awards and nominations --> Accolades No need for title "List of ...." Instead of year have the date of the ceremony, have the award as simply the name of the awards rather than 5th or 20th. If an article exists for that years award link the date to it. Recipient --> Recipient(s) and Nominee(s) You can choose whether to alphabetise the list by the name of the award or to list it chronologically by date of ceremony Curate the list to ensure only reputable awards are listed so that the list is not a laundry list as per WP:LAUNDRY. That's my two cents. I know it seems like a lot to do but I'm only trying to make the list the best it can be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the review, and I know you're coming from a good place. There is plenty to get through here, which will take some time, so I'll ping you when I get everything done. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Cowlibob: Again, I'll be looking at this in the near future, but I'm not sure how you want me to go about curating the list. The awards are taken from high-quality sources as identified by WP:VG/RS, or otherwise by other projects/ prior consensus (ie Tom Chick being notable enough for inclusion per his legacy in the field). This actually came up at the main article's FAC (before this table was split), where I used this source in context with the RS guidelines to include awards I thought would be reliable/ notable for inclusion. I think "reputable awards" is too vague, so I can only treat RS's as reputable enough, and in that case, the table is comprehensive. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] That was too vague. I've looked through and I think it's ok. It was Tom Chick which I questioned as I've never seen an individual's list being considered an award. If there has been prior consensus in WikiProject:Videogames to accept that than fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Actually, I haven't seen consensus that his awards should be included in articles, just that he's a reliable source. This list, if passed, will be an unprecedented VG award list, so there's no strong case for his inclusion either way. I'm just as happy to remove his award than keep it. Your call. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'd prefer it not to be included. It's a minor thing though compared to all the other stuff. Look forward to seeing this list after the modifications. Cowlibob (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Cowlibob: I think I've tended to your comments on the lead and infobox. Now, as for the main table, I've been working on my sandbox and the results are so far pretty ugly. I'm not great with tables, but is there some way I can increase the scope of the date column to stop it running onto a new line? CR4ZE (t • c) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Good work on the infobox. One thing why does ars technica have a different background colour? In terms of the lead, move the release dates to before the review aggregator stuff and the end of year/generation to end of fourth para so that it's chronological. I don't know how to stop it running maybe it would look better with awards as first column then date? Additional comments- for references make sure if it is a news/magazine source use cite news work= so it italicizes it. You shouldn't need to add your own italics. Cowlibob (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Cowlibob:, I think I've covered everything. I moved release dates as you suggested, but I didn't reshuffle the other paragraphs. The end of year awards were handed out alongside all the other awards so I thought the way it was arranged was fine. I'm happy to hear thoughts to the contrary. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks like the first of its kind. So it's a great opportunity to create a prototype for others. My main issues are structure and some content changes.

The lead

In the intro first paragraph, include what the game is about briefly for laymen and keep when it was announced and the awards it won in anticipation.
Second paragraph should be when the game was released, briefly sales of the games/records it broke etc. Gamerankings and Metacritic are review aggregators so the sentences about them should be something like: Gamerankings, a review aggregator, surveyed x number of reviews and assigned an average review score of....
No need for choice quotes
Third paragraph should start something like Grand Theft Auto V received awards and nominations in a variety of categories with particular praise for.... Then talk about how it did at major award ceremonies.
Fourth paragraph should start with any other important to mention minor awards/nominations for aspects of the game or the game itself not included in the third para. This paragraph should finish with what end of year awards it won or generation awards.
Also don't include community or general public awards as they're basically internet polls.

Infobox

wins and nominations --> awards and nominations
include the number of each award won and nominations received at each award ceremony as a dropdown

Main table

Awards and nominations --> Accolades
No need for title "List of ...."
Instead of year have the date of the ceremony, have the award as simply the name of the awards rather than 5th or 20th. If an article exists for that years award link the date to it.
Recipient --> Recipient(s) and Nominee(s)
You can choose whether to alphabetise the list by the name of the award or to list it chronologically by date of ceremony
Curate the list to ensure only reputable awards are listed so that the list is not a laundry list as per WP:LAUNDRY.

That's my two cents. I know it seems like a lot to do but I'm only trying to make the list the best it can be. Cowlibob (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and I know you're coming from a good place. There is plenty to get through here, which will take some time, so I'll ping you when I get everything done. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Again, I'll be looking at this in the near future, but I'm not sure how you want me to go about curating the list. The awards are taken from high-quality sources as identified by WP:VG/RS, or otherwise by other projects/ prior consensus (ie Tom Chick being notable enough for inclusion per his legacy in the field). This actually came up at the main article's FAC (before this table was split), where I used this source in context with the RS guidelines to include awards I thought would be reliable/ notable for inclusion. I think "reputable awards" is too vague, so I can only treat RS's as reputable enough, and in that case, the table is comprehensive. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was too vague. I've looked through and I think it's ok. It was Tom Chick which I questioned as I've never seen an individual's list being considered an award. If there has been prior consensus in WikiProject:Videogames to accept that than fair enough. Cowlibob (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't seen consensus that his awards should be included in articles, just that he's a reliable source. This list, if passed, will be an unprecedented VG award list, so there's no strong case for his inclusion either way. I'm just as happy to remove his award than keep it. Your call. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it not to be included. It's a minor thing though compared to all the other stuff. Look forward to seeing this list after the modifications. Cowlibob (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I think I've tended to your comments on the lead and infobox. Now, as for the main table, I've been working on my sandbox and the results are so far pretty ugly. I'm not great with tables, but is there some way I can increase the scope of the date column to stop it running onto a new line? CR4ZE (t • c) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the infobox. One thing why does ars technica have a different background colour? In terms of the lead, move the release dates to before the review aggregator stuff and the end of year/generation to end of fourth para so that it's chronological. I don't know how to stop it running maybe it would look better with awards as first column then date? Additional comments- for references make sure if it is a news/magazine source use cite news work= so it italicizes it. You shouldn't need to add your own italics. Cowlibob (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob:, I think I've covered everything. I moved release dates as you suggested, but I didn't reshuffle the other paragraphs. The end of year awards were handed out alongside all the other awards so I thought the way it was arranged was fine. I'm happy to hear thoughts to the contrary. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE:If it was same awards ceremony it's fine. Made a few fixes on ref formatting and changing some sources. Good Games most memorable moment according to the source was "Looking out over Los Santos as Trevor" not Friends reunited mission so please change that.

I can now Support this list. Good job! Cowlibob (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Looking pretty good so far, here's my 2¢:

"scheduled to be released in Q3/Q4 2014"..... just say late 2014 for simplicity sake
"Two characters, Trevor Philips and Lamar Davis, received numerous nominations for Best Character, and Lamar won such an award from Giant Bomb"..... I think multiple nominations would be better, and try with Giant Bomb deeming Lamar the game's best character
For some of the awards this didn't win, maybe include in the lead who the winners were.
Metacritic should not be italicized (it's a website)
IGN should not be italicized either (same reasons as Metacritic)
Digital Spy should also not be italicized for previously stated reasons
Publisher for The Daily Telegraph is Telegraph Media Group
Game Revolution owner/publisher is Net Revolution
Publisher for Wired (magazine) and Ars Technica is Advance Publications
GameSpot and Giant Bomb are owned by CBS Interactive
Publisher for The Escapist (magazine) is Defy Media
Publisher for Entertainment Weekly and Time (magazine) is Time Inc.
Publisher for Electronic Gaming Monthly is EGM Media
I think you meant to link to Polygon (website), and publisher is Vox Media

Not much to do here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SNUGGUMS, I've tended to everything here. Metacritic/IGN etc. are italicised by default because they're using the work= field. I'm not aware of any policy that says they can't be italicised, and I'd rather keep it consistent with other video game websites like Polygon and Edge, which are normally italicised. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I now support this for FL. For the record, a way to un-italicize terms would be by putting them in "publisher field". For example: "publisher=Digital Spy. Hearst Corporation". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN[edit]

"the Spike VGX"? Shouldn't that be "the Spike VGX Awards"?
Link Inside Gaming Awards, since you do in the table
The Platinum PlayStation Award is given out by Sony entirely based on sales- it's like an album being certified Platinum, except it's only for PlayStation games. Your call if you want to mention that.
"from Spike VGX" - well, you dropped the "the" this time, so be consistent
When sorting by result, some of the places (fourth, fifth, eighth) are sorting below nominated
Yeah... you can't just link the first instance of a term in a sortable table. You will need to link each instance of Spike VGX 2013, etc. - the one you linked may or may not be first in the table anymore once you sort on a column.
You have the award for "GamesRadar's Game of the year 2013" down as "Game of the YEar"
Sorting for recipient is messed up- the songs are sorting by ", and names are sorting by first name instead of last. To solve: put the songs down as ((sort|song name|"song name")) and the people down as ((sortname|first|last|optional article title if different))
If a source doesn't have a specific author you leave the field out, rather than putting "GameSpot staff" or "Staff" etc. - it's taken as given.
Snuggums missed one - GamesRadar is published by Future plc
Slant Magazine, as an online magazine, should be italicized in references- stick in "work=".

--Pres N 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN:, I think I've taken care of everything. Please take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pres N 17:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob/PresN, I think I've tended to most of your points but I'll be back later to do more. Let me know if there's any problems with my changes insofar. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tezero[edit]

18. Canada.com should be linked in the source
23./67. Same with Edge

Spotchecks:

9. good, but you could probably get as specific as $817 million
17. good
20. good
13. good

Tezero (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Canada.com redirects to Postmedia News, which is already linked in the publisher field. Do you think it needs linking anyway? CR4ZE (t • c) 08:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero: I know you're probably busy playing the world's greatest sandbox game, but please look at my changes when you have a moment. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that about Postmedia; that's fine. Continue to support; source review passes. And yes, I've had a great time with Terraria; thanks for asking! :D Tezero (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:45, 1 September 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.