Talk:Obsidian Entertainment/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply


I think I'll finish this review tomorrow JAGUAR  21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments edit

  • The company's location in Irvine, California might be good to mention in the first (short) paragraph of the lead
  • "that was founded by ex-Interplay employees" - since this is the first mention of Interplay, I'd write this out as that was founded by ex-Interplay Entertainment employees for clarity
  • "They approached Electronic Arts, but it didn't result" - did not
  • "Disney Interactive Studios green-lit Obsidian to develop a prequel" - I'm not sure if 'green-lit' sounds informal, so I would recommend Disney Interactive Studios commissioned Obsidian or something similar
  • "The team developed a prototype and was a year into development when the CEO of Disney changed" - 'changed' sounds vague. How about was replaced?
  • "As was the case with The Sith Lords, the development team did not thoroughly scrub New Vegas of bugs" - 'scrub' sounds informal (but the part about glitches is surely true, I inadvertently broke the game when I first played it!)
  • "There is also a desire to work on another Fallout game" - this seems outdated as I remember Fallout 4 was the final segment Bethesda was allowed to publish, or something? If I'm correct, maybe this could be reworded to After the release of New Vegas or something similar

References edit

  • There are double quotes in the title of ref 36

On hold edit

This is a well written article and should have no problem passing once all of the above are clarified.   JAGUAR  16:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jaguar: Thanks for the review! I think I have addressed the problems you have raised. The quotation mark of ref 36 is part of the source's title, so I didn't change it. Thank you once again. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for addressing them! I didn't realise the part about ref 36, but that's my bad. Anyway, this article meets the GA criteria now so it's good to go.   JAGUAR  16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply