Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive2

Fallout 4: Far Harbor

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I might try to make it a featured article and I'd like the opinions of some more experienced editors before I nominate it (this was actually my very first good article, so my experience with these types of things is lacking). If you wish to see the differences between the article when it passed its GAN and now (creation of this PR), see this diff. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rhain, Czar, David Fuchs, AdrianGamer, Jaguar, and Masem: Your opinions would be appreciated because you're more experienced than me in this area. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Jaguar

• "The player controls the video game's protagonist throughout their investigation" - unnecessary here, I think
• "Upon completion of the side quests, the player is rewarded with bottle caps, one of the game's fictional currencies" - no experience points?
• I would recommend merging the last two paragraphs of the lead into one. Development and reception paragraphs in the lead go hand in hand away
• "The game received generally favorable reviews from critics according to the review aggregator site Metacritic" - not needed in the lead IMO, it's probably best to remove this
• "The addition of new quests was highly acclaimed by critics. Reviewers had different opinions on the atmosphere and the island's fog. The main criticism were the puzzle sections which reviewers thought were either a waste of time or overly frustrating" - try something like The addition of new quests was highly acclaimed by critics, however some had mixed opinions on the atmosphere and the island's fog. The main criticism were the puzzle sections which reviewers thought were either a waste of time or overly frustrating
• V.A.T.S. is not linked in Gameplay
• "Reviewers highly praised the addition of new quests.[2][3] but man" - delete the full stop
• Feel free to ignore this part, but I feel that some of the paragraphs in the reception section are a bit too short and could be merged into one another, in order to improve prose flow

That's all I could bring up through my first read-through. Good luck, I'll keep an eye out for the FAC. JAGUAR  19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Y Did all of the suggestions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar and David Fuchs: What is your opinion on the new "settings" section? Personally, I think it should be merged into the plot and gameplay, but I'd like other opinions. @Shadeblade11: Pinging the user who added the section. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate some of the extra context and detail it provides, but I would say that it is excessive for what the article needs. The setting section just needs to contextualize the plot, not introduce every element before it's touched on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I've tried to cut down on the new setting. Do you think it's better now or should I cut it down some more, and if so, in what ways? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for coming back to this late as I can't remember seeing this. Comprehensiveness is arguably the most important part of the FA criteria, but I agree with David Fuchs that the setting section needed trimming. Since this is an add-on to the main game, I don't think it should go overboard on details regarding lore. I think the synopsis is looking great and this could be ready for FAC, that is that I hope the future reviewers would bear in mind how scarce development info on a DLC can be. JAGUAR  15:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}}—ping me if I don't respond in a day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Did you already make all the changes or were there other issues too? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Some thoughts:

• General:
  • I think the biggest issue with the article as it stands is that it's not accessible. Articles should be understandable to a layperson who isn't familiar with a lot of background on the subject; what would a person who hasn't played much beyond Pong or Bejeweled think of the article? Let's take the first bit of the article body:
    • Far Harbor is an expansion pack for the action role-playing, single-player video game Fallout 4. Okay, so far so good...
    • In Far Harbor, the player searches for a missing child.[1] This is the most important detail to follow with? We have no idea who the player is assuming the role of, not even the setting.
    • Similar to the main game, in Far Harbor the player is enlisted by the Valentine Detective Agency to investigate the disappearance of a young girl named Kasumi.[2][3] In the main game, does this mean that there's another child to search for? Or is Kasumi the missing child of the previous sentence? Who is the Valentine Detective Agency?
    • The Valentine Detective Agency is run by detective Nick Valentine.[3] Okay, this is an explanation that doesn't actually illuminate anything.
    • Both the base game and the expansion include the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system and the ability to swap between first-person and third-person perspectives.[4] Why is this detail this far into the paragraph? What is the SPECIAL system? You explain it in the following sentence but how it connects to the first and third person perspectives is unclear.
    • S.P.E.C.I.A.L. is an acronym... Here the article starts getting into heavy detail about the character leveling system without any introduction, and without any clear explanation of why this is important. This is the expansion pack, and we shouldn't rely on parent articles for essential information, but we don't need this much detail. How is knowing the exact number of points you start off with important to Far Harbor? The entire following paragraph seems similarly pointless to the article topic. There's next to nothing in the development or reception that mentions this stuff.
  • Valentine's Detective Agency receives a request for help from Kenji and Rei Nakano, members of a family living in a remote corner of the Commonwealth. Their daughter Kasumi has vanished without a trace or explanation, and the Sole Survivor is enlisted to investigate. What is the Commonwealth? Who is the Sole Survivor?
  • It supposedly added the largest landmass—why the weasel words here? If Bethesda said this, source it as such.
  • The expansion was influenced by feedback on the dialogue system in Fallout 4—what was the feedback?
  • Is there any followup on the re-release? Did it actually solve the issues or no?
  • Reviewers highly praised the addition of new quests[2][3] but many disliked the newly introduced puzzle sections[29][33][34] and the block related parts were compared to Minecraft due to the building aspect.[3][9][10][34]—I don't think the weasel words are a good idea here. Say which reviewers praised or disliked elements; and was the block-related part a good or a bad thing? Chaining it where it is suggests the latter.
• References:
  • References all look fine.
• Images:
  • I don't think either File:Autumn Leaves and Far Harbor comparison.png or File:Fallout 4 Far Harbor screenshot.jpg have particularly compelling WP:NFCC rationales. The fog is mostly a technical note, and not the subject of much commentary, and the comparison screen is irrelevant for how important the Autumn Leaves bit is to the rest of the article.
• In summation, I think the gameplay and plot need significant restructuring to be lucid and clear to non-Fallout players, and then the entire article really needs a stiff copyedit to clarify ideas and sequences. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thanks for the feedback. I've incorporated the majority of your suggestions but for the last dot point under general, do you mean write it as something like: x and y highly praised the addition of new quests but a, b and c disliked the newly introduced puzzle sections. The block related parts were compared to Minecraft due to the building aspect by f, g and h.? Also, wouldn't the plot suggestion fall under WP:SYNTH? Apologies if it doesn't apply at all; WP:SNYTH has always confused me. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was along the lines of what I was thinking for the reception. SYNTH just means you can't use content from two different sources to state something that is in neither of them. Presumably the primary source (the game) mentions who these people and organizations are, right? For the Sole Survivor, all you really even need to do is explain that's who the player character is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thanks for the advice! I think I've done all that you've suggested, except for changing the image rationales. I'm not the best at writing those so if you could provide examples of good rationales that'd be great. If you have any other suggestions, be sure to let me know . Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Thanks for the help, Jaguar and David Fuchs. I'm going to take this to FAC now. I've trimmed and edited the synopsis a small bit more and I think it works better now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)