Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Grand Theft Auto III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Grand Theft Auto III (second peer review)

The last nomination didn't exactly produce the amount of suggestions expected, so I'm nominating this article for the second time to see what is still needed to be done before it reaches GA and then FA statuses. The main concern at this point is size: This article has undergone substantial bloating in the past months to the point that the article's file size now slightly above 50kb. Some of the information provided are also unverifiable (such as information on the graphics of the game, criticism of the game (not to be confused by the game's controversy) and various passages in the controversy section). There are also concerns that the general quality of the writing in here is not up to par with FA articles. Comments are very much welcomed. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ╫

My biggest complaint here is the amount of comparison to the previous games in the series; the commentary jumps back and forth enough to make me confused. Comments like "It should be noted that carjacking standard vehicles no longer award cash rewards," don't tell me anything about GTA3, and its choice of words is odd; it implies that carjacking "non-standard" vehicles gives cash rewards. Other complaints:
  • The two lists (weapons and radio stations) should both be cut. The weapons are standard cruft, and the list of stations is so non-important as to be worthless.
  • Don't worry about article size in terms of kb: Half-Life 2 is also about 50kb.
  • The "Gameplay/introduction" section is fairly redundant with the rest of the gameplay section.
Hope that helps a bit. Nifboy 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll look into this (although I have addressed a few issues highlighted above). Will get to you in a while if I have a few more questions. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • "GTA III" and "Grand Theft Auto III" - The name changes in different places.
  • In the first paragraph, 2001 is linked, but the other years aren't. I'm not really sure what's right to do on that, but it just looks a bit inconsistent.
  • "It is the third in the Grand Theft Auto series"- It seems a bit pointless to say it's the 'third', because it has three in the title. Perhaps it would be better to say it's the fourth game (including GTA:London). Hmm, then I suppose that might be a bit confusing. Hmmm! Essentially, I just don't like that sentence :)
  • "...or completing odd quests." If the 'odd quests' refers to the taxi/vigilantes/ambulance quests, I think the more commonly used phrase is 'side missions'.
  • "four GTA sequels set in the GTA III's universe have been released" - Am I correct in thinking that would be GTA:VC, GTA:SA, GTA:LBC and GTA:LBC on the PS2? Just want to make sure the article is accurate there.
  • "became 2001's top grossing video game" - Source for that?
  • The genre is listed as 'Action'. The categories say 'vehicular combat' and 'third person shooter'. GTA:VC is an action-adventure and third-person-shooter. GTA:SA is action and driving. It would be good if this could be made consistent, although the genre slightly changed going from VC to SA.
  • There's not many references.
  • References should go after punctuation. Like this.[1] Not like this [2] .
  • There's a few {{fact}} templates that need sorting.
  • There are no screenshots of a mission. There's only a picture of a side mission.
  • Image:Gta3pc.jpg and Image:Gta3casino.jpg don't have any fair use rational on them.
  • The image captions are a bit short. The ones in GTA:VC and GTA:SA are better. Most of the images have specific purposes and extra details, such as the location of the picture.
  • "The gameplay mechanics of GTA III has largely remain unchanged from its previous revisions" - Should that be "have largely". I'm not sure, I'm thinking has=singular and have=plural.
  • It doesn't say anywhere that the protagonist is mute. I think that's fairly unusual and makes a difference to the game, because off the addition of cut scenes.
  • The weapons list seems a bit out-of-place. I think the slot info isn't needed. That kind of thing would be more appropriate on the StrategyWiki. Actually, I just had a look and noticed that it doesn't even say it there!
  • "and/or" - Shouldn't be included in articles. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation for details.
  • "The radio ads also gave out their official phone numbers which were also (apparently) registered by Rockstar" - Would it be possible to determine if that is true (and then provide a source) or false (and then remove it).
  • It would be good to convert the radio station list into paragraphs or just remove it altogether, because there's already an article with information about all of them, which is linked in that section.
  • "Grand Theft Auto III's graphics is" - Should that be "graphics are", because "graphics" is a plural?
  • "US$49.95" - I don't know how much that is. I could go to a currency convertor on a different site, but that would mean I'd stop reading the article. It would be better to say it in comparison to how much other games usually cost when they are released. Is that lower, normal, more?
  • There's a few weasel words around, like "arguably" and "allegation".
  • There's a few peacock words around, like "remarkable" and "notable"
  • There's a few jackdaw-ostrich-kangaroo-elephant words around
  • The criticism section needs references. I think the graphics were scrutinised because the GTA games have never really been about fancy graphics, they've been more about gameplay. I think, for example, GTA2 was released when everyone and everyone else was making 3D games, but they wanted to stay with 2D because they weren't ready and the game would have sufferred.
  • "fixed in 'Vice City" - The whole name should be displayed, the apostrophe doesn't look right.
  • The whole criticism section seems a bit exaggerated, but I guess I'm biased because I really like the game. I'd say remove everything you can't verify, or at least put {{fact}} templates on it.
  • The "nasty limbs" cheat code is mentioned three times. Ths second time it goes into some details of how to use the cheat. I don't think that's appropriate for this page.
  • Spelling mistakes: "celeberties", "seperate", "indefinately", "predessecors", "representating", "rampage-esque" (not a word), "apologise" (not consistent with other american spellings), "boxset", "favour" (not consistent with other american spellings), "subpar", "replayability", "sociopathic", "persective", "actioned"
  • "After its initial release in Australia, the game was banned—the only country to do so—and a censored version of the game was released in its place." - I think that sentence could be written in a better way, it doesn't flow very well like that.
That should keep you busy for a while!! Icey 09:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Fixed most of the problems highlighted, but I do have a few arguments against a few recommendations:
  • "GTA III" and "Grand Theft Auto III" - The name changes in different places.
Full names are designated for the first instance of the words in each major section, based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations; all other mention of the titles are abbreviations. Most of them have been fixed, including other GTA titles.
  • In the first paragraph, 2001 is linked, but the other years aren't. I'm not really sure what's right to do on that, but it just looks a bit inconsistent.
The first "2001" link directs to the 2001 in video gaming article, which is sufficient enough if featured in the intro of the article. I don't usually support wikilinking dates unless they are relevant to the context. Unless a topic is notable enough to have made history of sorts, I usually prefer not to have date links to article that normally contain unrelated content.
  • "four GTA sequels set in the GTA III's universe have been released" - Am I correct in thinking that would be GTA:VC, GTA:SA, GTA:LBC and GTA:LBC on the PS2? Just want to make sure the article is accurate there.
The passage refers to GTA:VC, GTA:SA, GTAA and GTA:LCS. GTA:VCS has yet to be released to be included.
  • "became 2001's top grossing video game" - Source for that?
2001 NPC report, from 2001 in video gaming. Adding source to the link and rewording "grossing" to "selling" to clear things up.
  • "US$49.95" - I don't know how much that is. I could go to a currency converter on a different site, but that would mean I'd stop reading the article. It would be better to say it in comparison to how much other games usually cost when they are released. Is that lower, normal, more?
I don't see any problem with mentioning only one currency. Besides, there is the complication and questionable practicality of mentioning several more currencies if the pricing is not consistent.
  • The "nasty limbs" cheat code is mentioned three times. The second time it goes into some details of how to use the cheat. I don't think that's appropriate for this page.
I've cut down the number of mentions of the cheat to only one. The mention of the nasty limbs code is essential to note that the feature is still available in the PS2 version of the game (if the code is verified, that is). Leaving out this detail may imply that the feature is completely removed in this version of the game.
  • Spelling mistakes:...
Fixed all except "Subpar" and "Actioned."
I haven't fixed all of the problems, though (especially the issue of POV wording, and use of "and/or" in the article), but I will when I get back to this article soon. I'll also see what can be done about screenshots. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC) ╫
Cool, thanks for getting those things sorted. Mentioning the cheat once is fine. With the currency thing, I agree that adding other currencies would be a bad idea, but I think saying how much that is in relation to other computer games would be worthwhile. If you want me to take any specific screenshots, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Icey 21:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the whole "Money System" subsection can be nixed (or condensed and place into another part); it just isn't that notable of an element of gameplay. In every GTA I've experienced, it's been mildly important at first but quickly becomes irrelevant as you start making more money than you can spend. --Mitaphane talk 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged the half of the section that notes the major changes made in the money section (most notably the abolishment of money-based goals and downgrading of money earned in informal activities (crashing/destroying cars, killing pedestrians/policemen, etc.) to the general gameplay section. The other half is simply repeating what is already mentioned in the rest of the article and pedessesors' articles, so that can be removed. Thanks for the feedback. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC) ╫