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

Nominator: Famous Hobo ( talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewer: Vacant0 ( talk · contribs) 10:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. -- Vacant0 ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 48% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. See below.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No issues were found in the lede.
  • The rest of the article also looks good. I did not find any grammar errors.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add alt texts to the images in the article.
  • The lede could be shortened to just two paragraphs, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. It meets the rest of the MOS:LEDE guideline.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{ reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable. Good job on archiving the refs.
  • Spotchecked Ref 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 19, 23–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Checking potential copyvio.
    • Seems to be a false positive. It picked up the quotes that are in text.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • For a cancelled game, this is a well-researched article.
  • When was Interplay acquired by Titus Interactive?
  • The article stays on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • All looks to be good.

Final comments

@ Famous Hobo: There are only a couple of minor issues that need to be addressed. Other than that, the article is in a good shape. I'll put the review on hold for a week. Once the issues get addressed, I'll promote the article. -- Vacant0 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Vacant0: Hi there! Thank you for taking on this review. I added alt text to the four images and provided the year when Titus acquired Interplay. Regarding the lede, I combined the second and third paragraphs and cut out the bit about Bethesda amending the lawsuit to preclude the use of any materials from the Fallout series. I wasn't sure if that part was necessary to mention in the lede. Famous Hobo ( talk) 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Looks good now. Promoting. Vacant0 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply