Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V

Video games Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Redirect

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Cobra (game engine) (5 participants)
Dink (software company) (1 participant)
Jeffrey Johnson (actor) (2 participants; relisted)
Endor AG (3 participants; relisted)
Planet Half-Life (4 participants; relisted)
Flash Element TD (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Ada Wong (nom)
The Sims 4 (nom)
Smash Hit (nom)
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted (nom)

Good article nominations

Donkey Kong (nom)
Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (start)
Tina Armstrong (start)
Justin Yu (nom)
Kim Kitsuragi (start)
Miner 2049er (start)
Pixel Piracy (start)
Ether One (start)
Dr Disrespect (start)
Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass (start)
Hotline Miami (start)
Pokémon fan games (start)
The Outer Worlds (start)
River Raid (start)
The Great Giana Sisters (start)
Visions of Mana (start)
Mario Party: Island Tour (nom)
Meltan (nom)
Bejeweled (video game) (start)
Haunter (Pokémon) (start)
Lavender Town (start)
Bit City (start)
Dendy (console) (start)
SimsVille (start)

DYK nominations

No did you know nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 26, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Grand Theft Auto V caused controversy over a mission that requires players to waterboard and torture a hostage?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V.

Wikipedia

"Portrayal of Women" section quote

I thought it a little strange that the "Portrayal of women" section prominently features a response to criticism from Rockstar's head writer and VP for creative, especially with it positioned right at the top of that subsection. Shouldn't we show a quote from a critic or journalist as well? 188.220.57.174 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from Rockstar's head writer is notable. Some feminists' whinings on their blog isn't. --Goldenbirdman (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should have this one to you by tomorrow ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"the game generated controversy over a mission that requires players to use torture equipment in a hostage interrogation" - this is the opening of the lead, and it sounds like that this mission was the only controversy the game had?
"The game became subject to widespread online debate " - is it just online debate? Politicians, TV personalities and newspapers have also taken part?
The lead could be expanded just slightly in order to summarise the article better and comply per WP:LEAD. It's almost there, but some content from the Depiction of torture and Portrayal of women section could be expanded in the lead?
"protagonist Trevor Philips interrogates a man, Mr K." - this is the only mention of "Mr. K." with a full stop. The other instances appear without it
"In her review, Petit of GameSpot" - should be Carolyn Petit as this is a new section
"In July, actress Lindsay Lohan also filed a lawsuit" - July in which year?

References

No dead links, and all the refs are properly formatted

On hold

This is a well written article which is deserving of becoming GA. The only problems I could find with it are the lead section's broadness and some other minor prose issues. If all of the above can be addressed then this would have no problem passing this GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jaguar. I expanded the lead per your suggestion and fixed the "Mr K." issue. Regarding the widespread online debate, I don't think the controversy got further than the internet so it's safest to say that it was an online debate. I think that when a person's full name has been introduced earlier on in an article, we can just refer back to them with their surname, even if in a new section. Lohan filed suit in July 2014—the year 2014 is stated a few sentences earlier on, and to avoid redundancy we don't have to keep referring back to the year if it hasn't changed. Everything else is done. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them so quickly, I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria. It is broad, well referenced and now all of the issues have been dealt with. I agree with you with the online debate thing too. Anyway, another GTA GA ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]