Talk:Fallout: New Vegas

GA Reassessment

Fallout: New Vegas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: With thanks to Famous Hobo ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article currently has lots of unsourced content and issues with prose (the gameplay section is one long paragraph). The page also displays too much content on fan-made mods, as posted about here by an IP in January of this year. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zmbro: To address that IP's comments, the mods that are mentioned are the mods were covered by reliable sources. I could see an argument for creating an article titled Fallout: New Vegas modding, splitting most of the current info there, and making a small summary in this article, as was done with Skyrim. No comment yet regarding the other issues mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the similar Skyrim modding so if there is enough content to warrant a separate modding page for New Vegas I don't see why we couldn't split. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Zmbro I took a stab at shortening the mods section on my sandbox. Frankly I'm not sure what else to include. Yes the mods themselves have received media attention, but considering the article is about Fallout New Vegas itself and not the individual mods I wanted to keep the section short. Also, this article says that the modding scene was instrumental in turning the perception of New Vegas into a beloved classic, so I could merge the mods paragraph with the reappraisal section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't have individual sections. If the mods were integral to the game's lasting reception I think that should surely be discussed in reappraisal. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo- I'm biased since it's a part of my username but the mention of Tale of Two Wastelands had more than enough reliable sources, including an article by IGN on it two weeks ago. I'll leave it up to you on how to re-add it but I think it definitely should be mentioned. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW: So the mods section was the first thing I rewrote simply because it was one of the main issues brought up at the beginning of the good article reassessment. But after reading through some other info about Fallout: New Vegas I can across this article, which among other things, talks about how the active modding scene was integral to making the game the beloved classic it is today. Whether or not that's actually true, I have no idea, I play on console. Regardless I plan on expanding the reappraisal section to include info about how important the modding scene was, and I want to include info about the bigger mods like New California, The Frontier, and Two Wastelands. You're right that the Two Wastelands mod does deserve to at least have a brief mention. I'll get around to it eventually, I'm just slowly but surely working my way through the article. I plan on rewriting the initial reception section next. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries, you are doing great work with the GA rewrite so far. I just wanted to make sure that the mod was kept since it's definitely notable for inclusion.

I will have to say in regards to the notability of other mods- I would love to write an entire article on New Vegas modding as its a subject that I know a lot about, but reliable sources are sparse and oftentimes recommend poor quality mods (Project Nevada is mentioned in a lot of publications, but it has been deprecated by the community and largely been replaced by non-notable mods that aren't buggy and broken). I definitely would write an entire "Fallout: New Vegas Modding" article if there were more sources- but as it stands, the best and most reliable information on modding are all self-published sources or guides on GitHub. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly I just don't think there are enough sources available to write about the modding scene as a whole. Your best bet would probably be to focus on some of the individual mods like New California. I'm honestly shocked there isn't an article about The Frontier mod considering how much was written about it when it came out. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this looks like a very, very clear Delist. The article as a whole is hard to read and there's citation needed tags/unsourced content throughout. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm striking my delist following the improvements made by Famous Hobo. I think the article should be good enough to keep the GA status of. λ NegativeMP1 03:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be a lot of unsourced material, and a decent amount of it is questionable in terms of its objectivity. I also think the quality of the writing in general could use improvement. I personally find it a bit awkward, but that’s a secondary issue. Cleaning up the information is definitely more of a priority.

I don’t meet the requirements to edit protected articles yet, but should I propose specific edits if I want to add/delete content? I see some things that could be cut out or restructured, but I don’t want to upset anyone (I’m very new to Wikipedia editing so I’m not familiar with the social norms here). FlookieBee (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

FlookieBee I'm interested in saving this article from losing it's GA status, and copied the entire article onto my sandbox. You should be able to freely edit on there. Just a heads up I am also editing on the sandbox so some of the text will change over the next couple days, but I don't mind you editing there. Also you can't include copyrighted images on a sandbox, which is why the cover art and gameplay screenshot have been removed (surprisingly none of the other images are copyrighted). Famous Hobo (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep as GA Hobo did a great job streamlining the article and removing unsourced material. I'll look into creating a separate article for New Vegas modding although I expect to run into problems with sourcing and the like. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Just an update on what's going on. The gameplay section has been completely rewritten (although you might want to read through the second paragraph to see if it makes sense. I'll admit it's a very simplified explanation of how skills work in this game). The plot section mostly seems fine, although I'll make a few touch ups here and there to make it seem more encyclopedic. I'm almost done rewriting the development section with new information. From there, I'll expand on the remaining sections. The nice thing about the TV series is that more information is being rewritten about New Vegas than ever before. In its current state, I think this article passes the GA requirements, but regardless I'll keep working on it. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Great to hear! I'm glad there's actually editors dedicated to cleaning it up and bringing it back up to standard (especially considering, like you said, the TV series has brought renewed interest to this game more than ever). Now if only Bethesda will make a damn remaster... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Update 2. Pretty much every part of this article has been rewritten. The one exception is the initial reception section. I'll be blunt, I fucking hate writing reception sections for video game articles, so I've been heavily procrastinating writing that section. But as it stands now, even if the reception section is left as is, I firmly believe this article passes modern GA standards. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think the improvements have brought the article back up to GA standards. Thanks again for the great work! Famous Hobo – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Mostly" open world

@Cashewnøtt: this is a meaningless distinction. Fallout 3/NV/FO4 are widely sourced as open world games. The idea that "somewhere in the game I can find a place with an invisible wall, so its only mostly" is getting pedantic. We follow sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2024

Change "It set in the Mojave Desert, years after a nuclear war" under gameplay to "It is set in the Mojave Desert, years after a nuclear war" NoGodsNoMasters2281 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

All done! Galaxy111 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2024 (2)

In the gameplay section there is a typo, it is supposed to say "There are a variety of weapons" but it says "There a variety of weapons" instead. Idek24 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)