Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Update?

I just booted up GTA IV and the game is updating itself to version 1.01 ... anyone know what this is about? Neıl ☎ 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a patch to fix online Gameplay for the Playstation 3 (Clarkey4boro (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

Ahem, WP:FORUM John Hayes^talk 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. It's been added to the article that the PS3 has version 1.01 (the update mentioned above). The Vandal Warrior (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He said "anyone know what this is about" not "how can we can we integrate this into the article". Either way the fact that the latest version is 1.01 can be noted, but not what it contains (unless there is widespread coverage of this), therefore there is no need to ask what he did. John Hayes^talk 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. I was hoping someone would know what it was about SO we could get some text "integrated into the article". Neıl ☎ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Split/merge

How should we go about these potential articles? Should they be part of a large article/list or seperate:

• Characters
• Main Characters
• Niko

 Done, 5 July 2007 by 86.138.181.210.

• Missions (in general)
• Individual Missions

 Done The Cousins Bellic

I was bold, but it got deleted soon after :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vandal Warrior (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Random Character Missions (in general)
• Individual Random Character Missions
• Side-missions - Vigilante, Drug Delivery etc (in general)
• Side-missions - Vigilante, Drug Delivery etc (as seperate articles)
• Individual side-missions for Vigilante, Drug Delivery etc
• Weapons (in general)
• Individual weapons
• Vehicles (in general)
• Individual Vehicles

Please comment under each bullet point rather than the whole section and feel free to add more potential articles. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

NB: There is an article on CJ from San Andreas and an article on GTA IV Controversies. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

imo, we should cross these bridges when we come to them. xenocidic (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick break down:

• Articles on characters - at best, you will get one on Nico. Not individual articles on the other characters - there is a general article for characters, which will suffice.
• Missions - absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a game guide. If you want to go into that kind of thing, I suggest the GTA wiki at http://gta.wikia.com/. This goes for random character missions, side missions, individual missions, etc, in general or specific missions.
• Weapons / Vehicles - no. Again, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unless there are multiple independent reliable sources about these topics (and no, GTA wikis, fansites, or the GTA guidebook do not count), then such articles are not suitable for a general encyclopedia Wikipedia. Yet again, this sort of detailed, specific stuff is more suited to the GTA wiki. Neıl ☎ 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I really needed some info on how this stuff is dealt with and thanks for the GTA wiki. Why can't the brady games game guide be used as a reference? (by the way it says serbian) The Vandal Warrior (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be used as a reference, I was trying to say it couldn't be the sole reference with which to base an article on - you would need properly independent references (eg newspaper articles, independent books, web articles from notable sites (basically, the site has a Wiki article that doesn't describe it as a blog), magazine articles, etc). Neıl ☎ 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sentence makes little to no sense (bad english sentence?)

In the soundtracks section, there's the following sentence: "However, certain stations with multiple DJs limit specific songs to be played by each DJ, with the result that the same sound loop can be heard starting a DJ's set whenever the player enters a vehicle." I'd fix it myself to be *real* English, but I'm not sure as to what it's saying ;) --Vylen (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at what I think was meant by it. The whole sentence is OR so I've trimmed the end of it and fact tagged the main part. - X201 (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

Whats going on with the resolution section? I know PS3 is 640 native, and the 360 is 720 native. However the current reverts seem to indicate that 1080p is native on the 360(?). Im not 100% sure what the agreed format was however so I wont change it. John.n-IRL 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocobogamer, im not saying it shouldn't have the correct resolutions, just unfamiliar with any kind of agreed formatting etc etc. John.n-IRL 23:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. well it prob shud stay off until its decided anyway *shrug* Chocobogamer (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

fao: markthemac

also on your personal talk page

careful with what you argue regarding 'facts' and whether its only a fact if admitted by Rockstar. That isn't true. Its a fact that the Xbox 360 has a higher-than-average failrate, it took ages for Microsoft to admit it, but it was still a fact. If it comes up on peoples TVs saying 640P or whatever, and several people take a photo, that is proof. If its been reported on several websites, as it has, and these sites are reliable, then it should stay, as per Wiki's rules. Chocobogamer (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Obscuring the facts won't change them. xenocidic (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

GameStop and EB Games sales

{{editprotected}}

Can someone add something along these lines to the article: GameStop and EB Games reported that the game sold extremely well the first week after its release, noting that its stores in Puerto Rico led all districts in pre-release reservations and sales 48 hours after its release." - per this report? 24.139.221.19 (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

 Not done needs reliable references, preferably in english, properly formatted. Looks like a good point to add though. Happy‑melon 10:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is reliable I have used it on several biographies, its a mainstream newspaper, the second most distributed in Puerto Rico as a matter of fact. I just browsed over the piece but its a interview with the GameStop's general manager in the island, he seems to be discussing the game's success in the stores nationwide and in the fact that Puerto Rico oversold the other districs. I will take a better look into it later and will try to add it NPOV, without the "extremely well" et al. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

pc

Does anybody know if the game will be released for PC?.Srmagnetismo (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

simple answer is no --Vylen (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly ([1]). Neıl ☎ 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It will be released but i don't think it going to happen this year.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a FORUM!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.214.253 (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer Together?

Can some one with an Xbox360 play online with some one with a PS3, or vise versa? Maybe this should be included in the multiplayer section.

24.124.49.158 (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: No. --Svip^pong 09:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

paynspray

i think it shud say more about pay n spray as in that u cant let the cops see you otherwise the pay n spray doesnt work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.105.83 (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Without a source that's WP:OR 2) That's an in-world detail rather than something which is notable about this game. John Hayes^talk 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least 2) I'd object to. I think it's quite notable, making the game more realistic as in the previous installments you could use it even in plain sight of the cops chasing you. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is notable given that yes, they've changed an aspect of the game which has since now, stayed the same ever since it was in the game. But then that would mean every other thing has to be noted that differs from the norm (norm being how its been in previous instalments) - and a lot of that would fall under OR --Vylen (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has changed in-game, doesn't mean that it is notable in the real world (for the general public rather than gamers) If you can find multiple third party sources, independent of the game, discussing this, then it can go into the article. John Hayes^talk 08:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RPG?

Who the hell put RPG as a genre for this game? This game has nothing to do with role playing.

I would remove it myself, but since the article is locked, I can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.208.11 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it. --Svip^pong 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree not an RPG in the terms, however an RPG is defined, in its title and definition, as a game where you take the role of one, or many, character(s), and follow a specific story. RPGs are different from series to series, sometimes even game to game, take Final Fantasy - sometimes all humans with no job classes (8), sometimes no true levelling up (2), taking on the role of maybe one character (11), sometimes no random battles (11,12). To define a role player isn't easy but if you take it as a bare-level definition, nearly every game out is in some form a role player. Therefore I do agree it shouldn't be there, but I can see why it was. Chocobogamer (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass - The article is extremely well written, and the prose is clear.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass - The article is factually accurate and has many reliable and verfiable sources to back up the information in the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - The article is very broad in its coverage, and covers all aspects of the subject.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass - The article includes a suitable number of fair use images

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. JayJ47 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know how it passed stability, but hey, it's all good. John Hayes^talk 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It passed stability because, although it was being vandalised beforehand, it was put under protection, which stops vandals from vandalising the page. It is therefore stable. JayJ47 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the article's listing at WP:GA and put it back up at WP:GAN. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Grand_Theft_Auto_IV. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the line 'Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold' applies here, as there is still lots of information coming into this article. John Hayes^talk 11:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see there is much more need for information. The game has been released for two weeks and almost all information should be there already. Everything that follows now are corrections or minor details, no major changes. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gamerankings

Should it be noted that the PS3 version is #1 while the 360 is #3 on gamerankings?Zabbethx (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no, such ranks can change quite often and say nothing about the game but only about GR's list of reviewed games. --SoWhy ^Talk 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

There are loads of obvious spelling errors with just a brief read through. I was gonna fix them but discovered it was locked. Ryancb06 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Which are you refering to? Grsz^talk 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimitri spelled dmitri in several spots. Is what i notice at the moment with out going to in detail cause I gotta head off to work. Yesterday I noticed much more in just skimming the beginning. Ryancb06 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be linguistically correct, determining the language of origin. It's probably best to see how it's spelled in game. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 12:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's spelled Dimitri in game. Neıl ☎ 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is for certain the correct spelling.Ryancb06 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Speed Tree

According to the SpeedTree website, their software is used in GTA 4.

http://www.speedtree.com/gallery/index.php?Page=95

Perhaps this should be added somehow? James (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more reliable sources. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than the SpeedTree website itself?.... The wiki entry for SpeedTree even notes GTA IV as a product that uses it - as well as R* owning a Licence to use their products... --Vylen (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not reliable. (Heh, if you want, I could make a website that says my software was used in GTAIV...) And other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, for obvious reasons. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's only true if we're talking about personal websites, such as blogs. The official website of SpeedTree/IDV is a reliable source. GTAIV is being prominently advertised on their front page, so there is no doubt. Not like they'd be lying about it, anyway. /Carson 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The claim on the public website of a company is useful to verify they made that claim but it is borderline when it comes to verying it as factual. More importantly, it may not be noteable for the article on GTA IV, particularly if it's not covered in reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SpeedTree is a primary source, though. Why can't we assume that their claim is truthful, since they're reputable and we have no way of verifying the code ourselves? Otherwise, what source could be considered more reliable? I agree about its notability though; I don't see a good place in the article to stick this little factoid. /Carson 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

← Thought I don't necessarily agree with the practice, many games list Speed Tree under the engine section as "Foliage: SpeedTree" xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How about these for secondary sources? - http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18441 or http://www.thestate.com/214/story/389272.html kollision (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

By Jaysweet's logic, the official GTA IV website is not a reliable source for info either.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not for info about GTA, without a supporting third party source. John Hayes^talk 08:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would a third party be needed to support information provided by a primary source? The official GTA website is authoritative for this topic, and cannot be biased or contentious. /Carson 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's working on the principle that the third party has read the same information and deemed it reliable. Thus if a reliable third party has published it then the initial claim from the primary source is deemed reliable. - X201 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS explains it for you. John Hayes^talk 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This could have an easy solution if someone would watch the ending credits of the game and if IDV or Speedtree is listed there then its confirmed as its on the games credit list. I presuming this game has them like in all the other GTA games, but still listing just this company on the profile leaving all the other companies out that also contriputed to the game would be little unfair.--80.221.239.213 (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because as explained in my reply before, we shouldn't be using the game as a source for this sort of thing. John Hayes^talk 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source" (from WP:PSTS). Surely then SpeedTree could be included on the page, referencing the website, no interpretation of it, just the facts? John.n-IRL 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is largely what I'm getting at. My position is based on how I understand WP:PSTS. Why would a third party be needed to deem the primary source reliable? They're just rehashing a simple statement, and really aren't going beyond "I saw Rockstar and SpeedTree's claims, and I believe them." The game itself is the ultimate primary source; there's no need to have someone else reconfirm/restate bits of info that aren't open to reinterpretation, unless we have reason to distrust these two companies by default. /Carson 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Another good analogy into this thing would be that a particular person dies and no third-party (like any sort of news site) reports it. People like us check the body ourselves and find he's dead but apparently the corpse itself is not a good source for the fact the person is dead. Ok maybe this one is a bit extreme and convoluted but really its all silly. If the game itself claims it in the credits then why cant it be assumed to be true until otherwise proven false? (innocent till guilty sort of thing) --Vylen (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do see what you are saying, but we shouldn't be researching things about the subject of an article ourselves, we should be using the research others have done. If someone is dead and no-one has written about it then chances are they aren't notable enough for an article anyway. My main concern with it though is that it's almost impossible for your average reader to confirm, you can only if you own a copy of the game. John Hayes^talk 10:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Handjobs

Why does the section on cars talk about paying for sex and diffrent kinds of ,um "events". Not only is this untrue but it is in the wrong place, I am going to remove it using my IKnightTemplarI account if nobody can tell me why its there.(58.165.205.15 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

This is the first grand theft auto game, where you can choose different sexual activities. It is also the first grand theft auto game where you can see them doing it. Seeing people having sex might spark controversy for the game, therefore it is quite important for it to be here. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"might spark controversy for the game", sounds like wp:crystal, does it actually warrant inclusion? John.n-IRL 22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about "Unlike previous GTA games GTA IV allows the player to view the atonganist having sex with a prostitute in a vehicle." The details of which sexual activities occur doesn't warrant inclusion. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it did spark controversy with the censorship of the game in Australia - these sexual acts were removed from the game. Although as a whole the game has sparked greater controversy but i wont get into that here. --Vylen (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1- Don't see the relation to cars. 2- I live in OZ so for us that was removed, we only get to see the back end of a car going up and down or a rooftop. Also we do not get choices as to what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.205.15 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The sexual activities take place in a car, although the section it is included in is actually called Vehicles. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Niko a protagonist, not an antogonist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You may be right, but you know what a I mean. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Niko's not really an anti-hero either. Sorry. <:( --nlitement ^[talk] 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be in the vehicle section, as it's hardly focused on the cars themselves. I wouldn't know where it would belong, but DEFINATLEY not there. Ledgo (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I see it belonging in the Vehicle section, is because you can only pick up a prostitute in a vehicle, you cannot do it on foot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.214.253 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NOT the most expensive game ever

Shenmue cost approximately $70 million dollars to make. Considering inflation from 1993, when production on Shenmue started, to date Shenmue also cost approximately $100 million dollars in todays terms.

It is completely incorrect to state that GTA4 is as a fact has had the highest production cost for any game ever, the page should state that it is together with Shenmue one of the two most expensive games ever made. Pangbulle (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is the most expensive game ever made, not adjusted for inflation, that is a fact unless you have a source comparing it to Shenmue in terms of cost we shouldn't mention it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources state that it is the most expensive computer game made, then that's fine. Otherwise, it represents original research. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to mark this as dubious in the article. Read the source. The headline asks whether GTA4 might be the most expensive game, and the article says it could be IF an estimate is correct. The way it's presented in this article is as if GTA4 being the most expensive is a fact, which I don't believe to be supported by the current source. Oren0 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to adjust for inflation. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources?.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources claiming that GTA 4 is without a doubt the most expensive game ever probably do so without thinking because it is obviously a high budget game, but also because it is sensational, it is more interesting to have a new number one than to take facts into account. Not to mention, the source in the article even ends with a question mark, "Most expensive game ever developed?". Until someone can show us an objective source that shows it is for a fact the most expensive game ever and not just simply claims it, it should not be considered to be. Considering that the games have been made and released within a 15 year period (a fairly short time), the high inflation of the US Dollar during the same period should be taken into account. If we were for example talking about the difference in price of cars between the 1920s and 1990s, it is obvious that the biggest difference in number size would be because of inflation. When it comes to two games released within a 15 year period, it is not so obvious. Pangbulle (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the Kotaku source given, I would suggest saying something along the lines of "Rockstar believes the game may be the most...", since that in itself is probably noteable. John.n-IRL 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Misspelled words

i couldn't find an edit page, but it has "organisations" and the American English spelling is "organizations." --Taylert123 (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look above on this page, the article is written in British English. "organisations" is correct. --Vylen (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GTAIV NOT sandbox

The gameplay is open ended, but it has a (not entirely) linear set of missions - and is NOT a sandbox game. It should not be in the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.42.191 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA games fit almost all the definitions of a sandbox game. Like almost every other sandbox game the story is largely linear but has side missions. Otherwise it fits perfectly.Skeith (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN Review

Before going into this review, I can see that an awful lot of work has gone into shaping this article, especially in finding content. I hope this review will go some way to improving it even further and reaching Good Article status. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. I'm happy to help resolve any queries you may have in order to further improve this article. I would reccomend that once these issues are addressed that a peer review is held, requesting a full article copyedit, before resubmission.

So, going through each of the points in turn:

• It is well written.
  • Infobox - why is the version important for a console game? The release date needs to be cited. Is there a reason why the Sixaxis controller isn't mentioned in input methods?
    • Reply - Its a VG Project standard for the infobox. You mention the generic type of controller and not a specific make. Gamepad covers both consoles with one word. - X201 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You use re-imagined, both in the lead and in Setting. It's jargon and should be either removed or explained at the point where it is first used.
    •  Done has been reworded to "redesigned rendition", is that better? kollision (talk)
  • Niko being Serbian only needs one source.
    •  Done
  • Is becoming the highest rated game on Gamerankings notable? Have any third-arty news outlets referenced it? It's better to just describe that it had positive reviews.
  • It's unusual to find Development at the start of an article - it's usually found at the bottom, just above reception.
    •  Done
  • There's mention of the engine development, but little discussion of the art direction (gritty realism), audio development and so on, but there is information on this distributed throughout the article. Gather it up and place it here.
    •  Done Added paragraph on audio development. I think there enough about art direction.
  • No need to title Overview at the start of Gameplay.
    •  Done
  • One thing that's common here is saying that it's been reworked or it's different to previous versions, but there's no description of how it works now, making the text a bit impenetrable without reading further. Since we want to be able toread the article in isolatio, it would be better to explain how concepts such as wanted levels, car physics work in GTA4, then compare it with previous versions. Also note that there is a lot of jargon used in the section, such as blindfire, free aim and locked on. These terms should either be removed from the article or defined when they are first used.
  • It may be better to merge Finale with the rest of the plot, instead of having it as a section on it's own.
  • Setting - where the comparison with San Andreas is used, it may be worth reworking this and placing it into development. Also, you mention that LC is smaller than SA twice in two sentences, which should be reworded to avoid repetition. Again, you've mentioned re-imagined here, which should be explained without the jargon.
    •  Done
  • Characters, The first sentence uses relative and relatively close to eachother and should be reworded.
    •  Done
  • community and online features - there's probably too much detail here. Cross-check it with game reviews in order to pick out the key points. A lot of this stuff should be merged into Gameplay (it's online gameplay) or Development (it's development of online features). The downloadable content should be merged with the appropriate section in Development. As an when it brings in new gameplay elemtns, these should be added to Gameplay.
    • Merging done, "too much detail" not done.
  • Merge Social Club, music downloads and Playstation Home into one section - it breaks up flow if you have a heading followed by a single paragraph of text. Again, it may be appropriate to trim the detail here.
    •  Done, Music downloads merged into Soundtrack section
  • Soundtrack - the opener sounds a bit peacocky - can these comments be cited or toned down? Again, there's no need to mention each radio station in the article, only that there are a number available, with further ones becoming accessible once the player completes certain objectives.
    •  Done
  • Marketing - include in development. Having a major heading followed by a two sentence paragraph breaks flow heavily. Also, remove the inline link to Rockstar Games - it's under External Links, which is sufficient
    •  Done
  • Special Edition - again, place under development. No need to list the content - the image (free use) does that much better.
    •  Done
  • In reception the approach needs to be overhauled. The current prose lists reviews, who wrote them, who they work for, what they thought of the game and what score they gave it. This makes it more inpenetrable to the average reader - they don't need to know this level of information. Instead, rewrite it so that common things that were liked or disliked are picked out and discussed. This approach should also be used in Sales and Impact. Your refernces will tell people the information they need about the facts you state.
  • You state that GTA was the most played title on Xbox Live for w/c 28 April. Who is Major Nelson and why is he important in this case?
    • Major Nelson is the Director of Programming for Xbox Live so he is notable. But does anyone else think this information isn't that important, like it's pretty much expected to be the most played and that months or years from now this information will become irrelevant. kollision (talk)
  • There are a lot of small paragraphs in this section - consider merging them together.
  • Technical issues doesn't warrant a major heading - merge into reception (if it's been picked up on by news sites) or Development.
  • Controversy sections are discouraged. Instead, incorporate the information into Reception.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  • Some of the gameplay sections do not cite any sources. If you're referencing the game manual, cite it. If you're using game reviews to explain gameplay concepts that the reviewer described, cite them.
  • Synopsis requires referencing - if reviewers have picked up on plot elements, cite them. If needed, cite the videogame using {{cite video game}}.
  • Every score in the scorebox should be sourced and cited.
  • The first section of Controversy, after it's merge with Reception, should be sourced.
  • Some references either have the publisher in italics or are missing a publisher, date or accessdate. Check and ensure that all the reference information is there.
  • Some references do not use the cite template and need to be updated.
  • What makes GTAIV.net a reliable source?
  • What makes Edmunds inside line (edmunds.com) a reliable source?
  • Same for pspsps.tv
    •  Done
  • Same for flickr.com photos
  • Same for kikizo.com
    • Kikizo is a reliable source.
  • Same for thebitbag.com
  • Same for SeekingAlpha.com
    • Information cited is from a conference call transcript. Seeking Alpha is the only site on the Internet that contains free transcripts of the conference calls held by publicly-traded companies. Reliable source.
  • Same for xbox360fanboy.com
    •  Done

• It is broad in its coverage.
  • The article covers all the key points, but goes into too much detail at times. The section on being well written covers this as well.

• It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • There's some minor peacock terms creeping in, but these have been pointed out above.

• It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • It is being updated and improved upon, as you'd expect from a recently released videogame.

• It is illustrated, if possible, by images.
  • Image:Liberty City GTAIV.jpg - if possible, use {{Non-free use rationale}}
    •  Done
  • Image:GTA IV Special Edition copy.png - update the description to include a list of items in the photo. It's mroe relevant to have it here than in the article itself.
    •  Done

I'll be watching this page, as well as my talk page. Should you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Keep up the good work!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting suggestions. For starters, version is relevant as they released a patch for the game (which is mentioned in the article incidently). Controversy has way too much to be merged with reception, hence why it was moved in the first place. I don't really think it can be trimmed down. I'll try to work on some of the other suggestions though. --.:Alex:. 12:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think the article is looking much better already. I'm glad to be able to get rid of all those unecessary sections such as the "Playstation Home" and "Music Downloads" ect. The article looks much more streamlined now. .:Alex:. 12:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This just got archived, so I've removed it from the archive back onto the main talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)