Article(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch
Nominator:PrimalMustelid (talk ·contribs)07:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer:Vrxces (talk·contribs)00:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I remember this surviving AfD - lovely to see it now be very fleshed out. I should be able to properly review in a day or two. However, as a first bit of feedback - do any of the available sources discuss the background and development of designing the settlement? It would appear to be a significant omission that none of the developers talked about what their goals were with designing it - there's almost certainly primary sources out there about that.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)00:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, and thanks for taking the review! Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any development info for Megaton (or most locations) in secondary sources or primary ones like the art book and official guide. A real shame, but I don’t think Bethesda is famous for giving out extensive behind the scenes coverages.PrimalMustelid (talk)02:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No stress, hey, that's due diligence, so not a problem. Looking forward to reviewing.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)03:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, will probably prompt for a second opinion on this one: I may not be able to diligently complete and feel a little less confident assessing where the standard should be for a fictional subject matter article - apologies for the delay. I think you've done a really good and in-depth job compiling all the retrospective sourcing, and there might be a little bit of work to do, but it's a long way from where it was at the AFD nomination and that's great.
- Some thoughts:
- Sourcing in the article leans moderately onsituational sources. A bit under half of the sources are fromValnet style sources likeScreen Rant,Game Rant andTheGamer. These are not a no-go entirely, but do suggest we are stretching to less favored sources to try and substantiate details and commentary about the subject.
- There's two holes in the content that feel like omissions to a complete summary: the first on background and development, you've mentioned has little sourcing out there. Contemporary reception is also missing: the retrospective sourcing is great and you would expect it forWP:SUSTAINED, but for a game published in 2008 all sources and perspectives are coming from long after the game's release. The Internet Archive is probably the best bet here.
- The article isn'tWP:NOTPLOT but there's some aspects that feel overly detailed: for instance, it's a good point that due to its location, Megaton is the first settlement players may encounter, and that's substantiated by a source, but the summary then opines how it could be difficult to miss unless the player goes down a road. It's just little things like that worth considering how much they add to the article as they don't come from the sources.
- The summaries of the 'reception' section paraphrase what's said a little extensively: there's long, winding sentences and one summary even has a paragraph-long four sentences dedicated to it. Do these sources share common views that can be combined and summarized? What aspects of the sources have noteworthy points and what may not be useful commentary for a reader trying to get a feel for the key points of praise or commentary about it?
- To address the above, I'd say there are definitely a few more sources out there missed in the article: for instance, those I listed in the AFD[1] which may be of interest.
- Great draft, lot of work put into getting this to GAN. Thanks again for your patience and apologies I can't quite see this one through.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)22:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimalMustelid: Providing a second opinion. The article has potential. However, there are some issues that are keeping this from becoming a GA. I largely agree with@Vrxces:'s assessment.
- Without real world details about the design/conception of the subject, the article does not meet GA criteria 3a: address the main aspects of the topic.
- The amount of detail (primarily in the Appearances section) is a bit much. Some trimming would help make the prose more concise.
- One of the sources (I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire... or Do I?: Playing (with) History in Fallout 3) is a masters thesis, which are typically discouraged perWP:THESIS. There are exceptions in guideline though. Can you provide evidence this source meets the exceptions?
Let me know if you need additional information about any of the above points. (Guyinblack25talk23:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
- Hi, just saw your second opinion and since that’s arrived, I’ll get to addressing everything over the weekend. Thanks.PrimalMustelid (talk)00:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, so I'll provide my thoughts so far:
- Unfortunately, there's no behind-the-scenes coverage of this topic, but I don't think this inherently blocks the article from becoming a GA so long as it's well-written elsewhere.
- I removed a few less important details in the appearances section but otherwise can't find much else to remove since they do contribute to helping the player to understand what it is and what if offers.
- I saw similar criticisms to a lesser extent for reception, and I don't that in itself is a problem since fictional elements article can go in-depth using sources that mainly cover it. However, if you wish, I can reorganize the section based on specific areas. I'll also implement additional sources mentioned by VRXCES.
- I did use a thesis to cover specific areas of a fact, but I only used it once and it does state what's in the game that can be verified quick. However, I can potentially remove it if it proves necessary to.
- I'll get to the third comment where I implement additional sources to the reception section in a bit.PrimalMustelid (talk)00:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, well-written isn't the only criteria for GA. Some development information is needed to be comprehensive. Have you checked the Internet Archive? Here are some links that could be helpful (some might be more contemporary reception content, not sure how much is specific to Megaton though). TheGDC vault might have some useful information too. I can give you time to dig into these.
- Regarding the thesis sources, it would be best to remove them. A reminder - the video game's dialog can also be cited (Template:Cite video game). First party sources don't establish notability, but they can be used to fill in a few gaps that third party sources don't cover.
- Regarding the length, I can see if there are more areas to trim. Given the topic, more detail is possible than the game article, but it should still be concise and written for the layman. (Guyinblack25talk17:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
- @PrimalMustelid: Found a few more things worth checking out:
- You can search for "megaton" in the files find the relevant pages. (Guyinblack25talk19:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
- Sure thing, I’ll get to everything here tomorrow, thanks.PrimalMustelid (talk)19:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guyinblack25 @Vrxces So I've updated the article so far, removing thesis sources and adding additional sources for the reception section. There's not much relating to the development of Megaton specifically, so I just added what little detail I can vaguely relating to it. In the meantime, I think everything in the appearances section is important enough and the reception section is required to cover authors' commentaries in sufficient detail to provide the full necessary and summarized context for the reader to understand what they are arguing. Do let me know what else I'll need to do.PrimalMustelid (talk)07:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
