Wikiwand AI

Talk:Fortnite Battle Royale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Internet culture To-do:, Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: ...
Close

GA review

Passed. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 14:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fortnite Battle Royale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zippybonzo (talk · contribs) 19:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Weird, my comments weren't substed properly but I'll paraphrase them from memory. Generally flawless prose, could potentially be made more concise however it's not rambling. I haven't found any major issues with spelling/grammar, however the term "esports" is capitalised differently throughout the article, for example one instance is "esports" and another is "eSports" (minor inconsistency but I thought I'd pick up on it). Generally it's broad, I couldn't find a significant amount of jargon or other issues that may make it hard for some demographics to understand it.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Generally meets all MOS guidelines, however lead has some uncited claims that it would be nice for an inline citation to be added to them rather than relying on users reading the main section about them below, notably "Epic Games launched the mode after two months of development, later assigning a dedicated team to support its rapid growth." and "with hundreds of millions of registered players and significant revenue across multiple platforms.". The lead is a little on the long side (~400 words) and does go quite in depth, for example about development, however it's not incredibly long.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    There are a few spots in the lead that should be cited inline, I mentioned them in my comments on 1b, however otherwise I can't spot any issues.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    It's definitely on the longer size, and at times, I think it goes into detail that would be best on another article. To list some, the special modes would either be better on the main Fortnite page, as it details different modes of Fortnite (as opposed to Fortnite Battle Royale), or move it to it's own page entirely. In "seasonal changes and promotional events", the summary is on the long side, and should be trimmed down with more of the content being moved into the main article.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    There aren't really too many viewpoints in this, however in the impact section there's good coverage of all impacts, so I have no issues with NPOV on this.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No sign of edit warring/disputes, my only concern is the potential of vandalism due to the fact that Fortnite attracts a young/immature audience, however it being semi'd should probably be a good enough prevention.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Caption for the first gameplay screenshot could be better but otherwise it's good.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    While there are a few issues (notably with the lead), overall it meets the criteria.
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.

Query

Spotted the promotion via the WP:GAN feed and wanted to give a MA... Zippybonzo, did you conduct any spot checks for this review? I can't see any evidence for it. Asking the nominator to cite that the game launched after 2 months of development (not even slightly required under WP:LEADCITE), but no questions about any of the almost 300 refs? Or the Forbes contributor in the sources?

I don't doubt the nominator's ability, but I spot-checked 1 ref (82 in Development) because it attributed a lot of material to 1 citation—over half of the material cited isn't verified (source doesn't mention prolonged development, industry pressure, GAAS, or Paragon—maybe a different source got lost somewhere?). Mistakes happen, and we owe it to nominators to make sure the articles are as best as they can be – please conduct/provide evidence of spot checks. All this does is throw doubt on what should be an exhilarating achievement. I've never seen a review for an article of this size where the nominator has nothing to action. If you disagree/want a 2nd opinion, one of us can make a post at WT:GAN requesting wider input on the review.

PS. @Nub098765: Might be worth including the EU situation re: the Apple lawsuit, as it returned to the EU iOS in 2024 due to EU law. Don't know a whole lot about Fortnite without looking through the sources but that I do know! – ImaginesTigers 18:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I must've killed a citation on accident. That's entirely my fault and something I definitely should've caught. Also, had no idea about the EU situation. And I thought I got rid of the Forbes contributor. God, I overlook lots of things sometimes. Apologies. Thank you!! nub :) 18:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Mistakes happen; I'm sorry you did not get a reviewer who caught them. Ultimately it's a reviewer's responsibility to find these things. If Zippy won't provide a reasonable-length spot check, I' strongly advise you go to WT:GAN and ask for a 2nd opinion on the review. Sorry for the cloud over the achievement; it's a very impressive piece of work. – ImaginesTigers 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I imagine I'd follow the same procedure that happened with my other GAN that had no spotcheck. Well, thank you for the comment, and thank you for the compliment. I'm just trying to get this article the best I can. nub :) 18:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I did spot check roughly 1 source from each paragraph and didn't spot any blaring issues, but I'm happy to do a more detailed spot check and will do so tonight — Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:29, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Full spotcheck

Numbered from Special:PermanentLink/1304189823: 5, 7, 11, 12, 18, 22, 23, 27, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 52, 56, 61, 63, 65, 70, 74, 77, 78, 83, 85, 87, 91, 96, 99, 103, 105, 108, 111, 113, 117, 122, 125, 127, 130, 134, 139, 144, 145, 149, 153, 157, 162, 165, 167, 172, 175, 180, 184, 185, 188, 192, 196, 201, 205, 206, 209, 211, 213, 218, 222, 225, 227, 231, 236, 240, 245, 249, 254, 259, 263, 264, 267, 271, 276, 279, 283, 284, 288

Will begin spot check in a few hours, but will commit to it now and write the numbers just to make it clear I do intend on finishing the review properly per above.

  • 5: fine
  • 7: "derived from the original Fortnite: Save the World mode.", source doesn't support this, it mentions the building system but not that it was derived from Save the World mode.
  • 11: fine
  • 12: fine
  • 18: fine
  • 22: fine
  • 23: paywalled, but archive.org serves it fine
  • 27: fine
  • 34: fine
  • 39: fine
  • 41: fine
  • 43: fine

Zippy, I'll do a random spread of these to reduce labour and hopefully we can just call it done. – ImaginesTigers

  • 45: partial fail; does not support that it replaced Playground
  • 52: Pass
  • 61: Pass
  • 63: Pass
  • 65: Pass
  • 70: Pass
  • 74: Pass
  • 77: Pass
  • 134: Pass
  • 139: Pass
  • 157: Pass

@Zippybonzo I think that's more than enough to call this one a pass. Thanks for doing the follow-up checks :) – ImaginesTigers 10:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence ref 45 covers to better reflect the source. nub :) 10:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the help :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 10:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Interest in making a "List of IPs that have collaborated with Fortnite"?

i just think it might be a good resource to have, idk. im new to this obviously

Is it worth adding a story or plot section?

Fortnite has had an overarching storyline with recurring characters since chapter 2 or late 2019. Is it within Wikipedia guidelines to add the plot Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss it, you could probably add a paragraph or two to § Seasonal changes and promotional events in the Gameplay section. An entire section, I'd argue, is too much for a game that is primarily about its battle royale aspect. nub :) 18:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
It is covered in detail on the seasonal event page. It's too complicated for this page. Masem (t) 19:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Not even abstract summary about island and cyclical chapter based plot? Hydrogenbicycle (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
A paragraph to describe that the multidimensional events, probably calling out Jonesy and Hope as principle recurring characters, would be reasonable. Just that the narrative is extremely loose for all purposes. Masem (t) 04:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks