Talk:Vault 112

Comments

• Y Vault 112 § Tranquility Lane paragraphs 2 and 3 (primarily): I'd really like to see more inline citations instead of the groups of citations late in, or at the end of, the paragraphs. Specifically, for lines like:

Y The Lone Wanderer's third task is to then kill Mabel Henderson in a "creative way"... - uncertain if that is a description from player/reviewer pov or if that is coming from quest text/dialogue.

Killing Henderson in a "creative way" is what Braun specifically tasks the Lone Wanderer to do. That said, added "specifically" to make it clearer. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Y ...if the player had checked her vital signs before the simulation entrance, the terminal reveals... - this is an easily missed detail (Bethesda loves them), is there a reliable source that specifically mentions this?

Sure! Per the Game Rant source, "It’s also worth noting that the terminal tracking her current status lists that there’s an anomaly in her vitals and that her stress level is extremely high." I also checked game footage, and it does check out there as well, but it's better to be linkable to some secondary source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Y Vault 112 § Vault 112 paragraph 1: Ref #2 - Assembling a Mosaic of the Future, this is a great source for describing the world, although it doesn't mention Vault 112 or G.E.C.K., this is another place that I would like to see the citation matched to the info it's giving a bit better. (not a requirement because I see where the info it's providing is, I just think it would be a bit easier on the layman)

It's mentioned in the other source "Destroying Yesterday's World of Tomorrow Playing in the Wasteland." Linking quotes below: PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

"The 'Garden of Eden Creation Kit,' also known as the G.E.C.K. was supposedly issued to the Vaults in preparation for the war, to be used for terraforming the earth, purifying the water, and making the planet livable again. However it is clear from the state of the wasteland that this has not happened, at least not on a large or meaningful scale."

"Since none of the vault methods of control have served to keep everyone safe in either example of Vault 101 and Vault 112, it is clear that the Vault-Tec technology is flawed from the outset."

• Y Vault 112 § Reception paragraph 3: Grey also connected the Chinese soldiers' mowing back of the American residents to the player's own behavior throughout the game likely having killed a lot at the Capital Wasteland.

Is the "mowing back" meant to instead be "mowing down"?

Fixed. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

"likely having killed a lot at the Capital Wasteland" - feels very awkwardly worded, at the very least the "at" seems like it should be an "in".

Added a comma and replaced "at" with "in." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Y Vault 112 § Reception paragraph 3: ...recalled the two paths that the player character can in Tranquility Lane to allow themself... → ...recalled the two paths that the player character can take/choose/etc in Tranquility Lane to allow themself...

Picked "choose." PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Y I'm assuming there isn't much more information that can be put into the Vault 112 § Development information section, I'm not sure if since it's a main quest if there is any more that gives details about level designers or writers.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any in-depth development source relating to vaults or other locations, though if there is, I would be happy to add them in the future. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Y Is there any information that could be added about Vault 112 or its components being featured in any of the other titles? For example, the loungers and the pint sized slasher being present in Fo4. (Pint-Sized Slasher and Virtual Workshop CC's)

Well, I'm not too sure about adding Creation Club content in general. I think this is something I'll have to think about, but for now, I don't think it's necessary to reference these specific elements on this page. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable, especially since (a majority of) the CC is not canon.

Other than those few thoughts, it looks great. Points 1, 3, and 4 are more vital, points 2, 5, and 6 are queries/not going to stop an approval.

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After another read through and the changes from above I am satisfied with how the article reads. It's interesting without being long-winded while still maintaining a high level of important details.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead is well-written and summarizes the article concisely, layout and sections are appropriate for the subject, no peacocks or weasels (other than what is directly quoted), follows guidelines for writing about fiction.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Order of end of article sections follow MOS:LAYOUTWORKS and references vs. external links sections are clearly identified.
	2b. 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).	All sources are provided no later than the end of the paragraph and quotations are cited immediately. A few sources are marginal, but after review are perfectly fine for how they are used.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything in the article has secondary sources and there is no anecdotal information.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows 21%, all similarities are proper nouns or attributed quotes. I see no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Describes the vault, the related quest, gives a brief description of what a vault is.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Succinct, provides detailed information without going too much into the quest lines, provides background information without retelling too much from the main article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The reviews and scholarly articles provided give a good range of opinions on the sequence, all information is presented similarly to how it is presented in game and without the editors opinions.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Hasn't been heavily edited since early September, suitably stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	3 fair use images all tagged appropriately.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant and well-chosen. Captions are descriptive. I really like the inclusion of the concept art.
	7. Overall assessment.	I think everything looks good. It is easy to read and informative. With the changes I am happy to approve, great job.

Close

• @Snugglebuns Addressed about everything. If there's anything else I need to do, let me know, but otherwise thanks and good day. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid: Thank you for being my first review and thank you for the enjoyable read! Snuggle 🖤 (they/them/it) (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)