Talk:BioShock 2: Minerva's Den/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Soetermans (talk · contribs) 08:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Hi everyone, this will be my GA review. As a long-time member of WP:VG and editor of video game-related articles, I thought it would be a good idea to help out. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance and the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria

From a first read, it's in pretty good condition. ✓ Pass

• It contains copyright violations

The copyvio tool is down, but sampling randomly did not bring up any copyvios. ✓ Pass

• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid (...)

No banners and doesn't need any. ✓ Pass

• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page

Since 2012 it was reverted three times. Very solid article. ✓ Pass

Layout

Note: while reading, I went for a quick copy-edit, instead of writing those down too.

Lead

• Shouldn't the publisher 2K Games be mentioned? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added publisher. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead is summation of the article; there's very little on gameplay or how the gameplay differs from BioShock 2. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The short plot description in the lead isn't the same as the plot; vying for control isn't exactly the same as trying to reach the supercomputer so it can be taken up to the surface. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted the plot synopsis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

• While sourced, that the order in which items and abilities are gained are "different", has no use for the general reader, as it is not assumable that they have any knowledge of how BioShock 2 is played. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you really need to know the specifics of BioShock's progression; the point is that while it has similar gameplay, the order is different, and I think that serves a general reader well enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There isn't anything on the hacking element, which is for instance mentioned in the IGN review. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• I would remove a link to The Blitz; losing his wife in World War II also covers the loss, but without linking to the Nazi Germany bombing campaign on the UK. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific event mentioned in the game where she dies is The Blitz. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Porter's "instructions" throughout the game were actually from the Thinker, imitating the voice of one of its creators" sounds as if the Thinker has several creators. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Doctor Tenenbaum is introduced in the last paragraph of the plot. I don't recall Minerva's Den that clearly, but wasn't she introduced earlier in the game? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's mentioned once before, but basically with the understanding you already know who she is. She doesn't contact you until late in the game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Development

• The term DLC is mentioned for the first time again since the lead; I would write out and link to downloadable content and put (DLC) in brackets. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I know what audio logs mean, but maybe explain it a bit for the general reader? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an explanation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Was Gaynor's job interview at 2K Marin for BioShock or BioShock 2? 2K Marin ported the original BioShock to the PlayStation 3, but maybe Gaynor helped out designing the Challenge Rooms DLC? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source unfortunately doesn't say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought that "purely aggressive weapons" in "they also adjusted the order players received equipment and plasmids to encourage players to interact with the environment rather than using purely aggressive weapons", sounded rather strange. It is sourced by Gamasutra, but there's nothing about "purely aggressive weapons". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted the wording. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release

• There's nothing about "minimal promotion" in the Gamasutra piece. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant line in the source is [...] the marketing for the DLC has not been especially visible. Would you suggest an alternate wording? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• There's a use of WP:YOU, but it's not in a quote. Maybe rephrase that one. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The final paragraph, about Gone Home, could easily be its own section, as that is not part of Minerva's Den's reception. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted section heading since it covers additional content besides the initial reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

• I've been checking the sources, checking if they're reliable and independent of each other. It's good that mainstream media like The Daily Telegraph or more general tech websites, like Wired, are used there. Two things though:
  • The sentence "Opposing the player are enemies known as "Splicers"—Rapture's residents who overused genetic modifications" is sourced by a 1UP review of BioShock; that doesn't necessarily mean that splicers appear in BioShock 2, let alone in Minerva's Den. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "The player uses similar weapons and plasmids—genetic modifications that grant superpowers" is sourced by "Science inches closer to real BioShock-style plasmids" by Ars Technica and "BioShock Plasmid guide: Which power ups are best for defeating Splicers or a Big Daddy" by GamesRadar. The focus of the Ars Technica piece is scientific progress in the field of genetic modification and BioShock 2 isn't mentioned in it. So that doesn't necessarily prove plasmids appear in BioShock 2, or in Minerva's Den. Great read though! And concerning the GamesRadar piece, I'd prefer to see an alternative to a gameguide as a source regardless, but again, it's solely about BioShock, not BioShock 2 or Minerva's Den. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Soetermans, the above sources aren't being used to prove the existence of plasmids or splicers in BioShock 2, they're being used to explain exactly what plasmids and splicers are; the proximate reference at the end of those sentences ([1]) discuss their existence in Minerva's Den, but the coverage of the expansion (and much of the base game) assume you already know what this stuff is. So I added some references to cite my explanation rather than adding in original research, so that people who haven't played the games aren't tripped up on the terms. Hope that clears things up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, doesn't that border on WP:SYNTH? Usually I'm not this critical, but since this is my first GA review I'm being more attentive to stuff like this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't say so. SYNTH means using sources to make an assertion not found in any of the sources, not that you can't combine facts from multiple sources into thee same sentences or paragraphs; they'd be an example of synth if I was making the assertion that the plasmids or weapons are in a different order without the supporting reference, for instance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for explaining. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

GA passed

Going through the article one more time, I've decided it meets Wikipedia's requirements of being a good article. It's well-written, sourced properly, upholds NPOV and is encyclopedic in tone. Congratulations to all editors involved! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]