Talk:BioShock 2: Minerva's Den/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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. ✅


 * It contains copyright violations
 * The copyvio tool is down, but sampling randomly did not bring up any copyvios. ✅


 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid (...)
 * No banners and doesn't need any. ✅


 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
 * Since 2012 it was reverted three times. Very solid article. ✅

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)
 * Added publisher. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Added a line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Adjusted the plot synopsis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Added a line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The specific event mentioned in the game where she dies is The Blitz. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Added an explanation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The source unfortunately doesn't say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Adjusted the wording. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Release
 * There's nothing about "minimal promotion" in the Gamasutra piece. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Adjusted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Adjusted section heading since it covers additional content besides the initial reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Gotcha, thanks for explaining. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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)