Talk:Bonnie Ross/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 16:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Review
Going to start working on this now and see how far I get. I plan on starting with the overall content, and once we have that, we can come back to the prose (which at first glance, looks generally good, if not great). Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is reasonably well written: I'm going to come back to the prose. It's generally good, but I have some constructive comments that will probably take less work once we've covered the other criteria.
 * The career subsections can probably be organized better. I'd have a section for career, and one or more sections for her advocacy/speaking/awards/recognition. Her career section can be clearly organized into her early career, and her time at 343.
 * I think the "women in tech" section reads more like a miscellaneous clump of facts relating to women, which is a disservice to readers. Some of the information in there are her actual creative and technical decisions of her job, which belongs in her career at the relevant time about her 343 role. Other parts of this is her public speaking, or her reaction to events when prompted by journalists. Some of it is journalists reacting to her, or the industry with her as an example. I'd re-organize this, with her decisions in-studio going under "career", her personal opinions going under "speaking" (or "advocacy", to be more broad), and the reactions of others perhaps going into its own section, if it's truly informative. (Perhaps the reactions of journalists could be grouped in with her awards, more broadly as "recognition".)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable: It looks generally good. A few comments.
 * Is there something we can do about the hour-long video, as far as checking the source? A transcript or even a few well-placed time stamps would be helpful for the review.
 * I'm not seeing the part about her hiring more women to create more role models. It could be a misquote, and my read of it is that it's attributed to her college dean more than Ross herself.
 * The part about the industry pushing towards more diversity seems less than accurate too. The context from the article is "As a result of several generations of girls growing up playing electronic games, more women are working in the industry." According to the sources, it sounds like something happening organically.
 * The part about introducing more women characters to game, I think it's important to provide context that this included racial diversity as well (according to the article).
 * The part about taking a stand against insults online, I think it's also missing context that this was a decision by Microsoft Live that she supported while at 343. The article currently makes it sound like lifetime bans were her idea.
 * Just in general, we want to be careful who we're attributing the analysis to. There is a difference between Ross's actions, Ross's opinions, and the opinions of people reacting to Ross. We want to make this clear for readers, the same way we clearly distinguish development from reception in a game article.


 * It is broad in its coverage: I think the article is well on its way to good article status, but my biggest concerns would be here. Even without pursuing "completeness" as a FAC standard, it feels like there are some obvious pieces of context that I'd be interested in as a reader.
 * Looking at her early life... It's not strictly necessary, but it's odd that we don't know anything about where she was born.
 * In the first paragraph about her career, you use two sentences to cover 8 games and one decade. I know it can be tricky to source this stuff back in the 1990s, but it would be useful to have a little more context about what her work was like back then, even if it only centers on one or two big moments or games.
 * Ideally, we'd have a healthy subsection for her early career, to complement the healthy section about her time at 343.
 * That said some of her time at 343 could be fleshed out. I get that as gamers we're all supposed to know that Halo is a big deal, but it would be helpful to know how those projects turned out, short of giving her all the credit or blame.
 * On a similar note, it looks like 343 has worked on 10 different Halo games, but you wouldn't know it from reading Ross's biography as the head of 343. The article makes it sound like she hired a guy to make a bible, and then took the blame for one project.
 * Some of the actions of what she did at 343 are buried under "women in tech". Some of those creative decisions directly relate to her job, and would help flesh out some of her notable work at 343.
 * The article is a little light on sources. Maybe there just aren't any, but a quick search shows a ton of articles where she is at least mentioned in the context of her work at 343 and Halo.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy. No major issue here. That said, there risks being an issue with WP:WEIGHT here. But right now the weight isn't so much a neutrality issue, and more that there is insufficient weight on what she did in her career – her activities and their outcomes. Let's try give the reader a clearer picture with more context.
 * It is stable: No issue here.
 * It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate: there are no images. Is there something fair use that we could pop in here?
 * Overall, I think the biggest thing to work on is the broadness of the article. The sourcing and the writing is generally good, we just need more of it in some key places. You're on the right track. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Shooterwalker are you done with your review? Checking in because you hadn't marked the article review on hold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my mistake! I meant to mark it as on hold. I'd say the main area to focus on is the broadness, to organize and cover the major aspects of the topic. Everything else should fall into place after that. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be working on it at the end of this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Shooter, some responses to your points:
 * For images, given that the subject is alive and regularly at more public events, I'm not sure there's any good WP:NFCC justification. I've reached out on Flicker and the like to get a free image licensed for our use but had no luck at present.
 * As to coverage, I'm going to go do another dive, but I'm not sure reliable sources exist for some of the content you're interested in. Her career in terms of "stuff mainstream news is writing about" mostly begins with Halo and only covers her path in relation to that. The other games aren't necessarily mentioned just because I didn't find much in the way of useful information about anything Ross did related to those games. She was studio head for them, did some PR... and that's about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the sources may be limiting what's possible I don't think it would be crossing the line into synthesis to, say, identify games where she held an important position, and briefly summed up the legacy of that game. See what you can do either way. The article could use just a bit more meat in a few key places. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Shooter I've gone through and I think done as best as I can addressing some of the above. Having done another search for sources, I'm pretty confident I'm not missing any undiscovered trove of early history that hasn't been covered; the sources are what they are, and they disproportionately focus on her time at Microsoft and Halo specifically. I've tried to add a little more overview to the scope of 343's output, and moved some content into the biography, but I don't think I can move a lot of the women in tech stuff because there's not a hard date given so it can't be placed in the right temporal context. I've also added rough timestamps for the IGN video reference. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate the effort and sometimes a topic just has the coverage it has. Even with what you added, the article feels more comprehensive, just by closing some of the gaps in the story. I'd also add, the writing is excellent, after doing a bunch of GA and FA reviews where there are too many run-on sentences, with, lots, of, awkward, stops; and, subclauses. I think we are in the home stretch and can wrap this up with a few more tweaks.
 * Halo 3 and Halo Reach could use a year (2009, 2010) just for some context, even if it means breaking this into its own sentence.
 * Some of the semi-colons could be replaced with full-stops, but I leave that to your judgment.
 * "roughly a dozen people,[5]:28:22 and Microsoft would" -> I'd consider a full-stop here too.
 * "impressed Kiki Wolfkill" -> a little context goes a long way. Perhaps "art director Kiki Wolfkill"?
 * "Ross worked with a company" -> the use of "a company" here leaves a loose thread that should either be clarified, or just closed off. Even "worked with a team" would be a cheap way to tie this off, and I'm sure you might even have some better ideas.
 * That last sentence might also flow better as two shorter sentences.
 * "Ross' vision for Halo included enriching the franchise with transmedia content such as books and television.[7]" -> "Ross also envisioned the Halo franchise growing with transmedia content such as books and television."
 * The transmedia content feels somewhat incomplete without some examples. Right now it feels like an out-of-context hope she declared in 2019, when it's really a strategic effort that she oversaw over a decade. The article should mention at least one book and one live-action that 343 Industries became involved in. Hopefully with some context, but even a plain mention would be better than nothing.
 * "Ross later committed to future 343 Industries games have beta testing to avoid similar problems." -> slight grammar issue here, and this could be said more clearly with a few less words.
 * It feels like Halo 5 is sort of glossed over. Even without much detail about her involvement, it feels like the 2015 release could be given more appropriate WP:WEIGHT, instead of a mention in a sentence about a future release. This sentence also fudges the timeline, jumping from a 2015 release, to a 2021 planned release, before jumping back to 2011, 2013, and 2017. You don't need to get make the timeline 100% precise, but it's another sign that this statement can be reworked.
 * "Head of Xbox Phil Spencer said Ross' profile helped attract female talent to the company. Ross has also focused on introducing more diverse characters to the video games.[24] I also think that diverse teams do kind of create a more diverse output, diverse thinking, and innovation on where you're going," she told 60 Minutes.[25]" -> Even though the sources are from different years, they are definitely referring to an overall approach at 343, and could be re-added to the career section in context. (Even the 2014 sources would clearly refer to Halo 4 and Halo 5.)
 * Try:
 * (from Women in Tech) "At 343 Industries, Ross focused on introducing more diverse characters to Halo series."
 * (from Career) During the development of Halo 4, Ross described her team as "very deliberate in thinking about who should be female and who should be male in the game, and if we came off stereotypical, we went back to question what we were doing and why."[9][10]
 * (from Career) Halo 4 released in 2012 and grossed $220 million in first-day sales.[11]
 * (from Women in tech) As Ross gained a more public profile, she also earned earned praise from Head of Xbox Phil Spencer for attracting female talent to the company.
 * (from Women in tech) Ross explains "that diverse teams do kind of create a more diverse output, diverse thinking, and innovation on where you're going". (Women in tech)
 * (optional, from Women in tech) (Bloomberg) -> "Ross and her team continued this approach with Halo 5, adding greater gender and racial diversity to the game's characters." (The source does refer to specifically to Halo 5, as one example.)
 * Related to this, I'd move this sentence from Career to Women in tech, as it's more about her opinion on XBox Live and other companies she isn't directly involved with: "Ross argues that game developers have a personal responsibility to avoid gendered stereotyping in their games, as well as taking action against sexist abuse." -> "Ross has publicly supported the efforts of XBox Live to combat sexist abuse on their platform. She has also advocated for game developers to take "personal responsibility" for avoiding gender stereotypes in their games.
 * For organizational purposes, I'd turn the "recognition" and "women in tech" into proper sections. I might even consider turning the "women in tech" section into an "advocacy" section, but it is true that most of the advocacy is about gender. I'd also reiterate the distinction between career (who I hire, what I create, how I work within my organization) and advocacy (my opinion about external partners, the industry, and other organizations).
 * Also for organization, the "career" section could have a sub section for 343 industries to give better cues to the reader, even if that divides the section 20/80.
 * Thanks again for your work on this, and feeling positive that this will wrap up well. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Shooter I've taken another pass. I believe I've addressed all of your bullet point stuff. I've also massaged the last sections a bit (with a "Diversity" heading as I think that applies better to discussions about diversity in the games and out.) Let me know what you think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience with this. I think we are very close now. Only two real comments:
 * It's not clear from the article that Halo 4 is the first "real" 343 Industries project where they handled the bulk of development. It's a significant enough moment that it deserves a little more WP:WEIGHT. At a minimum, a sentence verifying it as such, and a paragraph break to set it up as a turning point.
 * "She recalled that for every character in Halo 4, we were very deliberate in thinking about who should be female and who should be male in the game, and if we came off stereotypical, we went back to question what we were doing and why.[22][23] Ross has also focused on introducing more racial and gender diversity to the video games.[24]" -> I would continue to make the case that this belongs in the career section, as it describes decisions she made in the course of her job and the projects she worked on. I'd be slightly concerned if we went into game articles and removed various creative decisions from a project's history, only to separate it into a new section based on its perceived political significance. While I certainly wouldn't insist on it for the GA, I think it's worth considering, especially since it would also address my previous point: the first sentence talks about her vision for Halo 4, and the second sentence summarizes what a source says about Halo 5.
 * With both of those, we could wrap this up, as the prose and sources are otherwise in a great spot. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see what you're referring to with the Halo 4 mention. It's explicitly stated that it was their first major game. I've not seen sources that qualify 343's output regarding games they worked on "alone" (I can't think of a game they've made where there weren't at least a half-dozen outside studios assisting to some degree) versus ones they partnered with.
 * As to the issues with "perceived political significance", I think the article as it stands deliberately pulling out content regarding gender and racial diversity is not undue. It's the major reason Bonnie Ross is talked about, the subject of her major interviews, and a focus of her career. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't push the second issue, but the first issue is that their role on Halo 4 is a bit obscured, perhaps just by how the paragraph is sequenced. The paragraph says, early on, They would ultimately hire from more than 55 different companies to work on their first major game, Halo 4. It takes a minor detour through the hiring and creation of a story bible, and it feels like we lose the narrative when we bring up their collaborations on 5 other games. By the time you say that Halo 4 released in 2012 and grossed $220 million in first-day sales, the paragraph has lost the context. There's a few ways to fix that last sentence – add some kind of transition, or a set-up sentence that brings the reader back to Halo 4 (which could mention some of her creative leadership about Halo 4's characters), or even just re-order it somehow. But I hope you can see how it feels a little out of place, is all. I'm open minded about how to address it. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ive taken a stab at elaborating on Halo 4's development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing that last piece. The article feels more organized and thorough now. Really pleased to give this GA nomination a pass. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)