Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BioShock

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

BioShock[edit]

Hi. Myself and several other editors have been working on this article, and I believe it fully meets the FA criteria. One issue that one might point out involves stability; the article is expected to win a few awards at GotY this year (or early next), but I don't really see this as a stability issue, as that addition of information will involve a few sentences of text, and the article is stable currently anyway. Thanks for your consideration. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FAC instuctions, "An article should not be a featured article candidate and at the same time be nominated for peer review or as good article candidate," please close and archive the peer review to {{oldpeerreview}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry. Done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per me. — H2O —  09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I copyedited it not too long ago, and it seems solid, and just as good as most FAs. Andonic Screw wikibreak enforcer! 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A few things I noticed immediately.
    • Citations are inconsistent. Not all of them list accessdates. Of those that do, some are in "Retrieved on November 2 2007." form, and others "Retrieved on 2007-08-20." form. A good number of the references don't have author names, but could.
      • Well, I will try to get to it, but bear with me - I have 116 refs to check over. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All  Done, I believe. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not done. Many, many citations lack author and publisher information, and I still see a number of inconsistencies in the accessdates alone. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine. I will get to work on finding publisher information for over 100 references, so please be patient. You should also be aware that that kind of information is not always available. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If publisher information is not available, then perhaps the source is not sufficiently reliable. How can we check the source's "reputation for fact-checking" or "editorial oversight" if we do not have the publisher information? How can we check as to whether the source is self-published if we do not have the publisher information? On the other count, take as long as you wish; I understand that other obligations can press the Wikipedian for her valuable editing time. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (unindent) The date forms are still inconsistent. I'm seeing half the citations in "Month Day Year" and half in "#Year#-#Month#-#Day#" Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An unhealthy amount of data is cited to weak references: Why use an about.com reference, for example? Is the Yale Daily News a recognized authority in the field? Some of the work simply seems unclean: Why does reference 90 link to a blog's summary of a paper rather than to the original paper itself, linked within the very same article? I also feel like the article fails to take full advantage of the source material out there. The article fails, for example, to make use of the developer interviews on Bioshock's collectors' set: a lot of the material they contain is simply omitted, and it could make for a much better development section. The EGM quote in "Influences" doesn't have a citation, and it's written in italics, where other quotations aren't. Not that quotations are a bad thing, but I think that more quotations in the development section could be paraphrased and balanced by more prose description.
      • Well, the article is sourced to 116 references. I'd say it is fairly well-sourced, when you look at other video gae FAs, they use many ".com" sources, so I'd say that it is fine. If you can help us take advantage of the vaguely described "sources out there", then it would be appreciated. Fixed the quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article cites a web forum's self-reportage for a sentence on "current user efforts to create a Pixel shader 2.0-compatible version of the software"; it cites a blog called Gaming Bob; it cites a Yale student newsletter. The quality of an article's sourcing isn't dependent on any raw number; good sourcing requires user discretion, assessment, and the full-scale exploitation of the best sources. 116 isn't an impressive number for the largest PC and Xbox game of the year: GameSpot alone has 125 pieces on the game. Such a figure could probably be multiplied tenfold to get an accurate gauge on the number of sources available everywhere, without resorting to the citation of minor sources. For video games, I expect fuller sourcing than I do for less ephemeral topics. Because the sources for video games are at once both numerous and superficial, and because there are no real authorities in the field, an article that must "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" will need to use a larger number of sources to meet that requirement than a comparable article in another field. I believe this article does not currently meet Featured Article standards in this regard. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Irrelevent to the subject matter, 116 sources is an impressive number, and it is not as if we have blindly selected those sources; we have inherently applied our discretion. We have scourged a large number of areas for these citations, which I feel is a good thing, for we have achieved a broader understanding of the content, and have seen different views on the content, instead of searching in the same places. As you say, there are no real authorities in the video gaming world, so why are you placing more emphasis on the more published and well-known websites? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd formatting: In the reviews section, there is a capitalized sentence following a colon, an ellipsis used contrary to MOS guidelines, and a quotation followed by text that is finished with a period, rather than a comma. There is a period following reference 15 and the already full-stopped quoted sentence that it follows: ."[15]. There isn't much italicizing of journal, magazine and newspaper titles, as required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Why is the "Technical" in "Criticism and Technical issues" capitalized? A good cleanup seems in order.
      • All  Done. Left the ellipsis as it was part of a quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not done. The journal, magazine and newspaper titles are not yet italicized. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now I think it is all done. I have done a clean sweap of the reviews/awards section, where they are all likely to be in. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I caught some more: Atlas Shrugged and The Orange Box. Oh, and Tribes: Vengeance also needs italicizing. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • One more: EGM. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some awkward phraseology: 'In the realm of current events, Levine has also mentioned an interest in "stem cell research and the moral issues that go around."'; "According to the developers, BioShock is a spiritual successor to the System Shock games, and was developed by former developers of that series."
    • "Chat" in the sense of "speaking with" is insufficiently formal. Perhaps "spoke"?

These are just some general flaws. I believe the article needs a good copy-edit by a user unfamiliar with the article. I'm also not comfortable stating that this article fulfills 1 (b) and 1 (c). The sources don't seem to have been mined in any consistent or comprehensive way. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are minor flaws. I mean, really - look at the last one. You could have fixed that yourself. I don't agree that a good cleanup is in order; I doubt that there is any article here on Wikipedia which has utterly immaculate formatting. But I will try and see if I can get it to the standard which you are asking. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but I'm seeing them all over. I used them as illustrative of larger-scale problems: I don't think this article meets FA standards for engaging, professional prose, for MOS compliance, for sourcing, for full and accurate citation, and for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot work with such a vague comment. Make specifications and contructive criticism, rather than pure criticism not backed up by examples that I can work on improving. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My examples are above; I do not expect you to work on my summation of the criticisms with the article. Rather, when you have addressed all particular criticisms, the general criticism will disappear, just as when you cut down every single tree, the forest will disappear. I will attempt to be precise in the future. My apologies for raising your ire with vague commentary and pure criticism. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I am not angry at all. Just feel a little swamped, by what is, I think we can agree, mostly minor issues. But, as you say, eventually the forest will fall. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for your persistent hard work, AnonymousD! Minor fixes add up to a prettier, cleaner, more accessible and more useful article.Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, thanks to Masem for his hard work behind the scenes. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some more precise commentary:
    • "BioShock takes place during 1960, in Rapture, a fictional underwater dystopian city[28] secretly built in 1946 on the mid-Atlantic seabed, entirely self-sufficient and powered by submarine volcanoes." has too many clauses. Splice it down.
    • There's a dash being used in place of a spaced ndash/unspaced mdash.
    • Too many quotes used in the reception section.
      • I'm not sure this is really a problem. I thought it would be a good thing, enforcing the accuracy of the section by making quotes and giving context. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grand Theft Auto isn't italicized.
      •  Done
    • "Versions and merchandise" falls prey to proseline. Try to vary your sentence-commencing techniques.
      • Please give an example of this so I can see it elsewhere and eliminate the issue. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Each paragraph begins with "On Month Day Year,..."
          • Reworded
    • There should be no external links in the text.
    • 2004-2005 needs an ndash.
      •  Done
    • Does "BioShock: Breaking the Mold" need both italics and quotation marks?
    • I'm not sure Kristan Reed should speak for "reviewers" "overall". Perhaps you could make clear that that final series of comments comes from one reviewer working for one publication alone?
    • Wired should link to Wired (magazine), right? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does not talk about "morality-based" storyline mentioned in lead. In line with that, the article might perhaps discuss the prominent moral/dramatic issues surrounding the harvesting of Little Sisters. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This talks a goodly amount about the Objectivism/Ayn Rand connection. Might help there. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have two pairs of Game Rankings citations. I understand there being a pair, what with the Xbox and PC launches, but there's no need for two pairs. The two pairs are not consistently formatted anyways. Refmerge! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure waht you mean; the 360 ref has is used twice, as is the PC. so what? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then that means it's  Done! When I was looking at it, the two locations were cited to different references. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a Metacritic citation called "Critical Acclaim". That's not what MetaCritic called their page, and the citation is redundant anyways; there's already another pair of Metacritic citations. Refmerge! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the "Story" begin with "The character of Jack"? It sounds a bit awkward. What's wrong with "Jack"? In-universe issues? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, if "immaculate formatting" means compliance with all Style Guidelines, then this article, as per the Featured Article criteria, needs immaculate formatting to pass FAC. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although some references in the Story section for the text between "Ryan further informs..." and "...Here the game ends" would possibly be beneficial. Daniel 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: per WP:LEAD, I'm sure the lead can be a little more comprehensive. Manderiko 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very well referenced and written. This is something to be proud of, regardless of the outcome. Great work ~ Sebi 09:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fair use images should be reduced in size to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The rule of thumb is that non-free images should be no larger than 300 pixels in width or height, which ensures that the image's resolution is less than 0.1 megapixels. -- Chris B • talk 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually now  Done (the actual images had to be rescaled, and since I had uploaded them all, I've gone and fixed them all to be no larger than 300px in one dimension. --MASEM 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great job, the article is very detailed - I only miss sales data, only "shipped units" are reported. And the article will certainly fulfill the "Stability" criteria, since the only things yet to come about the game are awards and sales. igordebraga ≠ 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/BioShock&oldid=1138456041"