Wikipedia:Peer review/BioShock/archive1

BioShock[edit]

Hi. I think this article is coming along nicely, and is almost ready for a shot at FA. However, some other editors and I would appreciate a broader perspective on how the article is coming along, and where improvements in the text and references could be made.

Thanks,

-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the development section is large, it contains very little information on the game's development. What actually went on? We know what the original story was, what it was influenced by, how it is similar to System Shock... but we know nothing about its development other than information on the engine. We don't even know who the developers are! --Teggles 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll workm on the implementation of that kind of information.... but it atcually does if you read it. It odes give some information. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. I'm afraid that sources for this are proving rather difficult to locate. Despite this, there is information on development of the game's graphics and story, which are two of the main elements of the development. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd that the "Gameplay" section features a screenshot of a mini-game, but not of the main gameplay (i.e. shooting stuff).
- I'll get to work on getting a screen somehow.
  - Done an image swap, now some shooting in gameplay. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS, in-line citation thingies should come after punctuation, e.g. ...in mainstream press where its "morality-based" storyline [15], its... should be its "morality-based" storyline,[15] its...
- Yeah, I'll take a look over and fix that kind of stuff.
  - All done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of unsourced statements: the last sentence of the third paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, and the last sentence of the "Sequels" section. There may be more, but that's I could get from a quick read.
- Both sourced. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't BioShock receive some criticism because of its story, particularly the twist at the end?
- There wasn't a terribly unpredictable twist at the end, and I don't remember its story being critiqued. Actually, on the contrary. Still, you might be right. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my two cents, Una Laguna^Talk 17:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty solid article, though you're still missing that screenshot of the "normal" gameplay I mentioned. I left the last point unchecked, too, although you're probably right and I'm probably wrong. Una Laguna^Talk 07:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a (very) minor point, but does the game need four genres in the infobox? It's an FPS with knobs on, after all. Some reviewers have linked it with survival horror, but to actually define it as such via the infobox and SH category to me seems to be overstating the likeness. The next one is adventure - clicking the link leads to graphic/point and click adventures as well as text adventures - there's no apparent relation. Last is action RPG, which again seems to bear no relation to BioShock's gameplay. If the genres listed don't paint an accurate picture of core gameplay then that aspect of the infobox isn't doing what it should. Someone another 12:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Its officially an FPS; shortened to such. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say it looks a lot better now. Would it be worth starting a discussion about removing the SH category on the talk page? I know it can be something of a thorny issue. Someone another 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think it would be a good idea to start a discussion, then feel free, but this is very minor; we are talking about the article. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was going to cross that out but you've already read it :/ You've all done a great job on the article.Someone another 06:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]