Talk:Andrew Ryan (BioShock)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 06:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was nominated in time with BioShock Infinite's release. I didn't have time to review it then, but know that the timing was appreciated. This article has a few straightforward and surmountable issues (which I'll outline below), but I don't know if they can be resolved in the GA timeline. Overall, the article is very dry considering how juicy Levine's interviews were. (That Shacknews interview was one of the best I've ever read.) But per the GA criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a: The text is in bad need of a copy edit. "Ryan taking his own life to prevent Jack, the protagonist, from accomplishing this..." "When discussing how many people would get the good ending to BioShock, he commented that Ryan would not, choosing to take the easier path." At first I didn't think this was a big deal, but the sentences really are unclear and imprecise. ("Levine imagined a utopia that its creators": is "its" the game designers or the fictional city planners? And so on.)
"he is as unmovable as they are": watch close paraphrasing
1b: The lede should summarize the major points of the article. (E.g., "Splicers" should not be introduced in the lede unless they're imperative to knowing Ryan and also mentioned later in the article's body, which they aren't.) Additionally, since this lede doesn't have contentious info, all footnotes should reside in the article's body. (The lede should summarize what is already sourced in the body.)
There is excessive plot detail that doesn't focus on Ryan's role. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction for some tips.) E.g., the whole ADAM paragraph doesn't contribute to understading Ryan or his role in the story.
2b: There are several direct quotes in the first section that are not sourced. (This shouldn't be hard to fix.) Also the places where Levine "says" things to the press should be sourced.
{{cite video game}} direct quotes used in the article should also use the level and scene params (equivalent to page number in a video game). Otherwise I have no way of verifying these quotes in a 15+ hour video game! (All of the refs should have this eventually, but only certain situations are required for GA.)
Kesten ref is down and hasn't been checked in over 24 months. It should be replaced or scrapped.
2c: It's easy to stray into OR with fiction. The first few sentences of Characteristics are all original research extracted from in-game dialogue. Same for the Great Chain part and the plot backstory that isn't explicit from the game itself. That kind of synthesis isn't our job as editors. Watch for phrases like "Ryan apparently had" and opt for precision.
Why are Great Chain and the level titles italicized?
Why isn't every mention of BioShock consistently italicized?
3: I mentioned that the ADAM paragraph is off-topic, but the rest is on. There is no mention of physical character design, though, which is a big omission for a character article. Ryan's apperance is briefly mentioned (somewhat out of place) in the BioShock section, but not how the devs chose his physical appearance. Also the same section discusses Ryan in the plot but not the role he plays in the story overall, how he effects the other characters, everything that the reviewers thought made him remarkable.
As mentioned on the talk page, there is a litany of academic text on Ryan waiting to be incorporated into the article. Without it, he is limited to an antagonist in a video game instead of an iconic character known for redefining in-game freedoms.
7: The image rationale is passable, but on the weaker side—may be worth upgrading the language per the non-GA comments on the topic below. (Also consider reducing the file's resolution—it isn't high, but it isn't exactly "low" either.)

Non-GA comments

These suggestions are outside the scope of the GA review, but for your interest:

The references date formatting is inconsistent

Ryan's picture contrast is too low—the black fades into the brown and makes him hard to see

The image caption could be more specific (where/when the screenshot was taken, at what plot point, etc.)

There are Ryan cosplayer images on Flickr that could work in the article. You'd need permission from Irrational to change the license.

Consider archiving the web refs (see {{cite web}} documentation)

Link jargon like "boss battles" and introduce "Frank Fontaine" at his first mention.

The B2 ref should be from a RS, not the game itself

Ideally, these issues should have been resolved before being brought to GAN, since they're straightforward when held up to the criteria. I'm putting the GA on hold for a week if anyone wants to address the above concerns. There's no rush, so let me know if you need more time. If it's not going to happen in a short period, the article can always be renominated in the future. czar · · 06:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No response in a week and a half. czar · · 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]