Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BioShock 2/archive1

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 by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2022 [1].

BioShock 2

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're tasked with creating the followup to one of the most-acclaimed video games of all time. What do you do? In the case of 2K Marin, you create BioShock 2, an adroit sequel that arguably didn't get its due upon release. Article received a good article review by Etriusus and a line edit/review by Ovinus, so thanks to them for their input on this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the screenshot
File:Bioshock2_cover.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issue with the cover. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I scaled the screenshot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

I love this game (even though it couldn't live up to the first). I have some experience with writing video game articles.

"He sat next to Alyssa Finley," What is meant by this? I think this might be too much of an idiom, and perhaps "worked alongside" might be better
- I believe it's literally his workspace neighbor was Finley, but if worked alongside is clearer, there's no problem. Changed.
  - If you can verify that they literally sat next to each other, then that can be clarified in the article if you want. I'm not bothered either way. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and presented unique challenges." What kind of challenges? Can this be more specific?
- I've added an anecdote from the source.
I am surprised at how few publications are included in the Template:Video game reviews. Were all of the sites listed there consulted? For example, Jeuxvideo, 4Players, PC Gamer, CNET, Destructoid, to name a few.
- {{Video game reviews}} requires scores listed to be incorporated into the reception text; I tend to focus on a selective sampling of the more well-known reviewers, rather than trying to cram every mentioned score into the template (especially since that usually leads to text collision or whitespace issues depending on screen sizes.) Looking at the above reviews, I didn't find any sentiments that weren't already expressed in the article. Is there anything in particular you feel those reviews are covering that's not highlighted?
  - I think this comment was out of a concern about which reviews were included and which were excluded. The reception section is already quite long, so I would not make it longer. I took a closer look at the instructions in template:video game reviews and I see that the reception section already includes the most popular and recommended reviews, so I am not concerned about which sources are included. I trust that a search in less popular sites and non-English language sites were already conducted and it was determined that they would not add significant information to the reception section. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my thoughts. Ping ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the look Z1720, and thanks for your edits to the article. Responded inline above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Added some responses above but I don't think it would affect my support. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has picked up just the single support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to get a prose review in soon. Should have it up within the next day or two. JOE BRO 64 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64

Whole lotta comments

Content-wise, I think this article is there, but could use some copyediting before it's fully ready for promotion. In general, I think the prose needs a little tightening up to remove redundancies and tautologies. My more specific comments will mainly pertain to the lede, and then I'll give some more general copyediting advice for the rest of the article.

Minor first sentence quibble, but I don't think you need to say "video game" in "BioShock 2 is a first-person shooter video game". All first-person shooters are video games, so I'd definitely say it's tautological. If someone doesn't know that a first-person shooter is a video game, they can click the link.
This is another stylistic preference, but I don't think you need to say that a game called BioShock 2 is "[t]he sequel to the 2007 game BioShock"—this should be self-evident to the reader. I think you can chop this clause and just add a wikilink to BioShock at "eight years after the events of BioShock" in the next sentence.
As a general comment, hit Ctrl+F and look for every mention of "the game's" or "of the game". In my experience, you'll find that in almost all cases, it's unnecessary. Some examples include "In the ~~game's~~ single-player campaign, players control...", "... expanded the sonic palette ~~of the game~~ to include more blues and religious music to parallel the ~~game's~~ themes", and "A remastered version ~~of the game~~ was released..."
"BioShock 2 received positive reviews ~~upon release~~... The multiplayer mode was supported with downloadable content ~~upon launch~~" "Upon release", "on release", or "upon launch" is almost never, never necessary. Readers understand that games aren't reviewed until they're finished—not to mention they're often reviewed shortly before they come out.
I've noticed several instances of "called" and "titled", such as "...a single-player campaign expansion, titled Minerva's Den..." Similar to "upon release", these are almost never needed. For example, "Modified and conditioned children, ~~called~~ "Little Sisters", collect scarce ADAM..." doesn't lose any clarity when dropping it.
Is there any reason the plot section comes before the gameplay? Plot sections generally come after gameplay per WP:VGORDER. I see it describes things like Big Daddies and the setting of the Rapture but I think these could be concisely introduced in gameplay first. Up to you though.
I removed some instances of overlinking in my review, but I may not have caught them all—I'd take another look to ensure that they're all gone.
In the reception section, I'd challenge statements like "The game's campaign was generally well received" and "The multiplayer mode had mixed reception" as generalizations that require direct refs to back them up.

Overall there are some issues with the writing but the content is great. I'll take another look after some copyedits have been done. JOE BRO 64 14:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe, thanks for the review. I feel like in terms of a general audience explicitly saying BioShock 2 is a video game in the lead is useful for people who aren't familiar with first-person shooters or video games in general; it is technically "redundant" but it's a concession for the tragically lost :) There's also a few areas where I feel like just removing "the game" or similar makes the subject unclear. However, the overall point of tightening redundancies is well-taken; I've done another pass through the article, removing some of the fluff words where possible or swapping some to reduce repetition.
As for the plot section, it's mostly ordered that way since I was following the lead of BioShock, and because I found it a bit easier to sketch the outlines of the plot in this instance before detailing the gameplay elements (I think in this instance it leads to a bit less redundant info). I've added more refs for the statements mentioned above you thought needed more explicit referencing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who responded to the copyedit request, I thank you for your feedback. Ovinus (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've reread the article and have just two more comments.

In the plot section, I think it might be helpful to have references for these two sentences: "The ending depends on how the player interacted with encountered Little Sisters and the fates of the Rapture Family's members. Whether the player spared non-player characters or not influences if Eleanor saves her mother or leaves her to drown." Explaining how to obtain divergent endings, in my view, may go a bit beyond a straightforward synopsis and into the "conclusions inferred by interpretation" mentioned in WP:VG/PLOT.
IMO, if the Metacritic score is the same across all platforms, you don't need to separate X360, PC, and PS3 in the review box. I'd just give one 88/100 with all three refs next to it.

Once these are addressed, I'll be ready to support. JOE BRO 64 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheJoebro64, I've tweaked the review table. For the plot, can you give me more specifics about what goes into too much detail that you feel runs into interpretation/needs secondary sourcing? I've gone looking for solid explanations of the endings but the sources are mostly non-notable game guides, wikis, and the like—besides there being multiple endings, I haven't found a source that gives a good delineation. So the alternative is chopping it down so that you think it doesn't need the additional citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think cutting those two sentences down to "The game features two endings" and leaving the "If Delta..."s should be the best solution. If reliable sources don't discuss the means for obtaining alternate endings, I think that suggests it's not entirely necessary. JOE BRO 64 01:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64: I've shortened the end of the plot section. Does it look better now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work. JOE BRO 64 15:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CollectiveSolidarity

Saw your notice over on Discord, and I can give a quick review.

While it reviewed worse than BioShock or its sequel, BioShock Infinite, retrospective reviews have reevaluated BioShock 2 as a worthy entry, or even the best of the series. I suggest changing the wording of this a tiny bit. Perhaps, “While it was considered by critics to be worse than BioShock…”
I was perplexed by the inclusion of Plot before Gameplay, but JoeBro’s comments basically explained it.
I’m not sure whether a comparison to BioShock 1 is needed for the turrent mini game. It seems kind of jarring compared to the rest of the sentence.
Thomas said that even players who enjoyed hacking eventually found it repetitive. Bit of a silly thing, but does Thomas mean internet Hacking, or the mini game itself?
Spot checked refs in the Theme section…appear to be good.
The campaign was generally well received, though it often suffered from the comparison to BioShock’s. This writing is a bit tricky. Do you mean ‘’The campaign was generally well received, but was noted as very similar to BioShock’s.
Retrospectives have reconsidered BioShock 2 in its series and among video games as a whole.—I assume you meant “retrospective commentary”

That’s all I saw. I may do some more spot-checking later. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey CollectiveSolidarity, thanks for the review. I've tweaked the above a bit per your feedback. I think you have to explain what the old hacking was to understand why this game's was so different, but I restructured it so hopefully it feels less abrupt. In terms of "retrospectives", using it as a noun instead of an adjective is pretty common place in media entertainment, e.g. [2]. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- CollectiveSolidarity pinging you just to make sure you saw my response. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I saw it. Did a read-through and I will support CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'm not well-versed in the style of video game articles, but I figure I should be able to do a source review. From what I've seen so far:

Formatting is generally consistent, but I'd like to see uses of "2K Games" and "2k Games" switched to a single format.
Cross-checked the list of WPVG reliable sources and found no major issues.
Links are in working order, but I recommend a quick run of IAbot to pick up the few remaining citations that don't have archived links.
Link to James Stephanie Sterling for Citation 25.
Is there a page number available for the first use of Citation 33 in the Development section?
Citation 56 no longer leads to the specific article. Also, is ScoringSessions.com a high-quality source?
Spotchecks performed on a sample of sources: citations 4–6, 12, 31, 44, 55, 56, 58, 118, and 124. Only one query from that:
- Text refers to "Big Daddies" but The Atlantic (citation 6) and IGN (citation 4) seem to use "Big Daddys" while Bit-Tech (citation 5) uses "Big Daddies". Which is correct here?

Overall, an enjoyable read about a game I should really get around to playing instead of letting it languish in my Steam library. If you have the time, I have an FAC in need of a source review. Sounder Bruce 21:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SounderBruce, I really recommend playing it when you can :) Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of the above; the Big Daddies are referred to in the preponderance of sources (including text in-game) as a normal plural; not really sure how The Atlantic of all places can mess that up, but that's a typo on their part. Fixed the ScoringSessions ref; the site is run by Dan Goldwasser, who previously spent a decade on another reliable (though now defunct) soundtrack site, and has worked for reliable film publications such as Variety. (It's also an interview, so I think for the stuff cited WP:SPS is applicable if there were doubts about the reliability outright.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Sounder Bruce 22:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lankyant

A great game and a great article that has my support to be FA. I linked the first instance of Big Daddies to the Big Daddy article. Thanks for your work on this Lankyant (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.