Talk:BioShock Infinite: Burial at Sea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imaginestigers (talk · contribs) 00:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi there! This is my first GA Review, so I hope you’ll bear with me if there are any pains. Imaginestigers (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is clear and consistent throughout the article. I would recommend that [...] known as Vigors in Infinite[citations] [...] become enclosed in commas. This is to distinguish the clause for readers unfamiliar with the series, and to attach the footnotes to punctuation. Under Reception, the second paragraph (beginning Common complaints included the episode's short runtime[citations]) should have its citations attached to punctuation. The citation attached to Levine's name under the image in Development should be moved to directly after the quotation itself. I also recommend giving the sentence beginning In Episode Two, Elizabeth wakes up […] its own paragraph to emphasise it; the stressed italics don't lend well to a quick skim. A separate heading for each is also an acceptable idea. These are the only issues with this section, and very minor ones. Under the final quoted review in Reception from Justin McElroy, fan-fiction could be wikilinked, but it is not mandatory.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The length of Episode One's summary is 256 words. Episode Two is given more focus than Episode One, and goes over the MOSVG prescribed, and runs a little over the MOS for episodic content (300) by 101 words. Some phrases, such as man of the people, feel extrenuous.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Rigorously referenced. No explicit reference is given for the game's release on individual platforms aside from the infobox with links to the Metacritic scores for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 (references #26-31).

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No issues.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Includes the proper infobox, and does not violate WP:VGSCOPE.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Article is very precise and succinct. Well done!
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The game's positive and negative criticism is well-balanced, and the positivity towards Episode Two is supported judiciously with well-chosen sources. Sources from the article's Talk page have also been incorporated into the Reception section.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
An additional image would be appreciated for the Plot section, but given the article's short length and relatively small scope, those currently in place are sufficient.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Some minor changes required for the article to be promoted to GA. The article is, on the whole, tautly written and well-referenced.

Hey Imaginestigers thanks for the review. I'll work on these changes this weekend. As a note for future reviews, if you change the status of the GAN template on the talk page to on hold that will notify the nominators that the review is complete and work needs to be done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me! I didn't realise. Glad I found out early. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ImaginesTigers I've applied the punctuation suggestions and slimmed the plot section slightly. I believe that addresses your main points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's looking good. Promoting now. ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]