Talk:Legion (Mass Effect)

Theology and Legion!

Hi Haleth,

I noticed you've been doing terrific work on the Mass Effect characters. Reading the Legion article, I recalled a guest lecture by Frank Bosman, a Dutch Catholic theologian, where he also mentioned Legion. Apparently, he wrote a paper on the subject and he mentions it in his book Gaming and the Divine: A New Systematic Theology of Video Games. Maybe it can help out. Thanks again for your great work and happy editing, soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Soetermans, thank you for the kind words. Yes, the book reference you've provided is useful, but with the original academic article unfortunately I can't read or understand Dutch. If you are keen, I've done some work in other articles too besides the Mass Effect series, so feel free to check them out, any feedback would be appreciated. Haleth (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article

Hello @Haleth:! I wandered into this page somehow, and was immediately blown away by its quality and the effort put into it.

I have read several articles with GA status, and find it somewhat absurd that this is not among them! I think it should be nominated, and as a major contributor, I believe you should be the one to do it (unless something about the process eludes me). What is your opinion on the matter?

To repeat, amazing work here! Thank you all for an awesome article! Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Horsesizedduck: thank you for the kind words. As for why it isn't a GA...it just never occurred to me. It was not my intention to contribute to Wikipedia with the goal of turning the articles I write into GA status. I just thought it's a notable concept based on the existence of reliable sources, some of which provide an intellectual discourse about the nature of the character which is interesting because Legion is not even the most important character in the video games, and gave it my best shot when I have time for it. But, yeah, I suppose I could tidy it up and polish it for a GA. Thank you for the suggestion. Haleth (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, @Haleth: do you want to nominate this, or should I? I feel like it really deserves the chance for GA, and I'd be happy to work on it in a review if you were unavailable. Cheers Horsesizedduck (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll prep the article for nomination. Need to edit it thoroughly to comply with MOS considerations before the GA process. Haleth (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Legion (Mass Effect)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Electroguv (talk · contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This one has assumed direct control of the review. Creator-Haleth should expect impending commentary. Electroguv (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 I'm Creator-Haleth, and this is my favorite review comment on Wikipedia. Haleth (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Review

Overall, this article looks to be in a pretty decent shape, and the prose in particular is solid. That said, I suggest that some reservations have to be taken care of in order for this article to really reach an impressive state.

Lead

• Looks like statements "... 1,183 networked artificial intelligence entities known as the geth" and "The philosophical basis EDI relies on is the Gospel of Mark 5:9" are not supported by any of the cited sources in the article. I can see that the second phrase may be connected to a sentence in the article's Appearances section, but it's quite the leap of logic. Therefore, it may be worth modifying at least the first of the mentioned passages to preclude credibility concerns.

The "1,183" numerical value is referenced in the itbusiness.ca source. With regards to the exact chapter and verse of the Bible, I have replaced the source in ref 27 with the page for a BioWare-endorsed product, which does contain a direct in-game quote from the character uttered in response to EDI's in-game dialogue. These points are now sourced appropriately within the body of the article. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify what "lore" means, a wikilink would help.

I wikilinked "lore" to canon (fiction). Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Background

• More of a consideration than anything, but the first two paras of that section strike me as somewhat too generous with the broad details about the geth as a whole (i.e. the consensus, the hive-like nature of their program framework and so on) in the context of a character-specific article. Condensing those explanatory passages into something that directly led in to Legion's description as a distinct representative of its kind would help streamline the perception of the text portion at issue. I'd consider reworking the first four sentences into the leading part of the character subsection and then making the result the entire first article segment. Even so,the final say in the matter rests with you.

I have rearranged the sentences as you have suggested. However, personally I am not sure whether the presentation of the information has improved in any way. The issue is that there is always some intentional ambiguity as to whether Legion is truly a character in his own right or simply a simulation by a large colony of geth programs, at least before that major decision in ME3. I feel that background information about the history and nature of the geth is essentially in order to properly explain what the character is about (and also to link back to the points made in the analysis section), although where to place the information and how much to emphasize is of course worth discussing. Haleth (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Consider wikilinking "hive mind"

Done. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• The passage "... a desired collective behavior gradually emerged from the interactions between the geth and their environment ..." seems a bit convoluted. Does the term "environment" refer to that of the geth's simulated collective intelligence, or does it allude to the geth's association with the quarian homeworld? Might consider rephrasing it to something like "Following their ubiquitous integration within the quarian society, interaction with the latter suggested to the geth a template for collective behaviour, and their network gradually developed the capacity for self-awareness.".

Done, with a slight tweak. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Character

• The bit "... where its geth enemies are revealed in its sequel ..." could use a rewording for increased clarity, something to the effect of "... whose geth enemies are revealed in the sequel ...". It also makes sense to disambiguate things like "heretic" with wikilinks.

Done. I have also wikilinked as suggested. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• The aside note about Legion's gender and identity bears being sourced with a pair of applicable references. Leaving the statement expressed as it currently is would beg the question of discerning between the "primary" and "secondary" sources in the article, and dwelling on such things may distract readers from a straightforward read. Consider forgoing the "primary" and "secondary" dichotomy in favor of a unified phrase like "several commentators", which will also help to avoid self-referential language in the article.

Done, and thank you for the alternate suggestion. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• The last sentence goes unsourced and also invokes a somewhat ambiguous tone with the passage "Legion [...] kept a piece of the Commander's torn off N7 armor and attached it to a hole on the platform". I get that the article introduces the whole "mobile platform" concept beforehand, yet with this wording the "platform" bit still sticks out as if it's undefined what the term really stands for.

Done. Haleth (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Concept and design

• The first point of the background section commentary applies here as well - the initial paragraph is filled with broad language about Legion's host species, without a single mention of the discussed character. I believe it is not impossible to picture this section of the article starting from the get-go with the second paragraph of the current rendition.

I have moved the sentences around and trimmed a couple of superfluous ones. The concept behind Legion's physical design is essentially identical to the thought process behind the geth as a whole, with the exception of the N7 armor. Haleth (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• A case of confusing wording seems to befall the sentence "Sketches of Legion [...] were featured in The Art of the Mass Effect Universe, which were ultimately not chosen... ", as it makes it seem that the book was some kind of a master design document that the devs referred to while making the game, which would be incorrect as this artbook is supplementary material published post factum.

Done and rephrased. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if the sentence "In a behind-the-scenes video uploaded by Game Informer in April 2011, Mass Effect 3's audio lead Rob Blake ..." really needs to emphasize the "uploaded by Game Informer" bit, which looks a tad perfunctory compared to the fact that the video was done to cover the making of Mass Effect 3. As such, that part could use a restatement. In addition, the "Game Informer" bit bears wikilinking.

Reworked and trimmed the sentence per your suggestion of restatement. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph's second sentence, consider changing "developmental team" to "development team", just to make it roll off the tongue better if nothing else.

Done. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Appearances

• As regards the "Legion [...] was later fully revealed in the "Mass Effect 2 Enemies" trailer" bit - I'm not quite getting how the trailer designation alone would clarify the origin of the character's public reveal, so it might be worth adding some extra tidbit to clarify that part, like pointing to the date or the host event of the announcement.

Done. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• The sentence "After completing the mission, Legion will become loyal to Shepard and will eventually reveal ... " does not seem to be in need of its prognostic voice, so it makes sense rephrasing it in the present tense.

Done. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the third sentence of Mass Effect 3 subsection, the term "mega-structure" bears clarifying.

Done. Technically, it is first mentioned in the final sentences of the Mass Effect 2 section so I expanded the prose there. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• The passage "Shepard rescues Legion, who assists Shepard by using an improved organic-machine interface ..." seems ambiguous with its "organic-machine interface" bit, not quite elaborating on the definition's meaning (what, is it, an interface enabled by a system made from both organic and sythetic components?). Therefore, the phrase could be reworded to something like "... an improved interface for the interaction of the organic and synthetic lifeforms ...".

Done. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the sentence "If the player passes this check, Legion’s geth programs are transferred ...", the word "check" implies vague language - from my perspective, "milestone" would convey the intended meaning more effectively, but then it's your call.

Done. I'll go with milestone as suggested instead of "check", which could be interpreted as jargon that refers the player's ability to successfully acquire that outcome, which is contingent on prior decisions made by the individual carried forward by their game saves and is "checked" by the game's internal systems when that moment arrives. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Cultural impact

• I wonder whether this section really needs the Merchandise subsection, given that it's only a single statement. I'd consider placing that sentence after the second sentence in the opening paragraph, though the final say belongs to you, of course.

The MOS for video game characters specifically recommends a separate section for merchandise. I suppose I could expand the prose beyond a single statement and include more merchandise details for both the figurine and the canvas print since the MOS encourages us to. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the second para of the Critical reception subsection, the statement "Chris Livingstone from PC Gamer rated Legion highly ... " is quite elusive in explaining what is "rated" and on what scale. As such, that part bears some clarification, in the vein of "Chris Livingstone [...] rated Legion highly among the protagonist's companions in the Mass Effect series ...".

Done. Rephrased the sentence. The ranking list appears to be compiled based on a vote or consensus between the staff, with commentary on the entry being handled by at least one staff member. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the last sentence, the "advanced enough" bit has that tone of colloquial voice that I believe neccessitates some rewording.

Done. Do let me know if it is an improvement, or if I should make another attempt at paraphrasing. Haleth (talk)

References

• As a general note - consider adopting a unified formatting structure as regards author information.
• Now, on to the specifics:

refs 2, 15 - missing release dates for the games

Done. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

refs 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31 - consider stylizing author credits after the scheme used in refs 1 and 5, italicize source name, also refs 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31 need wikilinks for the publication

Done, and do let me know if I have missed anything else. Unfortunately, some sources refuse to be displayed in italic font once wikilinked. And as another editor have pointed out in edit summaries, putting italics onto a wikilinked source in the citation box breaks it. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of formatting the necessary sources accordingly, so this concern is withdrawn. Electroguv (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 10 - WP:VG consensus established source as unreliable.

Technically, there is no consensus about TheGamer at the time of writing as per the main page. The only other discussion I could find besides the one you linked, where a single editor gave an opinion without any context on why it is unreliable, is this one from May 2020. There is however an ongoing discussion (disclosure: I am a participant), where favourable opinions about the source has been expressed by other editors. In any event, the author of the article, Cian Maher, has had bylines with The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Verge, Vice, and Wired. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Willing to give this source some credence; however, consider extending my suggestion made for ref 28 to this case first. Electroguv (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

refs 4, 35 - why duplicate information about publishing date when this data is already cited after the author credits?

Done. It is a habit I occasionally fell into when citing non-web sources. Citing only the year of publication for book sources usually suffices. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 11 - cite author and date details

This bears explaining. The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 is an app authored by Geoff Keighley, which basically consists of inside scoops about the game. Unfortunately, I am not sure what is the MOS on formally citing a mobile app, or at least there is no specialized ref box for it from what I could tell. I could just write his full name and the year the app is published after the title. Is that ok? Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, that would be just the thing. Electroguv (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

refs 18, 32 - cite author as Staff, wikilink the publication details

Done IP editor 23:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 19 - seems like a dubious parareligious blog with no academic credence whatsoever, does not register as an RS to my eyes

I don't agree that the Universal Life Church is a dubious parareligious entity, the issue is more nuanced then that. I invite you to refer to the sources cited in Legal status of the Universal Life Church#Recognition and tax-exempt status for a further reading. In any event, I am not citing an article from the organization's official blog/website as part of an article that discuss the topic of religion, but to demonstrate that the character's notability has extended well outside of its original video game medium, including a religious organization that does have recognition about its legal status in some jurisdictions, including Australia. That said, you have the final say; if you are still unconvinced, I have no qualms about removing the citation. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just to make my thoughts clear, the given reservation concerns the authority of the blog source and not the credibility of the institution. Having skimmed through the overview of the case law you refer to, I can see an overall argument in favor of legitimizing online ordainment procedures, however, no point seems to be raised as to the validity of the online educational articles published by the ULC's subsidiary web outlets. It is feasible to assume that the informational activity is legitimate by proxy, given its intristic ties with the procedural aspect of the church's operation, so I guess one could picture the discussed source as reliable, even though I have reservations about how much authority the US federal and state case law wields over nonstate, user-maintained resources such as Wikipedia. Electroguv (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Given your reservations about the source, and since from the perspective of the big picture it is just a manifestation of the character's wider cultural impact, I have removed it.Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 22 - stylize author credits after scheme used in refs 1 and 5

Done IP editor 00:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 26 - WP:VG consensus established only one of the website's contributors as a reliable author (who has nothing to do with the given article), although the author cited in the source has established credentials in major gaming outlets. Also, consider dropping the moniker from the author's name. This issue bears further deliberation.

The author I cited for both this piece and the source in citation 28, Liana Ruppert, is currently a senior associate editor at Game Informer. I don't care for the moniker personally, but I included it for completeness as it's in the byline. Removed it per your suggestion. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Having checked things once again, I can see that the site seems to be a ViacomCBS subdisidary, which goes some way to explaining its status as a legitimate outlet. With that in mind, I'm inclined to think this ref counts as reliable after all. Electroguv (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 28 - that piece doesn't scan as an RS either, though see the above.

I believe Ruppert was writing freelance until she settled in her current position at Game Informer. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Even so, the issue stands as regards the matter of whether to extend the benefit of credibility to the period prior to the author's association with mainstream media outlets, and I think we should tackle this concern from the original perspective of events. At the time of the article's publication, the endnote introducing the author did not mention her involvement in mainline journalistic work, only alluding to "a variety of sites". Freelance contributors are not exempt from recognition as reliable authors, yet methinks some auxillary precedent should go along with the case at hand to suggest reliability (for example, Emily Morganti, another freelance author, historically has been involved in game development at companies such as Telltale Games), and this factor does not seem to apply here. Do you believe it is possible to substitute a different source that covers the same information? Electroguv (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am unable to find another source which described the specific limited edition canvas print that is patterned after the old Obama "Hope" prints. However, I did find another canvas art product, a very recent one directly sold through the official BioWare website's "gear" page. I hope it's a suitable replacement. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Electroguv (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

ref 29 - now this too looks like a borderline case. From what I'm gathering it's a news platform for some investing startup that doubles as an outlet for the founding members' rhetoric about gaming trends. Doesn't seem like RS material to be honest.

Ref 29 is an IGN-published article. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, I seem to have mixed up my notes during the review process. I meant ref 30 of course, citing an article from Green Gaming Blog. Electroguv (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Green Man Gaming is a British digital storefront for PC game client keys, similar to Humble Bundle's role in a way. The blog is an extension of their storefront outlet, a little analogous to how Red Bull has columnists writing video game-related articles which are published on their website in addition to their sponsorship activities of pro gaming tournaments. I did not perceive any issues with using it as WP:RSOPINION as I considered it to be a legitimate outlet. That said, if you are still not convinced that it belongs on a GA-class article, do let me know and I will remove it. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my bad not being up to speed on the situation with this source's status. Electroguv (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

refs 33, 34 - consider wikilinking the publication name

Done IP editor 23:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

And thus concludes my commentary. To summarize, I think that we'll be able to move forward with the review once an effort to clarify and reword some spots here and there is made, and the aforementioned points about reliable sources and source formatting are adressed. Entering standby mode until further notice. Electroguv (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed or responded to your concerns about the references. As for the rest of the article based on your feedback, it's a work in progress. Haleth (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've replied to some of your points in the References section; please see the above responses. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. Electroguv (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of your points and references. Do let me know if there's anything we have missed, or if some of the prose need further refinement. Haleth (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I think you've hit all the right beats with the last batch of changes. Not to mention that the article had already been in fine form even prior to the changes, and one can only commend the speed and precision of your revisions. And, moving on to the verdict, this article not only boasts an impressive body, but, with its spiritual metanarrative, it also has a soul. A surefire pass! Electroguv (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)