Talk:Heavy Rain/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw this article was nominated for Good Article status via the Video Games WikiProject. Below is a work in progress of the review.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Article is already a B article.
 * It contains copyright infringements.
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include M, , or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ) .) - A quick look through the article, there are no tags for this.
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page - No evidence of edit warring

Lede

 * "The player's decisions and actions during the game will affect the narrative; the main characters can be killed, and certain actions may lead to different scenes and endings." - Wording, I'd remove "Will", saying that it simply affects the narrative is fine.
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "David Cage wrote a script of 2,000 pages, acted as director for the four years of development, and intended to improve upon what was flawed in Fahrenheit." - This is very much assuming people know who Cage is, and that he wrote Fahrenheit. I'd insert the word "Writer" before Cage's name, and also explicitly state that he worked on Fahrenheit. This wouldn't be so much of an issue in the main body, but the lede is supposed to be easy access.
 * Compromise: "wrote" already implies he is a writer. I put "Game developer" instead, and established that he worked on Fahrenheit. Cognissonance (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Quantic Dream travelled to Philadelphia to research the setting." - Was this the whole team or just some members?
 * Not specified in source. Cognissonance (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In one of the sources I read, it said that they sent one person (It was an IGN link) to Phili. Might be worth checking.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which may be an error, given the Fast Company interview. Better to keep it general. Cognissonance (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The fast company interview specifically says "We". I'd actually suggest saying that David Cage went to Philadelphia.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Receiving praise for its emotional impact, visuals, writing, controls, voice acting, and music, some criticised the controls, voice acting, and plot inconsistencies." - Who were these people? Critics, or otherwise? Wording again, I'd be more implied by some critics criticised, or receiving criticism.
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that there are no references for the game's release dates.
 * They are in the body. Cognissonance (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did seem them as I went through the article. Good work  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

 * "Each playable character may die depending on the player's actions, which branches out the story elsewhere" - Wording - "Actions, which creates branching story", or similar.
 * Clarified. Cognissonance (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "On the DualShock 3 and 4 controllers, holding down R2..." - Aren't the games only released for PlayStation? Seems irrelevent to mention the controller; maybe could be moved to the part about sixaxis control, as this is exclusive to these controllers.
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot

 * I'd be a lot happier with the characters being mentioned in prose. A list of names isn't really of much use. There is a lot of information on the characters (So much so, Madison Paige has her own article!)
 * I disagree, this way it has an easier overview. Cognissonance (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of information about the characters (So much so, that they have their own entry in the contents. There must be enough information regarding the characters that they could have at least a paragraph or two...  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The entry is only there to give information about who is playing who, and which characters are important. The plot establishes everything else. Cognissonance (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I should also say, Paige only got her own article because of her sex appeal "controversy". Cognissonance (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But either there is enough information regarding the characters, or if not, then we don't need bulletpoints stating who they are. The information for who mo-cap/voice acted them could easily be placed after their appearance in the text.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Severe lack of WikiLinks, in the plot. Other than "Climax", there are no other wikilinks. There are issues sometimes with overlinking, but there are words here that could be linked and make sense. Words like Suburban, Origami and modus operandi should be linked.
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "breaking into the apartment of a drug dealer and murdering him in front of his family" - Was the family there? I looked up parts of the game, and I didn't realise that he had the rest of his family there...
 * Corrected. Cognissonance (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This whole section is un-referenced. Whilst it is common to have low referencing of a plot (Due to it being referenced from the medium), there are certain things that do need to be referenced (You can also reference the game)
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "In all, there are eight possible endings" - I'd want a reference for this. This is quite an important part of the game, for it to be branching. I couldn't find a reliable source (I did check), but the IGN guide has this figure at 18 endings.
 * Took a reference from Development, saying it has 23 epilogues. Cognissonance (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that too. I was going to suggest exactly that. I would say, that reference isn't exactly super reliable, as he does say he thinks it's around 23.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "The worst shows Madison and Shaun dead, Norman overdosing on Triptocaine over the guilt of not saving Shaun, and Ethan being successfully framed as the Origami Killer by Blake while Scott escapes in the chaos" - Wording - I'd have "Negative" endings, or similar. "The worst ending" aren't very encyclopedic.
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Development

 * This is really well written, and sourced. My only real complaint is that it doesn't run very well, and each sentence seems to be about a different subject.
 * I moved some stuff around to make it flow better. Cognissonance (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Release

 * Do we have any more information regarding the viral marketing? Was it an internet thing, or localized?
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Reception

 * "Heavy Rain was included in the book 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die.[53] Out of a focus group of seventy, it was determined that none had assessed who the killer was before the game revealed it" - This is the first part of the section. It should really be a lot lower, as the game's critical response is generally higher in the section.
 * The structure I employ is general information first, critical response second. Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is one huge paragraph! It could easily be made into 3 paragraphs.
 * That would ruin the structure: positive in one paragraph and the second, negative. Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "Heavy Rain debuted in Japan in sixth place, selling 27,000 units" - Sixth place of what?
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Awards section should really be made into prose. The table is fine, but it could be added to, or replaced, similar to Limbo (video game).
 * ✅ Cognissonance (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * ✅ See above - Changes made to article
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * ✅ - Section for Plot is slim, but that is a normal issue for articles for Video games/media - There was also a WP:COPYVIO issue, but the offending item was a YouTube video, which likely copied the text from this article (It still included reference tags)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * ✅ article covers the movie that was never made, and development (As well as standalone version) and also remake version.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * ✅ article isn't baised. Could do with cleaning up the reception section before a potential FA.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * ✅ nothing to declare article isn't stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * ✅ - the images the article does have (Cover art) is fine, but there are no screenshots. I'd feel like an article of this size should have at least one screenshot of the game's controls. - There is now a screenshot. Whilst a second would be nice to input (I suggest an image of the waiting screens), it's certainly not necessary.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment: I believe I've addressed all your notes. When it comes to Template:Good article, I'd suggest you leave it to Legobot. Last time, a reviewer added it manually and I got a talk message saying the review was failed. Cognissonance (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review
Please see Talk:Heavy Rain/GA1. Well done on the submission. This article is now a Good Article! Congratulations. Hopefully Legobot will update this article to reflect the new status.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)