Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 21 February 2009.

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

 * Nominator(s): Gary King  ( talk ) 


 * Images: The cover, one free image, and two fair use images. For the fair use images, the first one shows gameplay so I don't think there's any problem there. For the second, it shows a graphic panel from the game, which are used in cut scenes rather than fully animated cinematics. In the article, I explain that the developers chose to use graphic panels instead of fully animated cut scenes to push the story forward because they were more "effective", and they forced the player to interpret each panel for themselves, along with nuances, etc.
 * Sources: I think that these are all standard video game sources. The ones that are less common are used only for reviews.

I've been working on this article for two months now, and I think it is ready. Gary King ( talk ) 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, thanks Gary. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is quite good already—only some minor tweaking should be required to get it up to par. The sources look OK to me.
 * Do we think just saying "third person shooter" is jargon? Because adding "video game" seems contrived to me. Perhaps the term has entered widespread colloquial English by now.
 * That said, I'm not sure "beating the game" is good here.. maybe "finishing"?
 * "The meter will eventually increase over time ..." Spot the redundancy.
 * "Also, when near an enemy, Max can hit the enemy with his weapon as a melee attack." This needs revision so it doesn't say "enemy" twice and "as a melee attack" is pretty weak.
 * "The game went gold on October 6, 2003 in preparation for its release." This might be unnecessary detail.
 * "James McCaffrey returned as the voice of Max." In the lead, you said the game developers played the roles in the first game. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe James McCaffrey is a software developer.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All done. Wow, first time someone said that some information in my article might be too much; it's a nice feeling. It's a short sentence, and is interesting and useful, at least to people who know what "going gold" is as I know it's not a common phrase, but it's still fairly common in gaming circles, and it continues its paragraph's chronological list of events. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I work in computer software and the date on which our software goes gold is irrelevant to anyone outside our company. Only the Beta and RTM dates matter. I wouldn't expect the article here about the software I work on to mention the gold date—it is internal information anyway. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm okay, I have removed the information. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Reading the development section leads me unconvinced that this article meets the criteria. The first two sentences are inaccurate and indicative of sloppy research.
 * "Take-Two Interactive issued a press release on May 22, 2002" Really? Did you actually verify the date? This seems to suggest otherwise. The source you used is reporting Take-Two's announcement at E3. Its press release of the given information was much earlier.
 * "The following month, on June 6, 2002" Since the date is explicitly given, why is "the following month" here?
 * "The following month, on June 6, 2002, Take-Two paid Remedy $8 million to develop Max Payne 2". This is not what the given source says. This is not the first time you have misrepresented a source in your writing. Is this a chronic problem?
 * "Originally thought to be released in the first half of 2005" Take-Two originally thought? Others originally thought?
 * "Take-Two later officially" You've been through enough FACs to know that "later" is needlessly unspecific. Two years is a rather large discrepancy; explain further rather than just stating that there was a change.
 * "Originally modeled after the game's writer Sam Lake in Max Payne, Max" It's not entirely clear what "modeled" means here (character? appearance? I assume the latter...if so then "..., Max's appearance was..."). "Originally modeled in Max Payne after" seems a more logical placement of "in Max Payne".
 * "Lake wanted to break new ground..." OK, so he wanted to, but how did he achieve this? What sort of "new and unexpected subject matters" did he insert as he developed the plot?
 * Is the figurative/colloquial language not also a problem here? Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "While working on the film noir theme, Lake remarked " He remarked while working on the theme?
 * "finding that since the setting and characters have already been established, the primary goal of the sequel was to be better than its predecessor and take the story to surprising directions" "finding that since" <-- awkward. Why is the present perfect ("have already been established") used here? " to be better than": like "be very effective" in the previous sentence, this is incredibly simplistic and generic. Be better how? Be effective how? Interesting preposition choice in "take the story to surprising directions". There's a difference between summarizing in encyclopedic language what was said and using exact quotations. If you're using quotations, you need quotation marks...
 * "help add to the game's" Either help or add to.
 * The second paragraph needs some better organization. First the modeling, then the voice, then some random song (how was this song used?), then the plot, all in the first three sentences.
 * "believe that the effects are used well is when " Needlessly wordy.
 * "Bullet Time...was improved" Twice in two sentences.
 * "combat scenes, which Max Payne was known for, with increased realism and dramatic, movie-like action" Yet another instance where you choose not to employ quotation marks for something that is directly lifted from a quotation. Budding Journalist 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All done Gary King  ( talk ) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * After some more research, it looks as if the December 5, 2001 date may be incorrect. See the SEC files. This files suggest that "on June 6, 2002, Take-Two agreed to pay..." is misleading. The agreement does not appear to be separate from the earlier acquisition. It looks as if Take-Two may have issued a press release in May (you should verify this) announcing the acquisition, but the incentive payments were not made public until the filing with the SEC went through in June. When you're dealing with dates in secondary sources, you can't just extrapolate from the date of publication. Just because the secondary source may have been published on June 6 does not mean that on "June 6, 2002, Take-Two agreed to pay up to $8 million", unless the source said something like "today, Take-Two agreed". Budding Journalist 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated and reworded with the actual press release. I've kept the GameSpot link as it's still useful for the actual dollar amount. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Also, when near an enemy, Max use a melee attack by hitting them with his weapon." Not entirely ture. only works of melee is seclected as the secondary weapon option.14:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is true, it's just not as detailed. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has any progress been made on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to "2004 8th Annual SATELLITE™ Awards"? That's the name of the awards, correctly capitalized, it's not the entire title that is capitalized. Does the single word need to be lowercased? Gary King  ( talk ) 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it does indeed need to be lower case, but you might wait for Sandy to weigh in, she's better at the minutiae of the MOS than I am. (I'll unwatch this since this is the only outstanding issue) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there's a "TM" by the all caps, I'll ignore that one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From the "Gameplay" section, paragraph 1: "As they progress, players access other weapons including handguns, shotguns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles/machine guns, long-range rifles, and hand-thrown weapons." [Emphasis mine.] It has been a few years since I played the game. I don't recall any machine guns. I think that the hand-thrown weapons were grenades and Molotovs? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Plot" section indicates linear play, but doesn't the game begin in medias res? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From "Development", paragraph 4: "Previously, Max had only one expression available; in Max Payne 2, he often smirks and moves his eyebrows to react to different scenarios." Wasn't this parodied in Max Payne 2 as "a permanent constipated grin"? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed "machine guns". Right, only grenades and Molotovs, but I'll just leave it as "hand-thrown weapons". The entire sentence just gives a general overview of the weapons available, not the specific types. The game begins with Max in a hospital after the last game. If I recall, it's a linear story. Was his expression a parody? I just know that people said that his expression in the first Max Payne made him look constipated, but that's it. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The game does begin with Max in hospital; this is after Winterson shoots him. Our article "in medias res" indicates that Max Payne 2 is such a game. A number of gaming sites indicate this too:, . While watching a scene on the TV in game, Max makes a comment about the actor's permanent constipated grin. (I suppose that this isn't important enough to be in the article.) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How should the beginning be worded and fit into the Plot section? The story begins like that primarily for the effect on the player, I would imagine; for the sake of the article, though, it might be better to keep it linear to make the most sense. Gary King  ( talk ) 07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of sentences to the start of the "Plot" section. I don't think it's acceptable not to mention that the game starts in medias res. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it is unnecessary to mention. The Plot should be as understandable as possible—mentioning that the game begins in media res (which should be italicized) does not really help the reader understand the Plot any better, and could actually make it less understandable, as the Plot jumps from the middle of the game to the beginning in a single sentence. In any case, I removed the information for now as the source you used was unreliable (it's a review written by a player, essentially anyone can write those on GameSpot). I did a quick search on the web with "in media res" and "Max Payne 2", and very little came up, let alone from reliable sources. Regarding the constipated grim, Max was referring to how he looked in the original Max Payne, a self-reference. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Out-dent) I see that you removed my contribution. So since you didn't think it was relevant, perhaps you would like to say: does Max Payne 2 begin in medias res or not? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Giant bomb, TV tropes, Mahalo, answers.com Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Giant Bomb – user generated
 * TV Tropies – a wiki
 * Mahalo – a wiki
 * Answers.com – A Wikipedia mirror

Gary King ( talk ) 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that you didn't answer my question. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Giant Bomb is not user generated (although parts of the site are). WikiProject_Video_games/Sources notes that Giant Bomb is considered a reliable source. Both the "in medias res" summary page that I referred to above, and the main game review page here confirm my point. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the Giant Bomb review has a better discussion of the themes in the game, cohesively described in a single section. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that question was rhetorical; the way it was worded, I thought you wanted me to put the information in the article without using a reference. As for Giant Bomb, I was able to add a comma with the "Edit Article" link on the page you provided, so I would call that a wiki. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that you don't regard this information as relevant to the article, despite your scepticism about the reliability of sources. As I mentioned above, Giant Bomb's review has a better description of the themes in the game. I won't oppose the article in becoming Featured, but perhaps you would consider adding a "Themes" section in the future if you find a source that you consider reliable. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the game starts in media res, but I don't consider the information essential; sure, it would be nice to have, though. I will look for references that can help create a Themes section for the article. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the narrative starts half way through and uses flashbacks is pretty important. You don't need a secondary source for that, citing the game is fine. - hahnch e n 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not happy with the Reception section. There's a massive list of reviews in the box out, and I'm not sure if they've gone through any kind of review.  No one seemed to have spotted that the Play magazine review was from the US, or that the Daily Telegraph was the unrelated Australian edition.  Why have two reviews by Steve Polak's been used?  Do his opinions count double?


 * It's also clear that editors haven't had full access to some of the publications, merely culling quotes from Metacritic, and it reads like it too. Publication A said xxx, Publication B said xxx - so there's no real flow.  In one paragraph, you have seven disjointed opinions from seven sources.  I would much prefer editors stick to sources they actually have, rather than trusting Metacritic to have picked out the juiciest line from what may have been a multi page review in PC Gamer. - hahnch e n 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, what do you think of it now? Gary King  ( talk ) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why have you chosen those particular sources? There seems to be a focus on broadsheet reporting over the specialist press.  I think it's a good thing that you have a mainstream response in there, guys like Steven Poole are definitely respected, but I would move the focus to the specialist press.


 * I still think the reception section reads like its just listing other opinions without any real structure. For example, the sentence "The game's action was praised by several reviewers" in the last paragraph is redundant, because you've already listed critics praising the action in the preceding paragraphs.  I would break down the reception into paragraphs focused on the game, rather than on a particular reviewer - a paragraph about the gameplay, one about the story, etc.  I said something very similar at Featured article candidates/Age of Mythology too. - hahnch e n 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.