Talk:Hulk (video game)/GA1

GA nomination successful following prompt improvements to page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this up for review. I should have my initial comments up within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's begin with the infobox and lead:

Infobox

File:Hulk Coverart.png has an appropriate FUR

Lead

Instead of "but" from "but also includes", a better term would be "and"
I'd specify that Bana voices Bruce here (don't assume every reader is familiar with the film's cast)
The use of "but" from "received mixed reviews from critics, but was commercially successful" gives a false impression that this defied some connection/correlation between critical reception and sales when in reality those are separate matters.
Since when is 21 levels a "short length"? (yes I've played this game before and fully beaten it)
- The game has been reported to take around 8 to 10 hours to complete, which the cited sources claim is rather short. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"under-developed" from "under-developed stealth levels" sounds like a personal opinion

More will come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the initial points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

No concerns with the FUR for File:Hulk 2003 Gameplay.jpg
"Several" from " combat several enemies" is an understatement
- The source states "fight numerous opponents", so I was just going by what can be reliably verified. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd be better off using "various" or "numerous" instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much wrong with this section :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Any particular reason you only have one citation here? While they don't appear to be needed for basic summary details per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Plot, this does seem rather odd.
- The setting is never specified in the game or the manual, so a verification from an external source was called for. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to specify which "neurodegenerative disease" Crawford has (my memory is fuzzy here but I do remember he used a wheelchair when not in the mutated Ravage form)
- It's as much description as it got in the comics, and the game doesn't specify anything either. The fact that it's slowly paralyzing him makes it sound like ALS or something, but we'd just be getting into original research without the proper sources to clarify it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace "being" from "the Hulk-like being Ravage" with "creature"
"tries and fails to create" → "unsuccessfully tries to recreate"

Just a few things to work on before I continue. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of those points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I'd make some mention of Crawford's wheelchair for his human form, now moving onwards..... SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

Sorry to nitpick, but this doesn't give a specific day in June 2003
It feels repetitive to start three consecutive sentences with "The" like you've done with the second paragraph
The gameplay trailer actually came out on April 10, 2003, not the 11th
- "IGN has managed to snag the impressive gameplay trailer that the publisher plans to unleash early tomorrow." which puts it on the 11th. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it known when exactly production on the game officially began/concluded? That information would be useful to include.
- I'm afraid not. Haven't seen anything of that sort. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting closer to the end, and I have a good feeling about the article so far. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points taken care of, and best pace yourself with this next section cause it's a doozy. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"was cited as a factor in the feeling of repetition" → "were both attributed to the feeling of repetition" (two reasons are given for this complaint, not just one)
"game's short length made recommendation beyond a rental difficult" comes off as treating opinions like facts. Let's go with something like "reviewers from X, Y, and Z only recommended renting the game when it did not take long to complete" (who obviously had an easier time than I did in 2005 as I took 3 or 4 months to beat this when I first got it, mostly due to my struggles with repeatedly failing level 7 as Bruce though I was able to get through it much quicker in subsequent playthroughs). Also, I only see a comment from IGN on this being short, no details on any rental.
"Marriott and Ben Silverman of GameRevolution" makes it sound like both reviewers are for the same publication. I'd place the "Marriott" bit after GameRevolution to avoid such an impression.
Spell out Artificial intelligence upon its first mention; not all viewers will know what "AI" stands for
Unless I'm missing something, Eurogamer is the only one of four attributed refs that discusses AI or collision detection
- EGM: "And avoiding detection is a crapshoot—I've been spotted from 20 yards by guards with their backs turned, but strolled right under others' noses."
- GameSpy: "Sometimes guards see from far away, sometime they not notice when you in their face!"
- IGN: "In the second Banner stage, for instance, there are several areas where the player has to pull and push boxes next to taller structures in order to climb over them. While it's a good idea on it's own, the sloppy Banner control scheme makes it difficult to climb the things you want to climb or grab the things you want to grab" Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment on GameRevolution in regards to order for "Silverman and Benjamin Turner of GameSpy", and it surprisingly looks like the "green-hued Down's sufferer" description is found in the reviews GameSpy wrote for the Xbox and GameCube versions, but not the PS2 edition that you've cited this part to. Same goes for the quotes on Bana's voice acting, and you should use single-line quotation marks for quotes-within-quotes per MOS:QWQ.
- I just double-checked, and the quotes are in all three versions of the review. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "noted" from "noted the Dolby Digital feature's enhancement" feels as though it's treating this like a fact when the portion actually an opinion. I'd replace it with "praised the use of Dolby Digital" or something similar.
Move the sales bit into "Development and release" per my above comment on these being a separate matter from critics' opinions. By the way, I'm glad you could expand on those and production time! Big thanks to Timur9008 for finding the useful piece that was implemented.

(Takes big sigh of exhaustion) You weren't kidding about the section being a doozy! It took me much longer than expected to assess. Thankfully the rest will be a breeze in comparison. Side note, this pseduo-interview with Bruce and his alter ego amused as I read "their" comments on the gameplay that reflect a critic's views :P. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

"released in 2005 to positive reviews, but lower sales"..... I'm sure you can guess what's wrong here
- Since you seem to have misunderstood me here, I'll now be more explicit: the "but" wrongfully makes it sound went against some connection/correlation between reviews and sales when they actually are different matters altogether. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Put "Notes" into their own section since those are a separate entity from what sources are cited within an article
Don't italicize "Xbox Support", Metacritic, or AllGame
- The "website" parameter is automatically italicized. Can't do anything about that. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can avoid that by using "agency" field instead or maybe "via". It'll be ready for GA once you get this done and fix the dubious use of "but" in the sequel section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - And done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now promoting to GA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bibliography" is discouraged as a vague section title that could also potentially refer to works written by a subject

External links

When MobyGames isn't trustworthy per WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources, I don't see any value in having a link to that here

Overall

Prose: Only minor changing is needed at this point. In addition to the "sequel" section, I'd scrap the "short length" bit from lead, maybe replacing it with how people can quickly beat it (though your mileage may vary on exactly how fast).
Referencing: Some references aren't properly formatted, and an unreliable link feels out-of-place here
Coverage: The "sequel" section seems a bit bare. While I realize we shouldn't just dump all its information here, perhaps you could add some bits on development like how it specifically addresses things mentioned in reviews for this game.
Neutrality: : As far as I can tell, there isn't any more bias to be found
Stability: : Nothing of concern
Media: : Both images are non-free uploads with appropriate rationales for inclusion
Verdict: : Placing the nomination on hold for a total of seven days. That should be plenty of time to resolve my final comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.