Talk:Max Payne (character)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Max loses his meaning of life" Rewrite this please to remove the meaning of life part ((not done "makes his situation a paradox" How so?  Done In video games appearances section starts off with comic books?  Done In video games appearances section appears to be the plot of all the games and the comic books together, could you make it clearer?  Done "as once again people close to him die." Rewrite so this makes sense, please give it some context as to what "people close to him die" really means  Not done "morbidly cyncical" What does that mean?  Not done Never mind I removed the whole sentence. "he exhibits a strong desire to live, despite his inner monologue which describes his dark and utterly somber view of the world and his desire to be dead." He has a strong desire to live, despite his desire to be dead? Doesn't make much sense, rewrite  Not done }}
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"He also has a very dark sense of humor." This needs to either be removed or rewritten  Done "On the other hand" Rewrite or remove  Done "After seemingly busting the case and avenging his family" Rewrite and remove the "busting" part  Done "After seemingly solving the case and avenging his family" Rewrite "the case" part,  Done "When Rodrigo's wife Fabiana is kidnapped, Max and Raul are dragged into the dark underside of São Paulo and find themselves entangled in a human organ harvesting ring involving local street gangs, right-wing paramilitaries and a corrupt Brazilian special police force." Rewrite so it is more encyclopedic. no "dark underside", no "dragged", clarify the "find themselves entangled", You dont just appear in a organ harvesting ring, explain how they got there. Not done "Max becomes a fugitive wanted by the police while waging his personal war on the crime, one-man-army style." Please rewrite for a more encyclopedic tone  Not done "Max Payne has been put into a fatalist situation against his will, in the style of a classic element of many noir films, the fall guy. Max is an antihero, as he himself states: "I was not one of them, I was no hero." The character is noted for his complex use of both metaphors and wordplay to describe the world around him within his inner monologues, which often contradict his external responses to characters he speaks with." I don't think this bit actually fits within the attributes section, so I would like you to remove it. These aren't attributes, it is just a commentary on the character, and it is unreferenced.  Not done "unstoppable vigilante" Rewrite to make less sensationalist  Not done "a brutal murder of his wife" Rewrite as above, and should it be the murder, not a murder?  Not done "wealthy man" Could we just give the persons name here, we do later in the article?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In video games section is totally devoid of citations. Please rectify this situation  Not done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"In January 2012, Xbox Live Avatar clothes of Max Payne in the original game were released by Rockstar on the Xbox Live Marketplace.[20] Max Payne 3 Special Edition was bundled with a 10" tall collectible Max Payne statue made by TriForce.[21] According to Remedy Entertainment's Alan Wake, Max died 13 years after the events of Max Payne 2 (in 2016).[1] This, however, is not canonical, as the rights to the series are now with Rockstar Games" This section should be removed I think. It is unneccessary to list what was bundled with the game, a non-canonical statement made by remedy entertainment or a few bits of merchandise on the xbox live store. Removed it myself.  Done "GameFront's Phil Hornshaw dedicated an article to his theory that Max "could be crazy" and actually killed his own wife, but noted: "I don’t think that that’s the canon interpretation of Max Payne." This should be removed, it gives undue weight to one persons theory about the game and does not actually belong in the reception area as it is an alaysis of a character, nor does it belong anywhere else in the article.  Done "For example, regarding his bullet time abilities, Max comments: "Einstein was right. Time is relative to the observer. When you're looking down the barrel of a gun, time slows down. Your whole life flashes by, heartbreak and scars. Stay with it, and you can live a lifetime in that split second." Please remove this. It isn't an "attribute" of a character, just an a video game gimmick.  Not done
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

As a result of the substantial issues I have outlined in this review I have had to fail the article. As it stands it does not comply with multiple GA criteria. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even notice it. --Niemti (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Check now. --Niemti (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you insist to remove the fact[1][2] of "trophy wife"? I don't seen any reason to "remove" Miscellaneous section, especially since it's now discussing the comics (and the moving there is "done", contrary to what you wrote with the first "Not done"). Also the statue is real, not the one-third of "one piece of merchandise on xbox live" (the last third being the Alan Wake cameo). --Niemti (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fact or not, the term "trophy wife" is not suitable for an encylopedic recounting of a video games plot. An encyclopedia is not the place to make judgements about the beauty of a video game character. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, explaination time (you should have asked for things, before demanding to "remove".

The correct phrase "trophy wife" is used:

• in-game (including by Max)
• by developers/publishers (including in trailers)
• by journalists (as a statement of fact)

And it's not "judgements about the beauty of a video game character", it's just a description of the video game character. I think you just a wrong idea what a phrase "trophy wife" means, even after I've linked it just for you in the article, so I'll cite Wikipedia for you here: "Trophy wife is an expression used to refer to a wife, usually young and attractive, who is regarded as a status symbol for the husband, who is often older and wealthy. The use of the term also usually reflects negatively on the character or personality of the husband, and has a connotation of narcissism and desire to impress others, and that the husband would not be able to attract the sexual interest of the attractive woman but for his wealth or position." That's what she is, that's her role/job (she and Rodrigo were never been actually in love and they didn't even spend much time with each other, in fact she was much closer to Rodrigo's brother). It's not just a wife, like Max's was.

It's not a "statement made by remedy entertainment", it's a cameo appearance in their new game. Merchandise items (official and licensed) and the use in promotion, if they're just having any, are discussed most of video game character articles. That's including in A-class and FA ones, or just go and see some characters from the same year, such as Cortana (FA), Dante (Devil May Cry) (GA), Flood (Halo) (FA), Master Chief (Halo) (FA), Mona Sax (GA and related, she's also from Max Payne), Tidus (GA), Yuna (Final Fantasy) (GA) - speaking only of these introduced in 2001. And this is the first time I've anyone objecting to this. Also the figure was only bundled with the limited (and more costly) Special Edition.

I don't understand what's wrong with "the case". He's a detective and he was investigating the case (yes) of the drug that killed his family, he was just not trying to arrest them. He didn't just go through the city killing all kinds of criminals completely at random like the Punisher does, so it's important to note it was in fact a case. In MP2 and MP3 he's also investigating specific cases (in MP2 it's the Squeaky Cleaning Company and a string of high-profile murders and in MP3 it's first Fabiana kidnapping, then the organ harvesting ring), then stopping killing people after it's done. --Niemti (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And no, I don't agree with an unexplained removal of this information. You need to more clearly state your reasons and to cite the relevant policies and/or guidelines (instead of "This section should be removed I think."). As I already said, it's common among GA, A and FA articles to discuss promotion and/or merchandise. --Niemti (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not assessing it against other articles, I am assessing it against the criteria. I am giving reasons as each issue is listed against the criteria it doesn't comply with. If you really must insist on the inclusion of these bits, I would be glad to fail the article and let you wait a few more months for someone to pick this up again. Your choice. ★★RetroLord★★ 11:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Against what criteria? You can't say "the criteria", or "I think", you need to explain. There's a failure of communication on your part. And before declaring something "fringe", maybe either play the games or read the article, where it's all listed (including Max's nightmares,[3] including Address Unknown/John Mirra thing, including Max even "finding out" he's a video game character). The only fringe thing was the theory that he killed his wife and made everything else up, not that he's a "little" crazy due to the PTSD like his dad. --Niemti (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Against the criteria box it is in. If it is in the 3b box, then it is against that criteria, if it is in the 1a box, then the same applies. Any questions about specifics I will be glad to assist. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But against what exactly criteria (the relevant parts and why). And you need to ask so people can explain. But you didn't voice your doubts and ask for clarifications or anything, you just declared "trophy wife" needs to be removed because you 1) didn't know what the phrase stands for and 2) apparantly you didn't play the games - which is okay, but you didn't neither check it yourself nor just ask about it. That's a serious failure of communication and a completely wrong approach to reviewing an article. People don't do this way and for a good reason. --Niemti (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of endlessly criticizing the review, why not fix the problems I have listed? ★★RetroLord★★ 12:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Because I believe some of these are not actually problems? Like, with the "trophy wife" thing again - you thought it's a problem because you didn't know what the phrase actually means (apparently you thought "trophy" is something like "hot") and you didn't know it's not only true but also official here. As of a state of mind - Max is really, really disturbed. Sound minded people usually don't repeatedly shoot themselves (as in: the other-person figures of themselves) in their dreams and such. Promotion/merchandise - other reviewers never have any problems regarding such things (even while reviewing for FA) and it's extremely unusual to regard this as a "problem", so I need exactly and not just "I think" or the vague "criteria box it is in". --Niemti (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Fix everything else before worrying about this 2. It violates WP:UNDUE, it is unneccessary to list that xbox live sells max payne merchandise, as the majority of games released also fall into this category. Criteria 3b if you insist on specifics. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really, it's just your interpretation and even FA reviewers don't think so.

Now:

• It's "morbidly cynical" (not "cyncical") and it links to sardonicism where you can read "what does that mean". Speaking of "grin" from the sardonicism article, Max has a grin on his face through the whole first game.
• "people close to him die" - everyone who survived the first game dies (except him) - including Mona, his chief Jim Bravura, Senator Woden, Vlad, also Max's new partner Valerie Winterson (who gets shot by him no less).
• I believe Max's bullet time is an attribute, and here's an explaination' how he does it while giving an example of his dramatic inner monologue.
• What exactly do you think attributes are, if it's not about characterisation?

And no, I'm not going to just "fix before worrying" of you being wrong. That's nonsense, a reviwers could be potentially wrong about literally everything. --Niemti (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Max Payne (character)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Should have this one to you by tomorrow ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• "Max Payne is a character from the neo-noir video game series of the same name" - may sound obvious, but could it be worth mentioning that he is the lead/main character/protagonist of the games?

Ha! Something to fix in the first sentence; not a great start lol. But yes, a good point - reworded. Freikorp (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I just thought it would sound better if it would specify what kind of role he brought in the Max Payne series, as he is the main title and also the player-character, but that being said I admit I've never played any of the games! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• "He was originally created by Remedy Entertainment and 3D Realms" - but the image caption below states that the character was created by Sam Lake?

Reworded. Freikorp (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• "while the first sequel, The Fall of Max Payne" - just curious, why isn't this fully named Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne?

Good point, fixed. Freikorp (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• I was also thinking that the lead could summarise the article a little better; for example it could mention a little more on Max Payne's character development and also how critics (or players) viewed him, with the latter being added at the end. This doesn't have to be a large expansion, but more like a couple of concise sentences?

I added some info on development. Is this sufficient? I'm not sure how to expand further on the "Max Payne has been very well received by media and general audience alike" sentence in terms of reception, though I am happy to take suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The titular character of Max Payne was originally named Max Heat.[5]" - the reference given here does not mention a "Max Heat", but maybe that could be me as I don't think my browser loaded the web archive properly

Hmm, good point. This is my fault. The link was dead when I 'adopted' this article, and when I found it via the web archive site it looks like I didn't make sure the version I was archiving backed up the statement. Looking through all archived versions of this page none of them mention 'Max Heat', so either the original editor made a mistake, or the web archives never saved the version of this page that mentions this. I'm revoking the sentence, Freikorp (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've since found a source that backs up the name 'Max Heat', and have added that information back and expanded ion it. Freikorp (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• "In addition, the sex scene between Max and Mona was ranked as the fifth top sexy moment in gaming by Games.net in 2007" - surely sexiest sounds correct?

It does sound better. I think I just left is as 'sexy' as the title of the source is "Top Sexy Gaming Moments", but i'll reword. Freikorp (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• The toolserver picks up no dead links
• Some references have a mix up of various date formats, most use d-m-y formats while instances such as ref 7 uses the m-d-y format? Which one does this article use?

The references was the main thing that needed cleaning up before I nominated the article; I tried to consistently format all sources as d-m-y, but it looks like I missed a couple. I'll fix them now. Freikorp (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

On hold

Overall this is a very well written article, it is both compact and broad at the same time and is also well referenced. There were also no dead links or misplaced references, but regardless I'll put this one on hold (as I do with 90% of my reviews) and once those minor, more technical issues are addressed then this one should have no problem with meeting the GA criteria.

@Jaguar: Thanks for the review. I've made an attempt to address all issues. Freikorp (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them, looks good now, the article meets the GA criteria. Well done on all the work ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Payne (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/producer-max-payne-game-fan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)