Talk:Max Payne (character)/GA2

GA Review

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

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]