Talk:Hotline Miami/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Heya! I'll review this. Nub098765 (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, time to do this.

1a: prose

Overall, the article is in excellent shape prose-wise. There are few issues I have it, and most of them are nitpicky, so feel free to ignore them.

• The game is set in Miami in 1989, and primarily tells its story... — This structure feels a bit clunky. Perhaps it could benefit from a more streamlined beginning: Set in Miami in 1989, the game primarily tells its story...
• Using a scrapped prototype developed by Söderström years prior as a basis... — The order of events feels unclear here. Maybe making it active could improve readability? Also, is "as a basis" necessary here? Isn't it implied, in a way? Perhaps it could be something like: Using a scrapped prototype Söderström developed years prior...
• ...followed by one for PlayStation 4 in August 2014. — "one" feels unnatural and possibly informal here. Maybe: ...followed by a PlayStation 4 port in August 2014.
• Additional methods available to the player include knocking out enemies with a door, using them as a human shield for defense, or kicking them against the wall. — "Additional methods available to the player" seems a bit wordy. Maybe switch "available to the player" to "the player can use"? Also, isn't the "defense" aspect implied by the word "shield"?
• ...and is dedicated to identify their source. — Is it just me or is this a bit awkward to say? Wouldn't it be "identifying"? And even then, isn't there a smoother way of saying this, perhaps ...and is determined to trace their source.?
• ...ratcheting the players anxiety and increasing player focus, while also desensitizing them. — Desensitizing them to what? To the violence?
• ...as the player exits the building as the remains of enemies are scattered across the floor. — The double "as" structure feels unclear. I'm not sure how you could reword it without stepping into OR territory, and I'm fine with leaving it as-is, but it feels awkward, no?
• Each of the game's masked personas serve a specific purpose in these encounters. – "Each" always makes the subject singular, so it should be "serves", I'm pretty sure.
• All interrogate the player through their own ways, with Don Juan's dialog including lines such as "knowing oneself means acknowledging one’s actions", while Richard's dialog is more direct, asking questions like "do you like hurting other people?" — I understand the shortened use of "all", but it feels sorta awkward here. Also, I feel like a semicolon would work better than a ", with" here. Perhaps: {{green|Each interrogates the player uniquely; Don Juan’s dialogue includes lines like "knowing oneself means acknowledging one’s actions," while Richard is more direct, asking "do you like hurting other people?"
• The differing behavior of the masked figures were noted by Luca Papale and Lorenzo Fazio to possibly represent a dissociative identity disorder in Jacket. — Passivity here makes the sentence feel a bit unnatural. Perhaps it could be restructured: Luca Papale and Lorenzo Fazio suggested that the contrasting behaviors of the masked figures may represent dissociative identity disorder in Jacket.
• ...both of which were considered to fall under "mask digital prosthesis"... → ...both seen as examples of "mask digital prosthesis"...
• Following this, the two faced financial problems after the project's failure... — What does "following this" mean if not "after the project's failure"? Do these not mean the same thing?
• While the game was originally intended to be a smaller project, it was expanded into a larger game with a longer development cycle after the team was contacted by Devolver Digital when Vlambeer sent them a demo could be simplified for flow: Although initially planned as a smaller project, the game expanded after Vlambeer shared a demo with Devolver Digital, who then offered to publish it.
• ...with Reeves describing as doing a "phenomenal job"... — Is there a missing word here or am I misreading it? Shouldn't there be an object, like "it"?

That's about all I have for this article, and most of them are slight nitpicks that don't affect the prose heavily at all. Great job. and sorry if this seems too comprehensive for GA status, I just want this article to be as well-written as possible

1b: formatting

Article is consistently well-formatted. No excessive whitespace. And mwah, pictures on the left. Great formatting, and amazing job on the consistent paragraph size!

2a: list of sources

There is a well-formatted list of sources present at the bottom of the page.

2b: reliability and referencing

Most all sources are reliable; those that aren't are primary sources or at least situationally reliable. There are also no unsourced passages throughout the article (sans the synopsis, which doesn't need citations).

2c: original research

To see if there is original research, I will conduct a spotcheck of sources. I will scour through about 1/5 of the listed references (about 22), and AGF on the others.

• Ref 1a: , 1b:
• Ref 2a: , 2b:
• Ref 3a: , 3b:
• Ref 10:
• Ref 15a: , 15b:
• Ref 24:
• Ref 26:
• Ref 30:
• Ref 36:
• Ref 42a: , 42b:
• Ref 43a: , 43b:
• Ref 55:
• Ref 66:
• Ref 68:
• Ref 71:
• Ref 76:
• Ref 80:
• Ref 88:
• Ref 90:
• Ref 96:
• Ref 99:
• Ref 105:

While there were some major paraphrasals, I saw no giant leaps in logic for any of these. It's not synthesis, just restating what's in the source more concisely—at least for most of these.

2d: plagiarism

Earwig detects a 21.6% similarity. All good here.

3a: main topics

Article addresses all of the prominent talking points of the subject. A quick Google search reveals no additional, crucial information to be added to the article.

3b: focus

Though >5000 words long, the article remains focused and concise throughout, speaking about one point in one sentence and transferring to another in the next for most topics.

4: neutral

The article is very neutral, always stating facts rather than opinions (unless it is of a critic). No words favoring the subject, and no words against the subject.

5: stable

No ongoing edit wars, no move discussions. Stable as my nana's house during an earthquake.

6a: illustrated

With 4 pieces of media in total, this article is well-illustrated for its length. The non-free images have in-depth rationales that correctly and strongly advocate for their inclusion in the article.

6b: relevant media

All media is relevant to the subject, with some illustrating specific talking points and others generally describing the section (say, the picture of Söderström). Illustrative captions are placed with the media.

Verdict

Well-written article, @NegativeMP1:! The only "issues" I have with it are in its prose, which is already amazing as-is. Slight tweaks would make it even better, but this article is a masterclass in article-writing overall. Well done, and I hope to see these tweaks made—or replied to—soon! I'll place this review on hold to give you a chance to discuss these changes. Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review this article! This is by far the largest article I've written, and I'm surprised it didn't scare you off from its sheer length. I've addressed all of the issues you pointed out with the prose. As a side note, I think this article would qualify for the ongoing GAN backlog drive, which you're participating in. Just a reminder. λ NegativeMP1 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

So it is! Thanks for the heads-up—I had assumed only the first list was eligible. After another read-over, I see nothing glaringly wrong with this article. In other words, I think it’s ready for GA status. Well done, and I wish you luck in your future Wikipedia endeavors! Nub098765 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)