Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hotline Miami/archive1
Hotline Miami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
"No matter who you are, bearing too much weight... inevitably leads to the collapse of everything." - Don Juan
Hotline Miami is a lot of things. It's a highly influential and critically acclaimed indie game (considered one of the best games of all time, actually), a very successful title that put its publisher Devolver Digital on the map, a cult classic, a driving force being the rise of synthwave, and a lot more. It also happens to be my favorite video game of all time, which motivated me to put in the effort required to bring this article here today, starting back in April 2023. I've actually rewritten this article twice, once in 2023 (which led to a quickfailed GAN, not exactly my proudest moment) and again throughout this year. And this time around, I opted to use more high-quality sourcing, like academic sources and more retrospective articles commenting on all aspects of the game. And that time, it actually passed GAN (reviewed by Nub098765). Now, with the extra work I have done on the article since then, I believe that all high-quality sourcing about the game has been exhausted, creating what I believe to be the most comprehensive source of information on the game available. And with that, I believe that it should have little in its way from becoming a featured article. Its sequel passed FAC earlier this year, and I hope that here, the first game will be able to join it with a star of its own. I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. λ NegativeMP1 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Pokelego
[edit]Disclaimer: I am reviewing this as part of a review swap with the nominator. Not leaving comments on Lead and Gameplay among other areas because I did not find any noticeable problems with them.
Synopsis
[edit]-Looks very good, but I feel Richter needs some elaboration since he comes out of nowhere and I have no idea what his actual role in the story is.
Themes and analysis
[edit]-Again, very well-done. My only major gripe is, again, certain characters are only brought up here like they've been brought up before; I have no idea who Don Juan and Rasmus are because they haven't been acknowledged before now. While I can infer their significance, it would be good to clarify that they're the masked personas and that the personas have different tints before introducing them.
Reception
[edit]-Could the GameSpot source be more specific? What aspects of boss fights were irritating and where did the reviewer feel the game slipped up?
-"instead "serving as a mirror to the player." I feel this quote is very good, but at the same time could potentially be confusing on a first read. Maybe paraphrase this one, if possible?
Legacy
[edit]-"Many of these similar narrative themes, gameplay mechanics, or soundtracks to Hotline Miami" I assume this is meant to be "Many of these include similar narrative..."?
Overall this article is fantastically well-written and I have very few overall issues. Patch up the above and I'd be happy to Support. I will do a source check at some point in the upcoming days as well. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- All of the above should be addressed. Though with the GameSpot reviewer one, he himself was kinda vague, only pointing out the boss fights and something about the games dialogue that I don't think can be properly written into reception. Nevertheless, I've done what I could. λ NegativeMP1 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1 Sorry about the delay. Beginning the source review.
- -As a note, is there a reason only some sources (Like Game Informer and GamesRadar) have parent companies listed, while others (Including sources from the same source) don't? I'd try to make the citation style consistent here unless there's a reason why they don't have one listed (Such is if they're the parent company themselves).
- -Some sources lack author names and publication dates entirely as well, so I'd add those where they're missing. Some sources also lack hyperlinks to the outlet writing them (For instance I saw a Vice source that wasn't linked).
- -I can't verify some of the scholarly sources due to paywalls and other similar reasons. Due to the level of accuracy in other citations, and the fact some other citations in the article also verify this content, I assume good faith that these are covering what they're meant to.
- Images:
- Both fair use images have a valid usage criteria. I see nothing amiss with the usage of them, so that looks good.
- Gameplay:
- -Source 8 is tagged as Gamasutra, though it has now rebranded to Game Developer.
- Intentional, this specific source was created in 2012 when the site was still named Gamasutra.
- -Minor nitpick, but Source 10 does not specify that the dogs are guard dogs.
- Fixed.
- Themes and analysis:
- -Section looks good
- Development:
- -Looks good
- Marketing and release:
- -The Steam update says the update was on September 9th, while the article says the 19th.
- Fixed.
- Reception:
- -Looks good
- Legacy:
- -Any reason why Hotline Miami is bolded in Ref 99?
- Markup error, fixed.
- -Neither source used for the breakout game statement says Hotline was a breakout title, and instead only says the game was wildly successful for the company. While they can mean the same thing, in this case, it isn't really specified and just seems at a glance to be discussing its influence on the company more than it is a breakout title. I'd either clarify/reword this, or find another source that says this more clearly.
- Reworded.
- -Ref 128 is entirely italicized.
- Fixed.
- I'm admittedly a bit busy so I'll be getting to this throughout today. I will get to Development and Reception later today. I'll ping you once again once the whole thing is done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1: the rest of the article looks good, and I'm not noticing any significant sourcing issues. Just patch up the ref formatting and the sourcing should have no further issues. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have gone through the articles citations several times now to make sure I didn't miss anything, and I now believe they should all have the necessary information. All of them should hate have dates, publishers (if that publisher has an article / the site isn't independent), and wikilinks to the sites themselves if they have articles. Let me know if I missed anything, but I think we should be good to go here. λ NegativeMP1 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1 Cites 19, 53, 54, 67, 86, 95, 96, 97 have unlinked site names when they have articles. Cite 44 needs the (website) removed. 67, 73, 74, 102, 114, 115, 116 are missing author's name. 76 is missing a publisher. I'd also make sure everything is archived, since I noticed a few without archives. Rest of the sources look fine at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 67's author website, Gematsu, does not have an article. 102 does not have one specific author, and I'm not sure if listing all of 114 and 116's authors is necessary. Everything else should be addressed. λ NegativeMP1 22:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1 Should be good to go then. Happy to Support. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 67's author website, Gematsu, does not have an article. 102 does not have one specific author, and I'm not sure if listing all of 114 and 116's authors is necessary. Everything else should be addressed. λ NegativeMP1 22:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1 Cites 19, 53, 54, 67, 86, 95, 96, 97 have unlinked site names when they have articles. Cite 44 needs the (website) removed. 67, 73, 74, 102, 114, 115, 116 are missing author's name. 76 is missing a publisher. I'd also make sure everything is archived, since I noticed a few without archives. Rest of the sources look fine at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have gone through the articles citations several times now to make sure I didn't miss anything, and I now believe they should all have the necessary information. All of them should hate have dates, publishers (if that publisher has an article / the site isn't independent), and wikilinks to the sites themselves if they have articles. Let me know if I missed anything, but I think we should be good to go here. λ NegativeMP1 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
A Minor Point in Prose
[edit]I also agree with the other reviewers that this ready to be a FA, since I haven't found any issues in the article. One recommendation @NegativeMP1:
Footnote for Beard in Synopsis: I think defining "elsewhere" (could it be a manual? a trailer? or agreed upon by fans?) would be helpful for lay readers. RFNirmala (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just removed the "elsewhere" bit because there are no sources that clearly say where he is referred to as "Beard". Obviously, reliable sources call him that, but I fear that clarifying "elsewhere" as just sources could possibly fall onto the lines of WP:SYNTH. So I think the way I've handled it for now is how to do it. λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)