|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Manhunt 2 was nominated as a good article in the Sports and recreation category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: December 22, 2013
Manhunt 2 was nominated as a good article in the Sports and recreation category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: July 2, 2013
GA Review (old)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Manhunt 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- The lead focuses too much on the certification issue, and doesn't adequately touch on gameplay, plot, or more general development.
- I think the gameplay section suffers from comparison to the first game. Readers shouldn't have to read another page to understand yours, so keep the comparisons to a minimum and make sure it's understandable here.
- The gameplay doesn't actually tell me what the point of the whole game is. I get details about executions, stealth, situational murder, etc., but it doesn't actually gel into a cohesive section where information flows logically.
- I'm not sure why the controversy is given as a timeline. It should all be converted into prose. with consideration given to what details are actually important enough to include and elaborate on rather than listing everything. This entire section probably can be cut down.
- The quotes in the controversy should be summed up and condensed; giving a paragraph to victims of a demonstrably unrelated crime who blame the game seems like undue weight. Likewise, the quotes later on just make reading a chore. If they aren't paraphrased in the sources that might be an indication they aren't views worth quoting verbatim.
- Was Jack Thompson actually disbarred at the point this is brought up?
- This is partially a personal suggestion, as apparently there is some disagreement in WP:VG on this, but I'd recommend actually using reviewer's names; the publication itself doesn't usually present the review as "their" review, they are written by singular individuals for that publication… e.g. "Gamespot's Greg Kasavian said" rather than "Gamespot said".
- Still to do: source check for accuracy and paraphrasing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's time to fail this, only three edits have been done between the review and this comment. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated the article and was also one of its editors. Unfortunately I was absent from Wikipedia for two months when the review actually happened, and thus was not present to help out in the review (but I was HERE when it was still in the nom list). Sorry David Fuchs if you reviewed the game without any progress from your evaluation. The other main editors were busy fixing the Red Dead Redemption article (which was also a GA review). I will try to fix the article, and nominate it for another run as a GA. Godzilladude123 (talk)
- For what its worth, I'd just like to add my eight cents. I think the longer version of the article is far superior to this edited version. As someone who has used this article for professional purposes, I think removing the Chronology of events table is a grave error, it was a great at-a-glance reference tool for a complex sequence of events. Taking it out is a perfect example of the awful homogenization that happens when good, thorough articles are submitted for GA/FA review and get reduced down to bare essentials. A lot of very well researched and well written info has been removed for no reason other than getting the article up to GA standard. Also, shouldn't User:Bertaut be consulted in all this, as he wrote the vast majority of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- No. If you read the GA Review above, the reviewer stated that the controversy is better as a prose than a timeline. And don't worry, the editors didn't reduce it down to "bare essentials". We just trimmed the aweful amount of quotation that made reading a chore, as per Wikipedia:Quotations rule. The gameplay too was fixed, and the heading was expanded. Those were the only ones that were changed. No major infos were touched. The rest are scot free. And this User:Bertaut, I don't know about him/her but he didn't showed up when the article was being reviewed for almost two months.Godzilladude123 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Manhunt 2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Stuff to fix, by section
- Recently filled up the rationale for File:Manhunt2gameplay.jpg 184.108.40.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Grammar and wording have notable issues here. "The player assumes the role of either Daniel or Leo" is stated without explaining who Daniel or Leo are or if there's any difference between them in gameplay. "the player character must approach an enemy from behind, undetected, and kill them, while also incorporating gun play and brawling." implies that you have to brawl and shoot while executing, which I think is not intended. "While out of combat, players must hide from enemies by simply staying out of their point of view or hiding in the shadows." should be part of the next paragraph, "also" is unnecessary in the sentence "has also been tweaked from the original", and "original" should likely read "previous game", etc.
In short, it appears that all the necessary information is here, but the presentation is lacking. I would recommend rearranging this entire section as follows:
- First brief paragraph explains core mechanics.
- Second paragraph explains stealth/non-combat and how it has changed from Manhunt 1.
- Third paragraph explains execution/combat and how it has changed from Manhunt 1.
Finally, something should be said about the fact that the execution levels were previously relevant to a score system but are no longer.
- Fixed it somehow, but I instead divided the gameplay into 4 parts to make reading easier. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I got busy, but I finally removed the excessive "also" word. Fixed some of the grammar too and added some stuffs.18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Without knowing anything about Manhunt's story, I'm just curious if the plot can't be tightened up. I have no specific qualms, just legitimately curious if it's possible. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I see one spot that badly needs a citation, and templated it. What is an "SCE event"? I've corrected the other wording issues here myself.
Ah, the meat of the article. Good work here.
What remains to be done here for the article to meet GA standards? There were many edits to the article extending a couple of days after the final update here on September 17. erachima, can you please post a status report? You have checked for grammar, I see; did you also check for close paraphrasing and the like? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been rather preoccupied both here and offline and nobody pinged me. I'll see if I can give it a look this evening in... about 4 hours. --erachima talk 23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's been over two weeks since the above; pinging erachima again... BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please finish it if your offer is still valid; if not, please let me know and we'll look to find another reviewer. This review has been ongoing for two-and-a-half months now. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This is among the harder points for me. The article uses numerous unreliable sources, including Wii Games, Project Manhunt (and other related sources), N4G (which links back to its original source, a dead link that may also be unreliable), GameFAQs, and YouTube. In addition, what makes , , pr  notable? You also must fix some sources that are missing details such as the first and last names of the authors. Finally, make sure to go to the external links tool provided in this GA review; there are quite a few dead links and other problematic links. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Re: Im sad to say that i might not be able to edit the article and fic thos sources. My hometown ws hit by typhoon haiyan and till no we dont have internet. Im only using borrowd wifi from relief ops. Unless someone can edit those sources, im afraid the article cannot be fixed to pass GA.Godzilladude123 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Really sorry to hear about your problems. I'm hoping that everything clears up for you. In the meantime, while I would like to assist, I've got a lot on my plate as it is. The problems are non-trivial, so I would recommend attracting a user from the Video games WikiProject to assist with the article and cleaning it up. Once you and the editor feel the article has fixed the sourcing and spruced up any possible errors, let me know before you nominate it for good article again and I will give it a once-over. I'll also do the review once you do bring it back. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)