Talk:Home Safety Hotline

Home Safety Hotline has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 19, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Video games: Indie Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the indie task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants)
Purple Francis (8 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (9 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

More sources

[1] (paywalled), video interview TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, paywalled FT source is archived here https://archive.md/knaOz. Shapeyness (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Home Safety Hotline/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 08:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Shapeyness (talk · contribs) 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vrxces, GA review is below :) Shapeyness (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it. I understand one thing worth running by you is that a large chunk of the development section is cited from an in-game 'Development diary'. Happy to provide screens/transcript of source text if wanting to do a spot check. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces: The only thing I couldn't verify from the sources I had access to was this sentence: Following a series of abandoned prototypes, Lives revisited the concept upon discovering the analog horror subgenre and decided to create a game under the working title The Lunar Archives inspired by the aesthetic of "90s media formats" including the user interface of the Windows 95 operating system. I'm happy to AGF as everything else matches up with the sources I could read, but a supporting quote from the source would be useful too! Shapeyness (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, let me get into the game and find the relevant quotes for you:

My first attempt at crafting a game based around my love for bestiaries was a game aptly titled Bestiary...this prototype never really made it past the conceptual stage...

I wrote up a new design document titled 1-800-BESTIARY, a game about answering calls for a hotline that prescribes solutions to various kinds of monster infestations...alas, other priorities came up...so [the game] remained on the backburner.

During my newfound love affair with analog horror, it occurred to me at some point that the genre would be a perfect match for 1-800-BESTIARY's gameplay concept, and right away I revived the pitch and started on crafting a working prototype. I settled quick on a Windows 95 inspired interface since analog horror was frequently channelling 90s era media formats.

The new working title was now Lunar Archives as I tentatively decided the new concept would revolve around aliens. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the below comments - apologies for the delay. Thanks for your time. I am happy to follow up if you have any more input. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks Vrxces. I made some last changes, feel free to revert anything if you think they aren't right for the article! Shapeyness (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, not a problem at all and appreciate your own involvement in improving the article! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Mostly good, some minor comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section adequately covers article content, article is arranged into sensible sections, no problems with biased language or editorialising
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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).	Everything is cited inline and content is properly supported by citations
	2c. it contains no original research.	I couldn't see any details that obviously went beyond sourcing, no issues with synth
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows copyright violation unlikely [2], I didn't see any problems with close paraphrasing
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A relatively short article but it covers gameplay, plot, development + influences on the game, and critical reception. Some more details could possibly be gleaned from some other sources I found (see comments below), but no major aspects are missed out from the sources I read.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Praise and criticism are both covered where appropriate in the reception section, rest of the article is neutral and free of editorialisation
	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.	Both images have a suitable fair use rationale
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Optionally, alt text would be beneficial
	7. Overall assessment.

Some comments on prose:

who created the game as an inspiration of the bestiaries from Dungeons and Dragons and the mythology of legendary creatures - this wording is confusing, I think "with inspiration from" or "inspired by" would work better Y
Edge stated the game's interface, citing its "grainy" videos, "green-tinged images", and "crackly sounds", were a "potent setting for horror" and evocative of a "haunted quality" - splitting the sentence in half like this, combined with the use of the word "citing" before we find out what these things are being cited in support of, makes this hard to read. Maybe restructure so the citing clause is moved to the end, or perhaps change "citing" to "including". Y
Optionally, "Following a series of abandoned prototypes..." could be split into some shorter sentences - also, I couldn't see anything in the Game Developer source about abandoned prototypes but assuming good faith that this is covered in the art book (which sources mention includes details of the making of the game) Y Addressed above, let me know if more text is needed to verify this.
I saw some of the quotes had "well-done" even though the reviews said "well done", I didn't check all the other quotes with hyphens, can you make sure they are all accurate? Y Removed the hyphen for 'cleverly designed' but otherwise the use of hyphenated expressions in the review section seems correct.

Here are some sources you could possibly draw from for more details / reviews, this is not required for the GA review as I didn't see any major details omitted but they may be useful:

Financial Times review Great find on this. It's paywalled for me and as a non-specialist reliable source it's definitely valid to add, but likely not essential coverage being missed for a GA standard in my view.
PCGameN review Y Included this one as a reliable industry source. I skipped this one at first instance as it's a pre-release review, and specifies little about why the game is good, and lacks a score.
Dread Central interview Y Great find! Added as there's a few extra points that nicely supplement the development section, and it's got some participation from the sound designer too.
Buried Treasure review (not sure if this one is reliable as it's possibly a blog, but the author seems reliable - they have reviewed for a number of RSes and co-founded Rock Paper Shotgun) I think I'll pass on this one for now as an essential inclusion to reflect mainstream coverage of the game but agree it's completely defensible if it were added to an article given the author's credentials.
Game Industry News review (once again, not 100% sure on the reliability but could be useful Seems inconclusive on WP:VG/S, so might leave this out for now. It seems to reflect the same points other reviews make.

Spot-checks:

[1] - All 4 uses are OK
[4a] - Doesn't support "Players unlock more listed hazards over time" but you can use [2] instead, also doesn't technically mention that the art book contains "background information on the game's creation" Y Excellent pick-up. Substituted the reference. Fortunately I've found another Bloody Disgusting reference that does mention that the art book contains background information.
[4d] - "cleverly-designed supernatural phenomena" is actually "cleverly-designed blend of supernatural phenomena" in the source, needs ellipses There's actually a bit of repetition in the Hardcore Gamer source. The second 'key takeaway' bullet point does actually praise the 'cleverly designed supernatural phenomena that keep players engaged'.
All other uses of [4] are OK
[6] - All ok except one sentence mentioned above which I couldn't fully verify as I don't have access to [5], all other uses verify content sourced jointly to [5] and [6]
[7]-[9] - OK
[15] - OK