Good articleHeavy Rain 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.
Good topic starHeavy Rain is part of the Games by Quantic Dream series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2018Good article nomineeListed
June 25, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 21, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that to compose the entire score for the video game Heavy Rain, Normand Corbeil was given two months, producing nearly 300 cues?
Current status: Good article



WP:BRD.[edit]

WP:BRD me on how Soletron is no-no. --Niemti (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the site myself, but do we really need to document every time a random journalist finds a character sexy? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soletron, oy. --Niemti (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was already looking at that. The article says its a social networking and ecommerce website? What's your arguments as far as them being an WP:RS? Anything beyond their mission statement of serving "the freshest content in sneakerhead & streetwear fashion, hot girls..."? >_> Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Things lik having former Microsoft sub-boss and Adobe CEO (among other people) on advisory board, which makes them pretty serious as opposed to rather bizarrily Wikipedia-accepted "gaming media" like Rock Paper Shotgun (btw, how Wikipedia-notable is Jim Rossignol, really?). And yes, "hot girls" indeed. --Niemti (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great they've got some management people on their board, but what about their writers? Or editorial staff/policies? I mean, Nintendo's got Satoru Iwata in control, but that doesn't warrant using a random Miiverse post as a source, right? Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even ignoring the fact that Soletron is not a standard source for video game articles, all that the writer can say about the character is one line about how she looks. That's not helpful at all from an encyclopedic standpoint, particularly as no one else has written about the sex appeal of the character (and that would seem rather ... insensitive? given the nature of Heavy Rain). If it was a good paragraph or so that explained more about it, then perhaps maybe, but it is literally just a mention in a list without real reason, and thus inappropriate to include. That's the general trend that these "top sexiest characters" lists have - they simply list without and detail of why they were included, as previously discussed at WT:VG, and a reason to avoid their inclusion on WP. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It seems even less relevant/helpful considering this isn't even a character article, but rather the article that overviews the entire game. (Not that it'd be great for a character article either.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need info on the movie[edit]

This section is in dire need of updating. Kinda cute how it states it's been "fast tracked", and now it's been 4 years without any updates. Section should either be rewritten or removed as it is presently not relevant whatsoever, or new recent sources should be found. 91.100.98.27 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT - X201 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heavy Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heavy Rain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Heavy Rain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I saw this article was nominated for Good Article status via the Video Games WikiProject. Below is a work in progress of the review.

Immediate Failures

General Points

Lede

 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: "wrote" already implies he is a writer. I put "Game developer" instead, and established that he worked on Fahrenheit. Cognissonance (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with this Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not specified in source. Cognissonance (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In one of the sources I read, it said that they sent one person (It was an IGN link) to Phili. Might be worth checking. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which may be an error, given the Fast Company interview. Better to keep it general. Cognissonance (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fast company interview specifically says "We". I'd actually suggest saying that David Cage went to Philadelphia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are in the body. Cognissonance (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did seem them as I went through the article. Good work Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

Clarified. Cognissonance (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I disagree, this way it has an easier overview. Cognissonance (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an awful lot of information about the characters (So much so, that they have their own entry in the contents. There must be enough information regarding the characters that they could have at least a paragraph or two... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is only there to give information about who is playing who, and which characters are important. The plot establishes everything else. Cognissonance (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say, Paige only got her own article because of her sex appeal "controversy". Cognissonance (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But either there is enough information regarding the characters, or if not, then we don't need bulletpoints stating who they are. The information for who mo-cap/voice acted them could easily be placed after their appearance in the text. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Cognissonance (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Took a reference from Development, saying it has 23 epilogues. Cognissonance (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that too. I was going to suggest exactly that. I would say, that reference isn't exactly super reliable, as he does say he thinks it's around 23. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Development

I moved some stuff around to make it flow better. Cognissonance (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release

 Done Cognissonance (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The structure I employ is general information first, critical response second. Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would ruin the structure: positive in one paragraph and the second, negative. Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cognissonance (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
     Done See above - Changes made to article
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
     Done - Section for Plot is slim, but that is a normal issue for articles for Video games/media - There was also a WP:COPYVIO issue, but the offending item was a YouTube video, which likely copied the text from this article (It still included reference tags)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
     Done article covers the movie that was never made, and development (As well as standalone version) and also remake version.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
     Done article isn't baised. Could do with cleaning up the reception section before a potential FA.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
     Done nothing to declare article isn't stable
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
     Done - the images the article does have (Cover art) is fine, but there are no screenshots. I'd feel like an article of this size should have at least one screenshot of the game's controls. - There is now a screenshot. Whilst a second would be nice to input (I suggest an image of the waiting screens), it's certainly not necessary.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comment: @Lee Vilenski: I believe I've addressed all your notes. When it comes to Template:Good article, I'd suggest you leave it to Legobot. Last time, a reviewer added it manually and I got a talk message saying the review was failed. Cognissonance (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Please see Talk:Heavy Rain/GA1. Well done on the submission. This article is now a Wikipedia:Good Article! Congratulations. Hopefully Legobot will update this article to reflect the new status. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Please see Talk:Heavy Rain/GA1. Well done on the submission. This article is now a Wikipedia:Good Article! Congratulations. Hopefully Legobot will update this article to reflect the new status. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman’s ending[edit]

There a lot of debate to which is Norman’s best ending some say it’s him saving Shaun or some say its him retiring

Anyone else have any thoughts? Bob3458 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Table[edit]

@Sebastian James: Hiding loose urls and a table template in the article for when you later want to work on it is a retarded decision. This kind of edit belongs in a sandbox. Since reverting you again would breach the 3RR, I suggest you hurry up with finishing the table. Cognissonance (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Heroes: Heavy Rain" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heroes: Heavy Rain. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Madison Paige into Heavy Rain#Plot[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge due to additional sources. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed User:Kung Fu Man redirected this article, then reverted it. I disagree with it remaining standalone and believe it should stay merged for failing WP:GNG. The sources out there are very slim. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Looking on Google Scholar and Google Books, I witnessed quite a few sources that discuss her objectification and characterization in considerable detail. She's not the most independently notable character, but it seems apparent to me that she reaches the threshold. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly secondary coverage of her development, and while I agree the reception section needs to use better coverage, that seems to be present with additional sources mentioned by Cukie. Masem (t) 00:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem and Cukie: I figured I was missing something, and was hoping a fresh pair of eyes might've found something I missed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories