Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 12:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

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.	The use of the words "you" and "your" should be eliminated. This is a showstopper. Someone marked this as done, but it isn't. Section Critical response includes "you" out of the quotation marks (wording should be changed either to proper quoting or to avoid "you"); same goes for the next section. Section Setting and characters also includes word "you". Done The notes about development and critical reception can be found throughout the article. They all should be merged to the respective sections. Done The Infobox should be made wider in order to reduce its length. Use {{nowrap}}. Done ~~The quotation marks in {{cite video game}} references are unbalanced.~~ What was the phrase "The game assumes George Stobbart" (italics added) from the lead supposed to mean? Done George Stobbart should be specifically attributed as fictional character unless his real world identity is confirmed. Be careful, such attribution should not make the sentence feel disconnected. Done Same goes for Nicole Collard. Done The Gameplay section would benefit from either describing screen layout details (if it is absolutely unique for this game and is a major reason of game's notability) or omitting it entirely. Done In the phrase "Players must ..." from the same section the word must should be replaced with something like have to unless doing otherwise is considered to be criminal offense or the wording is a quotation. In the latter case it should be referenced. Done The phrase "Audio features of the game include recorded Foley and sound effects, orchestral music and recorded voices of voice actors" (last paragraph of the same section) should be rewritten in order to make sense. Done The relevance of phrase "However, Mike Burgess died a few months later" in the third paragraph of the Development section should be explained explicitly. If the event had an impact on the game development, it should be stated and referenced. Otherwise the event should be omitted. Done The phrase "They had since lost contact, but Charles decided to contact him" from the "Audio" subsection of the same section features the word contact twice, which is exactly two times more then acceptable. Done The phrase "The special editions are extended versions of the original" in the first paragraph of the The Director's Cut section of the same subsection is disconnected from the paragraph. Done The phrase "In The Director's Cut, Hazel Ellerby returns to voice Nicole Collard in the new sections, for the first time since the original" should end with something less puzzling, eg. "the release of the original game". As it is it looks like one forgot to finish it. Done The word GBA in the second paragraph of the same section should be wikilinked. Done The phrase "Unlike in the original, players control Nico for selected portions of the game" (third paragraph of the same section) left me puzzled: who is Nico? The wording "Unlike in the original" also deserves more work. Done Two last paragraphs of this section start with virtually the same wording. Why aren't they joined? Done First paragraph of the Marketing and release section mentions the name of the studio too frequently. Done The phrase "He also stated that the sales of Revolution's are going slightly back up again" (Sales section) needs time attribution. Think about the way this phrase will read in 10–20 years. Done The phrase "Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars has received critical acclaim from critics" (italics added) from Critical response and its counterpart in The Director's Cut subsection should be rephrased. Done ~~The paragraphs 4 and 5 of the "Development" section should be joined.~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The header Original in the Development section should be eliminated. Done The subsection Audio of the same section should be renamed, level promoted per previous note. Done The subsection Sales of the Reception section should be merged into parent. Done The subsection of the Legacy section should be merged into section itself. Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Most refs have no dates. Dates should be added for all references unless unknown. Done Now the dates are in places, but some use DMY and other MDY. The article should stick with single date format (in this case MDY, as it is used in most refs and Infobox). Done
	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).	As of current revision the link #50 is broken. Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	The Plot section is extremely poorly referenced. Update: Extended story in the Director's Cut is OK now. You may stick with one ref per paragraph, citing the fact that most part of paragraph leads to. Done I'll tag the missing references throughout the article with {{citation needed}} later. Be prepared, I expect lots of them, though at least in most cases the already existing refs should be reused. Done
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The subsections of Marketing and release are too short. Dependent on their importance they should be either expanded or merged into parent section (by removing the headers). Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Though the part of the lead regarding reception could benefit from generalization.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The article would benefit from screenshots, though it isn't obligatory.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'll add new issues once spotted.

Discussion

Please add your questions, answers, comments and status updates here.

Hi! You have stated link 50 doesn't work. I tryed to open it, and it works....--193.111.221.60 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At last for me it redirects to the front page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double checked. The problem persists. External link checker (see the toolbox at the top of the page) agrees with me, BTW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag the Plot section, as right now I would have to tag every sentence. Instead I'll wait until it gets at least somehow referenced first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in to say that plot references are typically recommended but not obligatory for VG articles. The issue has been hashed over many a time on the WP:VG talk page, and that's been the consensus. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that I didn't really check for WP:MoS issues yet. Same goes for WP:OR check, which is postponed until the issues with the referencing are solved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, this is the link that should open, because it opens to me.....http://www.slidetoplay.com/story/broken-sword-directors-cut-review..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one works. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the source on the article should also work! :) --193.111.221.60 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and. please help, I don't know how to reduce the size of the Infobox

Done

BTW, "100% Sound blaster compatible audio card" - these 100% are taken from somewhere? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't how George is not attributed as a fictional character.... I am sorry, I don't say that you're wrong, just that I'm quite new to Wikipedia..... :-) --193.111.221.60 (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now he definitely is. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing work was done in a fairly short time frame (in Wikipedia terms). Just one issue (1p1) keeps me from passing this article right now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! What I want to say is, that I don't know how to fix the fictionaly atrributed issue.... So, I hope that someone could help me with it, because, like I stated before, this actually my FIRST article I worked on, otherwise I just made small edits.... :) - Oh, plus, I know deleted the "you" out of the quotations in to "players", so now that issue can be marked as Done.... :)--193.111.221.60 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If adding fictional infront of George Stobbart solves the problem, I did it. I will put it on Awaiting, because You're the one who should decide if it's Done. I know this is probably not how it has to be fixed, but I really don't know how to fix it... So can You/Somebody please help me solve this final issue? --193.111.221.60 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I'm very impressed with the responsiveness of the editors. I highly encourage all of you to continue improving other articles and bring them to GA quality level. Please feel free to attach the following barnstar to your user pages:

The Video game Barnstar

For writing high-quality articles and lightning-fast response to the criticism. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

192.111.221.60, it's a good day for creating Wikipedia account and placing this barnstar to the user page! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your kind review, I did put quite some work into the article. But I'd like to thank You, JimmyBlackwing and everyone who helped me wth the article! --193.111.221.60 (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]