Talk:Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror

Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 8, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 22, 2014	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

Video games 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.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (6 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

An anecdote about BSII

Not so long ago I attended a games related event at BAFTA. We shared a table with one of the developers who had programmed the sound for the game. I asked him why the game started out with such rich animation but ended up with virtually nothing. Apparantly it's because Revolution ran out of funds for the project before it was completed. It had to be finished by the few staff who agreed to work for nearly nothing in the hope that the game got published. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SmokingMirrorMarseilles.jpg

Image:SmokingMirrorMarseilles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SmokingMirrorQuaramonte.jpg

Image:SmokingMirrorQuaramonte.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer.

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.	In the very first sentence the wording "released for PC PlayStation in 1997" requires attention: AFAIK, there was no product called "PC PlayStation". Done In the second paragraph of the lead the sentence "The game was conceived in 1997 and the Revolution's crew" is grammatically wrong. Done In the same paragraph the wording "It's game is serious in tone" also suffers from grammatical problems. Done All the sentences in the paragraph are somehow disconnected, with the last one specifically stands out. Done I'm not sure whether I understand the phrase "The player uses a map for easy travel" in the Gameplay section. Either it says that traveling in the game is easy (which is not an appropriate statement for encyclopedia unless quoted; and even then should go to Reception) or I miss the real meaning of the phrase. Done The same section uses short name "Nico" for Nicole Collard. Either the name should be spelled in full or the first occurrence of the full name should be amended with the "(Nico)" tip. Done The last sentence of the Gameplay section is disconnected from the rest of the section. The idea behind the sentence requires an explanation. Done In the Plot section the third paragraph has the sentence "The third stone of these stones was in Nico's and George's possession" (italics added). One entry should be eliminated. Done The gap between George becoming a stuntman and Nico saving him (in the last paragraph of Plot section) should be somehow filled. If no important events occurred in the gap, the two sentences can be slightly rephrased to avoid the impression of gap. Done The second paragraph of the Development section misses something. The list of people ("David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot") ends with nothing, and the rest of sentence is devoted to another person. Done Though now the sentence ends after the list of the names, their relevance to the game still isn't explained. Who are all these people? ~~In the first sentence of the Remastered Edition the phrase "he also felt some dialogue was out of place" suggests that the problem was about one dialogue. Is it so?~~ NOTE: Well, the interview says "some", so I think we should leave it like that. :) --Khanassassin (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] The last sentence of the first paragraph of Remastered Edition contains word "we" out of the quote. Either the quote should be given with quotation marks or "we" changed to something else. Done The huge sentence in the second paragraph of the Remastered Edition section should be reworked. Currently it is "[...], and Dropbox [...], and Game Center [...]". Either "and" before the Dropbox should be removed or (preferably) the sentence could be cut in two (or more). Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead would benefit from less compressed text. Done The "Critical response" subsection should be merged into parent section "Reception". Done ~~The text of the subsection should be more specifically attributed to the original release.~~ NOTE: I don't think it's needed since the sub-section is about the "Remastered Edition" not the original... :) --Khanassassin (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
	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).	The Plot section is virtually unreferenced. I believe it needs at least a couple of citations (though the source of information and a way to verify it is pretty clear). Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.

The reviewer may add more issues when found.

Discussion

The only actual issue I can't fix is the 4th one... I don't know how to make it sound "not-disconnected" :( Please help. Best --Khanassassin (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with the first game of the series, your response is amazingly fast. I'll look into it a bit later today. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :) --Khanassassin (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my changes in the lead. I'm not entirely sure that I did it the best way, but I like it more now anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does sound more "natural" :). Oh, and, can You tell me what do I have to do to make issue nm.10

Done,since i see you marked it as undone.... :) --Khanassassin (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literally:

Charles Cecil was the director and writer of the game, David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot.

can be divided in two parts:

Charles Cecil was the director and writer of the game,

and

David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot.

First part is OK, but the second fails to explain who these people are and what the relation between them and the game is. Even worse, as of now the sentence reads as they are alter egos of Charles Cecil. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be something like:

Charles Cecil was the director and writer of the game; David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot also had some kind of valuable input.

See the part in italics. And as we discuss this sentence in detail, semicolon would be a better separator (then comma) in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad - I didn't even write that the others were programmers; I added the semicolon too....I think it's done now :)--Khanassassin (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my change or better improve it. "were the programmers" is a way too general, I think. I was also a programmer back then, and still am, but I have nothing to do with this game. ;-) Once we've done with that, the article is ready for GA list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change flows pretty good to me, so I think it's finally

Done ;). So, let's get this done! Best --Khanassassin (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, I am nearly done with the Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon article, so you'll have another article to review very soon ;) --Khanassassin (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Broken Sword 2,5

If someone can make a page for Broken Sword 2,5: The Return of the Templars (I don't know how it's done), I can provide the plot for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.96.135 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source