Talk:Virtual Theatre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 10:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status

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 Games section name doesn't match it content. The section contains the table that show relation between games employing the engine and the platforms. I'm not entirely sure that this content should be presented as a table at all. Done The first sentence of the second paragraph of Features is too long and unintelligible in parts. Eg. what does the word "solid" mean in this context? The sentence should be rewritten with specific care taken of the feature description, so that people with no adventure game experience (like me) could understand it easier. If in doubt, you might want to describe the traditional NPCs' behaviour before describing the feature, as this article seems to owe its existence specifically to this change. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The Development section covers not only the development, but also the features of the engine. It should get split. 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.
	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 footnotes should be expanded to include authors and dates of the references. Eg. Adventure Gamers provide such information. Done ~~The TED footnote links to youtube video, which is a self-published source. It should be replaced with either something more reliable or reliable source embedding the video.~~ TED wikilink should point to the actual source's description. Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	The statement "Games that use the Virtual Theatre engine can be now played on modern hardware using ScummVM" in Features section is not backed up with a reference to download page listing the games. Such practice is considered to be improper synthesis on Wikipedia. Though secondary links supporting the statement may exist, the better way to solve the problem will be to find a link stating that ScummVM implemented VT's API (or whatever allows it to run these games) and modify the the text accordingly. Done
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).	The list of ScummVM platforms isn't important for this article, as ScummVM is used instead of Virtual Theatre. Done
	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.

Discussion

Hi! I merged the "Games" section into Development, in this style: "Lure of the Temptress, released in 1992 for Amiga, Atari ST and PC..." etc. I have split the "Development" section into "Development" and "Features." :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me handle the table, please. I'll do the proper prose and MOS checks once the split is complete and no duplicate statements would be found in the sections. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Just one thing, do You really think the miage in the infobox should be so small? Just saying... :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO pixelization is a problem much more severe then that of size. This image is too low quality (I mean the technical aspect) to be upscaled. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've removed all the duplicate sentences... but, You said You'll handle the table, so You'll judge if I'm done or not... :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "solid" means, is that..well..it's solid. So, because it's solid, unlike in most adventure games (where objects were transparent), the player character couldn't walk straight through the non-playable character. I think this is not really an issue... :) - If this is not good, could you fix it yourself (since you kind of know what "solid" stands for now) :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out. Does it look good now? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solid means "made from a single piece", transparent – "you can see through it". The typical glass is solid and transparent. These words describe different properties and can't be used to oppose each other, specifically in game interface engine. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this change correctly explain the property in question? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's better --Khanassassin ☪ 13:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the authors. But, the YouTube videos are actually official TEDx YouTube videos, which is considered a reliable source. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]