Jump to content

Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 18 November 2012 (Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBroken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars 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 starBroken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars is part of the Broken Sword 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
January 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 20, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 18, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
February 22, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 9, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 25, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
September 19, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
September 30, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 28, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconVideo games Unassessed Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Locations and plot summary

I reverted the page to an earlier version because all the additions to the location section were in the form of detailing what happens in the game. This falls foul of WP:NOT by being an excessive summary of the game and unencyclopedic. H. Carver 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a monster. This game deserves an actual summary of the whole plot , not just a back of the box description. This is the one unique thing Wikipedia could offer for, chrissakes. Someone who's played the game, please fix this. 86.25.126.136 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with H. Carver. Lists of locations are trivia and should be taken outside and shot. The game deserves a full but concise plot section. Geoff B (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Do you think this could be a Good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment? No. There are prose issues, some original research issues ("Judging by the likes of the surroundings"), tone issues ("like many other ideas, over a dinner with plenty of wine"), source issues (IMDB for example is not reliable), irrelevances ("Tragically Mike, who was in his 20s, died a few months later", to), copyright violations (development mostly copied from the "Director's Message" source) the plot is in need of trimming and summarising and gamecruft issues. It generally needs a very thorough copy edit and clean up. Яehevkor ✉ 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've had to restore the original development section as it's basically copied directly (copyright violations are not acceptable) from the given source. Also, the Marketing and release section was very problematic as it was focused on telling people where to buy the games (as an advertisement, not relevant to an encyclopaedia article) and trivia sourced only to primary sources (what and when stuff is released on Youtube isn't really notable). Яehevkor ✉ 21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with some work put into it (some reliable references, changing the "Director's Message", fixing the tone etc.), I think we could make this a Good article..... I mean, it has a few problems, but the kind of ones that can be easily fixed..... : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, now I think that I have fixed the article enough to niminate it...:-)--193.111.221.60 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody fix the plot?

Most of the admins/users say that the mail issue in this article is the >over-detailed< article, and I don't have much experience, so, can someone take some time and fix it?

As I allready fixed most of the issues, the only >big< one left is the Plot issue. Maybe the prose could just a little >tincy wincy< fixing, but otherwise, the Article is pretty much fixed.

Best

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.
  1. 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
  2. The notes about development and critical reception can be found throughout the article. They all should be merged to the respective sections.  Done
  3. The Infobox should be made wider in order to reduce its length. Use {{nowrap}}.  Done
  4. The quotation marks in {{cite video game}} references are unbalanced.
  5. What was the phrase "The game assumes George Stobbart" (italics added) from the lead supposed to mean?  Done
  6. 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
  7. Same goes for Nicole Collard.  Done
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. The word GBA in the second paragraph of the same section should be wikilinked.  Done
  16. 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
  17. Two last paragraphs of this section start with virtually the same wording. Why aren't they joined?  Done
  18. First paragraph of the Marketing and release section mentions the name of the studio too frequently.  Done
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  1. The header Original in the Development section should be eliminated.  Done
  2. The subsection Audio of the same section should be renamed, level promoted per previous note.  Done
  3. The subsection Sales of the Reception section should be merged into parent.  Done
  4. 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.
  1. Most refs have no dates. Dates should be added for all references unless unknown.  Done
  2. 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).
  1. As of current revision the link #50 is broken.  Done
2c. it contains no original research.
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  1. 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]

Cuts and Edits in Director's Cut

Why was the list of omissions from the Director's Cut version removed? I think it's quite notable how they toned down the violence in the new version. Never mind removing, editing, cropping and censoring cutscenes. --TheHande (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. All the Best, -Khanassassin ☪ 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class Assessment

Assessment #1

  • First of all, your referencing is pretty solid, in general, but there are a few things you can do to improve it:
    • You shouldn't need to source anything in the lead itself, unless it's extremely controversial. The release dates and sales figures are probably fine to only source in the body.
    • One thing you'll need to do to get to FA status is go through and double check all your cite templates. Add authors, dates, and publishers to as many as you can. You'll have to do some digging to find publishers, but it is possible. One I can think of off the top of my head is GameSpot, whose publisher is CNET.
    • Another thing I'm thinking would help would be to merge some of your references, and perhaps trim all the quoting back some. There are a few options for that. Check History of Western role-playing video games#References for one pretty handy way to do it. You can list the source fully at the top, then link to it with each individual citation, as is done with the Barton citations in that article.
  • I wonder if you could expand the Gameplay section a little. Specifically, and I know this is ironic considering I just advocated for removing the "censorship" stuff, but if you can get some sources explaining the changes in the new version, like the elimination of character death, that could help flesh it out.
  • I see a minor continuity problem in the Plot section. You describe the entire new story like for Nico, but then the section with George begins, "The next day..." when a few of Nico's sequences happen after the explosion at the Café. You'll need to rewrite that; you might be able to get away with just pulling that part I quoted.
  • In the Director's Cut section, second paragraph, more than half of it appears to be unsourced. Is it all supposed to be sourced to that GameSpot video? You'll need to source practically every sentence in the article except for the really obvious stuff.
  • I'm noticing a fair number of grammar mistakes, especially in the Reception section, which is otherwise quite good. Perhaps submit a copy edit request here. There's another backlog elimination drive starting in ten days, so your article will probably get fixed up relatively soon.

If you deal with everything above, I'd be willing to call this A-class. —Torchiest talkedits 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing over the issues brought up by Torchiest, it seems that most, if not all, have been taken care of. As such, I Support A-Class. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it look everything except a gameplay difference in the director's cut has been taken care of. I see some discussion of changes in the plot and development sections, but they don't quite cover everything. It's very close though. —Torchiest talkedits 02:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your (near-)Supports. Torchiest, I've added the gameplay differences part in the Gameplay section now, and will add sources soon. - In fact, the reviews and articles already listed as sources probably contain all the info needed, so I'm pretty much done. Oh, and, I noticed that I've forgotten to add authors on many of the top lists in the Legacy section, my mistake. :) Anyway, just 0,1% more and we're good to go! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I think I'm done now. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after making some copy edits, I'm calling it good. Congrats! —Torchiest talkedits 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Khanassassin ☪ 19:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Director's Cut Edits and Changes... AGAIN!

Why has the section not been (re-)included yet? Unless people are playing a very different version of the game from the one I bought for my Wii, the censorship and edits are notable and should be included, listed or mentioned at least in some manner. Sourcing shouldn't be an issue, the principle source is the game itself. --TheHande (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that section needs some sourcing, because it's making a serious assertion of censorship. If it's notable, someone out there should be talking about it. As it reads, I don't know that it's really necessary to include, as it seems a bit on the WP:GAMEGUIDE side of things. —Torchiest talkedits 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the censorship section there's serious WP:OR/SYNTH issues too. Яehevkor ✉ 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Right now, there is no way the article would be accepted as class A, as has been requested in an assessment, much less featured status, with that text. I'd say it really shouldn't even be in a good article. I was going to remove it, but since you've already tagged it, I'll leave it like that for now. —Torchiest talkedits 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your doubt in this being a GA; I've promoted this article while I was on "the Wiki" for only a few months, still an IP editor, I had yet to learn. I do plan to come back to this article and "Wiki-GA-fy" it. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just glancing at it, it looks fine for GA status without that section. I may do a more in-depth review over the weekend for A-class. —Torchiest talkedits 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware vs OS changes

Can we get a discussion going on the talk page as to what the contention is here? Why is one way or the other superior? Is there a standard format that is or is not being correctly applied to this article? —Torchiest talkedits 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on the ip talk pages to try and get a response. I have no opinion on most of the edits, but surely instances of "PC" should be changed to the relevant platform (i.e. Windows)? "PC" isn't a platform as such, just the hardware. Macs are personal computers too. Яehevkor ✉ 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I was incorrectly thinking of a platform as the actual hardware. I changed the section heading. —Torchiest talkedits 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the current state good? -My problem was really something about Palm OS, but that doesn't matter now. I believe it's the best option. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA?

As the article's already nominated, how close are we to Featured article status? - Leave comments here! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty good, but I'd still recommend getting a fresh copy edit from an outsider by making a request here. There's a drive in progress right now so it could get picked up and edited in short order. —Torchiest talkedits 19:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Games Nostalgia source

I see there is a back and forth about including this link. I've looked at the source, and there is no need to include it, because all it does is reference the original Génération 4 source (item 15), which we are already sourcing directly in this article. —Torchiest talkedits 21:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only the link to the Génération article. The complete section (from "In a September" ... to "through the project") is based on the GN feature, text content including all notes for the section. Same happened with the even more extensive recent edit to the Wiki entry of Steel Sky (no reference at all, just an old external link). The issue at hand is a copyright protection issue. One can't use (intensive) research done by someone else on Wiki this way, presenting it as research done by the editor without a reference to the original source (Moreover, for this feature I consulted various team members and emails are available). The content of GN is copy protected, so I proceed with this issue as a violation (of Wiki rules as well). Rather disappointing I have to mention this, but I won't undo your comment and proceed as said. Gamnos (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's entirely accurate. The edit where the G4 sources were added did add some information from 1992 and 1993, but chunks of that paragraph had already been in the article for months. If the G4 sources say what they say, there is no copyright violation in referencing them, even if someone else referenced them for similar information. I would like Khanassassin to make a statement about the issue here though, to hopefully clarify things a bit. —Torchiest talkedits 22:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not entirely, but it is for the most part I believe. Some important – and some new - info wasn't on Wiki before I added the features to GN (e.g. origin of game in 1992, visit to the catacombs, Ince working on the game in 1993, attending a film course, Drury's involvement). See the revision on September 18/17:50. I noticed that the info was added after extensive visits to GN by the contributor (statcounter info available). The same case happened with the much more substantial recent Wiki edit by the same contributor of Beneath a Steel Sky (revision October 14, 2012/13:04). On request I supplied the original text on GN (Flash) in word to the contributor (mails available), but under the proviso that a reference to the original research/sources would be added. A single or double use of the same reference source isn't a violation of course, but using a part of someone's else text with new info and all of most references is, and that is the case here for both entries (Broken Sword and Steel Sky), and it constitutes a clear violation. But as said, let's follow the official Wiki procedure for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamnos (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm more sympathetic to your position now that I understand the background a little more. I've undone my last reversion of you for now, until we get this settled. When you say "official Wiki procedure", did you have something specific in mind, or did you mean that as a question about what the procedure would be? This is a bit of an odd situation, so I'm not entirely sure myself. —Torchiest talkedits 03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khanassassin here. Yes, before reading the Game Nostalgia Broken Sword article, I didn't know anything about the game actually being concieved in 1992, or that Steve Ince worked on Broken Sword before Beneath a Steel Sky, or the film course info. And yes, the Beneath a Steel Sky development section is entirely based on research from GN (not copypaste), and I am thankful to Gamnos for supplying me with the text. The problem is that if I'd add it as a reference, it would surely be deleted during a GAN or a FAC, because it's not considered reliable. About the Beneath a Steel Sky article, there's still a lot of work to be done - Plot, Reception and Legacy need a lot of work to be done. I was planning to give a "shout-out" to GN on the talk page (make a section thanking GN and complimenting their great work with a link to the site etc.) after I'm done with the article/when it's ready for GAN. If the GN website would be considered reliable, I'd surely add it as a reference. But as it isn't, this would only cause problems at GAN/FAC. But I didn't think that it would come to this... --Khanassassin ☪ 10:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion here to hopefully get some more input on the matter. —Torchiest talkedits 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_Sword:_The_Shadow_of_the_Templars&oldid=523598784"