Talk:Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars – The Director's Cut/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 08:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. To start off, i'll do a preliminary review and point out any issues i can find, before moving onto a more formal review with a template. Any questions feel free to ask! Retrolord (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary points:

I've changed the title of the listings section to Awards, as i feel it more accurately describes the contents. feel free to revert if you wish and we can agree on something.

The game opens in Paris, a day before the original game's start. Is it neccessary to provide this distinction? The article is not about the original, is this unnecessary?

Changed title of plot section to just plot. As this is a seperate article from the original version, i dont think its necessary to keep pointing out this is a remake of the game. Also, is the plot of the entire game listed here? I dont think providing only the remade parts is sufficient detail, could you please include the entire plot? (unless its already there and im being stupid)

The plot section ends a bit abruptly, do you think there is a way we can fix this?

Better now? --Khanassassin ☪ 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make clearer throughout the article the references to which character the player is controlling. The article keeps referencing the previous game, and gets a bit confusing.

Should there be a citation for the game being available on Google Play part?

Here: was released on Google Play on June 28, 2012. and here: and Google Play.

Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the see reception for the original game hyperlink as this is a seperate game and i dont think it is neccessary. We can discuss if this is a problem.

Just thought that people could navigate back to the original's reception section to get more in-depth info, but it's cool. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the part at the end of the reception section into the new awards section.

Not sure if lists are "awards", so I though "accolades" would mean awards + lists, but hey. I'm cool with it. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there are any problems or if you need any help dealing with the issues i've mentioned. Retrolord (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	From reading the article, it isn't clear to me what characters are available in the game, and whether parts of the original are in this new version.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Bit concerned about this part in the lead, seems a bit too casual and unencyclopedic. "due to a group of fans"
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.	Could you reference where the dates came from in the Dvelopment section?
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I', still worried about the plot section. Does it now fully incorporate the entire plot of the game, even parts from the original mentioned on other articles?
	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.

I think I've resolved your comments. -Khanassassin ☪ 18:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy then - PASS Retrolord (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]