Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2

Neverwinter Nights 2 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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
May 15, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Video games GA‑class 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

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Class Mistake?

I read the Mask of the Betrayer article and noticed that the spirit shaman is listed as a new class, but in my version of the original campaign, I can be a spirit shaman. I have the gold edition, which comes with NWN2 and MotB, so that could be why.69.254.131.245 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have installed MotB, you can play a spirit shaman in any campaign or module, even those released before MotB. -- Jao (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to GA

Alright, so...where do we start? Shall I do the reception? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. I'll work on the plot section first (needs some real trimming), and maybe the gameplay then. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, good luck with that plot. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K I freshened up reception and reworded the second paragraph in the lead to reflect it. My next step is going to be figuring out what to do with the expansion packs—personally, I think they should be a subsection in Reception. The Versions/re-releases and Mac sections need to be rearranged too, so I'll marinate on that one for a while. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I plan to work on the plot sometime this week... sorry about the delay. This is gonna be fun. ;) –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up and rearranged the Mac, release, and expansions sections. I think that part looks pretty good now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I hope to really start on the plot today (sorry about the delays!) –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and started on the plot. Hope I didn't steal your thunder, Drilnoth. Anyways, unlike Torment, I've actually played this game, so I know a bit about the plot. The story section could still be trimmed, though. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay... I'm just really sorry I didn't get to work on it sooner. I just have so many different things that I'm working on on-wiki, and there's only a certain amount of time. Anyway, if you played the game it probably makes more sense for you to have done it, anyway. Let me know what else I can help with, and I'll stick that right near the top of my to-do list. Great work, by the way! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development is done, or nearly so. All that's left now is Gameplay. Probably more video-game jargony than other sections, so I'll get to work on it ASAP. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Glad to see you've been keeping up with this! :) BOZ (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neverwinter Nights 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Well-written. Just mind the minor punctuation errors that I have corrected.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The second half of the first paragraph and the entire third paragraph in the Plot subsection are unsourced. Please add citations to verifiable sources.
Don't really know what to say about this one—you're not gonna find reviews or other reliable secondary sources detailing events that far into the game, and citing the game itself is impractical because everything in the Plot section is a summary of the game itself. The game's narrator doesn't turn and say "At the end of Act I, the party dispatches the githyanki, rescues Shandra, and learns of the origin of the shards," you know? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 02:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; although for FA citations (even if to things like quotes from the game) are needed, as with Planescape: Torment, although I don't see why they're so essential (for the plot section only) for a GA. Certainly the rest of the article needs good citations, the plot is basically "sourced" to the game itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's got to be something we can do here. I am wary about removing it entirely because that would fragment that whole section. Perhaps there is a way to eliminate the detail there and use the other sources before and after those unsourced portions. I'll try and see what I can find. Remember that, per WP:WAF, while secondary sources are preferred, primary sources can also be used, provided content stays in a real-world perspective. MuZemike 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's as possible to do here, but I've been keeping an eye on the Planescape FAC, and I like what Drilnoth and Jimmy Blackwing have been doing to source the plot summary. The difference is that there, they have a copy of the script to work with, so like I say it may not be possible to do the same thing here if that sort of access is not possible. BOZ (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and pass for right now, because I have a strong feeling that there is at least one source out there that is verifiable for this. After having read a walkthrough on Act 2 of the official game guide by BradyGames, I'm sure this information would be in here in regards to Acts 1 and 3, respectively. I would suggest someone get their hands on that game guide, because I'm about 95% certain it's going to be in there. MuZemike 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Very comprehensive.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The boxart does not have a fair-use rationale. The other images' fair-use rationales need to be strengthened up a bit. Spell out why the images are necessary to the understanding to those who read the article; I prefer to use the {{non-free use rationale}} template as that spells out specifically what is required per WP:NFCC. All of the images also need to be reduced in size, preferably to around 256px (I tried to with the boxart but had to revert because my Linux paint program is not very good in image resizing as far as quality is concerned).
I went ahead and strengthened the fair-use rationales. MuZemike 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
GAN placed on hold until the necessary improvements can be made. MuZemike 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to watch for (for future reference):

Ref tags should be formatted as <ref name="foo" /> instead of <ref name="foo"/>; that is, a space between the right quotation mark and the slash. This is used for proper XHTML formatting.
Don't use forced image-resizing in the images in the body of the article, as this goes against WP:MOS#Images and can pose some usability problems.
Use {{vgrelease}} and {{vgratings}} templates in the infobox, and stay away from using flagicons.
Watch out for overlinking. (I still need to go through and correct this at the time of this review.) Common rule of thumb is once in the lead, once in the infobox, and once in the body. In citations, publisher should only be wikilinked once.
Try to stay away from one-paragraph sections or subsections if at all possible. I have combined some subsections and removed one. This can also help take the TOC more concise.

This should help you as this article approaches FA. MuZemike 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; I'll try to work on some of these soon. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! I put in the nomination, but others did much more of the work than I did. BOZ (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Good job! Find the sources per above before pushing toward FA, however, because this will be shot down for that. MuZemike 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks

Here's something that I notice hasn't been covered in much (if any) detail by this article: One of the biggest criticisms of the game was the relatively modest graphics performance. It was released with fairly high hardware requirements (for that time) yet showed only minimal improvements in graphics quality (over NWN). At the highest graphics settings, this game will literally bring even a relatively high end system to its knees.[1][2] By comparison, Oblivion has very efficient graphics on the PC, at least in my experience. :-)

Does anybody have access to the Neverwinter Nights 2: Official Strategy Guide? I think that may be able to provide the necessary sources for citing the Plot section of this article.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small pictures?

There all really small.. I can barely tell what there supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.75.183 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteries of Westgate

Should this really be considered an expansion? I don't think they ever said it was an expansion, it's just a premium module.Pyrotics (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]