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

Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars – The Director's Cut 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 11, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
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

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Split

Does this mean big chunks of the original article are going to be removed and/or summarized down? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as you see, they are removed and/or summarized down. So, yup, we're good. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, okay, missed it by one minute! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars – Director's Cut/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars – Director's Cut. 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) 09:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars – Director's Cut. 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) 08:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]