Talk:Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars – Director's Cut/GA2
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)
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the 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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.|
|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 images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.|
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.|
|7. Overall assessment.|