Talk:Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror 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 8, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
July 25, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted
March 22, 2014 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 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.
 

An anecdote about BSII[edit]

Not so long ago I attended a games related event at BAFTA. We shared a table with one of the developers who had programmed the sound for the game. I asked him why the game started out with such rich animation but ended up with virtually nothing. Apparantly it's because Revolution ran out of funds for the project before it was completed. It had to be finished by the few staff who agreed to work for nearly nothing in the hope that the game got published. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SmokingMirrorMarseilles.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SmokingMirrorMarseilles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SmokingMirrorQuaramonte.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SmokingMirrorQuaramonte.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken Sword II: The Smoking Mirror/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Status[edit]

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
  1. In the very first sentence the wording "released for PC PlayStation in 1997" requires attention: AFAIK, there was no product called "PC PlayStation".  Done
  2. In the second paragraph of the lead the sentence "The game was conceived in 1997 and the Revolution's crew" is grammatically wrong.  Done
  3. In the same paragraph the wording "It's game is serious in tone" also suffers from grammatical problems.  Done
  4. All the sentences in the paragraph are somehow disconnected, with the last one specifically stands out.  Done
  5. I'm not sure whether I understand the phrase "The player uses a map for easy travel" in the Gameplay section. Either it says that traveling in the game is easy (which is not an appropriate statement for encyclopedia unless quoted; and even then should go to Reception) or I miss the real meaning of the phrase.  Done
  6. The same section uses short name "Nico" for Nicole Collard. Either the name should be spelled in full or the first occurrence of the full name should be amended with the "(Nico)" tip.  Done
  7. The last sentence of the Gameplay section is disconnected from the rest of the section. The idea behind the sentence requires an explanation.  Done
  8. In the Plot section the third paragraph has the sentence "The third stone of these stones was in Nico's and George's possession" (italics added). One entry should be eliminated.  Done
  9. The gap between George becoming a stuntman and Nico saving him (in the last paragraph of Plot section) should be somehow filled. If no important events occurred in the gap, the two sentences can be slightly rephrased to avoid the impression of gap.  Done
  10. The second paragraph of the Development section misses something. The list of people ("David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot") ends with nothing, and the rest of sentence is devoted to another person.  Done
    • Though now the sentence ends after the list of the names, their relevance to the game still isn't explained. Who are all these people?
  11. In the first sentence of the Remastered Edition the phrase "he also felt some dialogue was out of place" suggests that the problem was about one dialogue. Is it so? NOTE: Well, the interview says "some", so I think we should leave it like that. :) --Khanassassin (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  12. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Remastered Edition contains word "we" out of the quote. Either the quote should be given with quotation marks or "we" changed to something else.  Done
  13. The huge sentence in the second paragraph of the Remastered Edition section should be reworked. Currently it is "[...], and Dropbox [...], and Game Center [...]". Either "and" before the Dropbox should be removed or (preferably) the sentence could be cut in two (or more).  Done
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  1. The lead would benefit from less compressed text.  Done
  2. The "Critical response" subsection should be merged into parent section "Reception".  Done The text of the subsection should be more specifically attributed to the original release. NOTE: I don't think it's needed since the sub-section is about the "Remastered Edition" not the original... :) --Khanassassin (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
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.
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.
  1. The Plot section is virtually unreferenced. I believe it needs at least a couple of citations (though the source of information and a way to verify it is pretty clear).  Done
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
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.

The reviewer may add more issues when found.

Discussion[edit]

The only actual issue I can't fix is the 4th one... I don't know how to make it sound "not-disconnected" :( Please help. Best --Khanassassin (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As with the first game of the series, your response is amazingly fast. I'll look into it a bit later today. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank You :) --Khanassassin (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see my changes in the lead. I'm not entirely sure that I did it the best way, but I like it more now anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does sound more "natural" :). Oh, and, can You tell me what do I have to do to make issue nm.10  Done,since i see you marked it as undone.... :) --Khanassassin (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Literally:

Charles Cecil was the director and writer of the game, David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot.

can be divided in two parts:

Charles Cecil was the director and writer of the game,

and

David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot.

First part is OK, but the second fails to explain who these people are and what the relation between them and the game is. Even worse, as of now the sentence reads as they are alter egos of Charles Cecil. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
So it should be something like:

Charles Cecil was the director and writer of the game; David Sykes, Jonathan Howard, Paul Porter, James Long, Patrick Skelton, Chris Rea and Pete Ellacot also had some kind of valuable input.

See the part in italics. And as we discuss this sentence in detail, semicolon would be a better separator (then comma) in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, my bad - I didn't even write that the others were programmers; I added the semicolon too....I think it's done now :)--Khanassassin (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please review my change or better improve it. "were the programmers" is a way too general, I think. I was also a programmer back then, and still am, but I have nothing to do with this game. ;-) Once we've done with that, the article is ready for GA list. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Your change flows pretty good to me, so I think it's finally  Done ;). So, let's get this done! Best --Khanassassin (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, I am nearly done with the Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon article, so you'll have another article to review very soon ;) --Khanassassin (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)