Wikipedia:Peer review/Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars/archive1

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I need advice for improvements, since I got it to GA, and now my goal is FA!

Thanks, Khanassassin (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A few things, not a full review by any means:
 * The automated check found some things that need fixing.
 * The alt text checker also found some pictures without alt text.
 * The text is somewhat wordy; I fixed a few things in the lead, but I'm not the best person to spot this (being wordy myself!), so I would advise checking with the Guild of Copy-Editors, unless someone (else) here at peer review goes through the article and copy-edits it.
 * Allens (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to give copyediting it a try. Allens (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still copyediting it, along with a few other articles, but you might want to take a look at expanding "Setting and characters" the same way as you and I did for Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon. Similarly, a screenshot would be nice. Allens (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put in some requests for clarification; thanks for taking care of some of them! I do have to wonder who "Todrick" is - he/she is only referenced as being the one that told George where the guy was staying. Thanks! Allens (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I mis-spelled "Todryk", and I have explaned who he is on the begining of "Original Story" :). I will try to expand "Setting and characters". I'll add the screenshot to the Plot section - IF that's the righ place? Is it? :) --Khanassassin Cscr-featured.png 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's customary for video game articles; the Plot section sounds fine to me, since there are already photographs for the other logical section (that about the making of the game and the artists involved) - good job in finding those! Allens (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that the "Circle of Blood" Metascore is removed, since is only an agg. score of "Circle of Blood" reviews (American), not "The Shadow of the Templars" reviews (rest of the world). May I add, only one of the reviews (GameSpot, which was "critically-acclaiming") is actually avalaible online. Most of "The Shadow of the Templars" reviews are critcally acclaiming. Almost all of the reviews avalaible for "The Shadow of the Templars" are critically acclaiming. The only review that is mixed is the PlayStation review from GameSpot, Score: 5.8/10 (who, migh I add, gave the PC version a 9.2/10) and Game Revolution mentioned in the Metascores for "Circle of Blood", which, might I add, isn't even avalaible. On its release, almost all gaming magazines acclaimed the game. I didn't even know there was a Metascore for this game, because I never searched for "Circle of Blood", but "The Shadow of the Templars", but I remembered that Metacritic is American, so they call it "Circle of Blood". I'll make the original release "critically acclaimed" and the Director's Cut "near critcally acclaimed", because the Director's Cut PC, Wii, iPad and DS versions did receive highly positive reviews from critics, only the iPhone version was critically acclaimed (according to Metacritic). So, I'll also remove the Director's Cut Metascore, so it won't look weird that only the Director's Cut had one :-) Best --Khanassassin Cscr-featured.png 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Metacritic had listed only the older PC version as Circle of Blood, while they listed the others as the Director's Cut version. I hadn't included the Wii version from Metacritic because it had fewer reviewers and because I thought it not fair to the game (I'm not sure why one would make a Wii version of a point-and-click adventure game in the first place...). When doing the FAC process, people may well want the Metascore back in there - that's why I'd wanted it in in the first place - but we'll see what happens. I'm not sure what you're meaning by "only one of the reviews ... is actually available online", BTW. I'll work on a bit of paraphrasing in the reviews section, since people may object to it having too much quoting, judging by other material quoting reviews that I've copyedited and the responses from the Wikipedia copyright people. Allens (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With "only one is avaliable online" I meant, only one link isn't broken... :) - Well, we'll see what'll happen when the article will go through peer review. If it will be a must, I will add the score back (though it's unfair). :) --Khanassassin Cscr-featured.png 14:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The new game will be in 2D, because most fans prefer 2D. They're "going back to 2D". Since somebody might jump to "Legacy", I think the statement about the director's cut should remain there. Revolution confirmed everything about the new game (2D etc.) plenty of times on their official facebook page, but since Facebook can't be used in the refs, I think an external link is enough. Also, point n click games are pretty popular on the Wii now a days, and work quite well. :) --Khanassassin Cscr-featured.png 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a screenshot to the Plot section :) --Khanassassin ☪ 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I'm about done with copyediting it - do check to make sure my interpretation of what happened with the cafe is correct! I realized that the original title didn't have "The" before "Director's Cut", so I changed the titles with "The Director's Cut" to "Director's Cut edition" to conform with WP:MOS regarding titles. (Is something other than "edition" preferable for video games, like "version"?) Allens (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. There was one further thing needing clarifying, regarding the phrase "direct control mechanism" - if this is correct, then perhaps a wikilink could be located to help clarify it for the reader? Thanks! Allens (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The interpretation's fine - and, yes, maybe version would be ok. --Khanassassin ☪ 08:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)--Khanassassin ☪ 08:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Direct control (now wikilinked) is not point n click. It's keyboard only. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 08:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting game - thanks for your work on it. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs that are on video games and would be useful models.
 * Since it is an alternate name, shouldn't Circle of Blood be in bold too? ''Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars (known as Circle of Blood in the US) is a point-and-click adventure game released to the PC on November 5, 1996.
 * Why is George Stobbart in quotes sometimes and not in quotes other times? I think it should be consistent throughout the article.
 * The MOS says that generally a person is referred to by their full name on first mention and then by one name thereafter. For real people this is usually their last name, but for fictional characters it can be a first name. I would pick one name to use for George Stobbart and follow that (is he George? or is he George Stobbart?) I think it is OK if he has not been mentioned in several sections to re-use his full name to remind the reader.
 * Also watch WP:OVERLINKing - Stobbart isl inked twice in the body of the article, but the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body, each on the first use.
 * Unless the article is long, in which more than one link in the body is OK. I thought that might be considered to be the case here. Allens (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also watch WP:OVERLINKing - Stobbart isl inked twice in the body of the article, but the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body, each on the first use.
 * Unless the article is long, in which more than one link in the body is OK. I thought that might be considered to be the case here. Allens (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless the article is long, in which more than one link in the body is OK. I thought that might be considered to be the case here. Allens (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

✅
 * Also make sure links are on first use - Paris is linked on the second use in the Setting and characters section, for example
 * WP:HEAD says that an article cannot have two sections with the exact same title - it causes confusion with edits to sections, for one thing. I recently reviewed The Secret of Monkey Island and they dealt with this same problem.
 * WP:HEAD says that an article cannot have two sections with the exact same title - it causes confusion with edits to sections, for one thing. I recently reviewed The Secret of Monkey Island and they dealt with this same problem.
 * I would read WP:WAF carefully - the plot section seems to me to be overly detailed - is the mime really important, for example?
 * Actually, the mime is one of the main characters in the new section (the mime is actually Khan) and he kills both Pierre and Imelda Carchon. Well, he isn't dressed as a mime when he kills Imelda Carchon...
 * OK, but the mime is not mentioned again - only three uses of the word "mime" in the article Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole Setting and characters section seems unnecessary to me. The settings are all mentioned again in the plot that I could see, and the list of characters tells me nothing (I do not know the game). I believe all of the characters are mentioned later on anyway (did not check them all)
 * However, it would be preferable to keep in someplace what the setting itself is (modern-day). Allens (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I do not think that one fact needs its own section. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Accolades section is very short and all about the Director's Cut. Could it be combined with the previous section?
 * MOS says to use "double quotes" for almost all quotations, and only use 'single quotes' for a quote within a quote.
 * MOS also says to spell out abbreviations on first use - so GBA is one example
 * I used the prose size tool and the Director's Cut plot seciton is 1902 B (335 words) while the Original story section is 6744 B (1153 words) "readable prose size" - nearly 1500 words on the plot seems a bit much to me/
 * The prose could be tightened so Todryk tells George that Khan is staying in Hotel Ubu, so he goes there; while he is outside, two gangsters (Flap and Guido) search his pockets.[28] George obtains an ancient manuscript that Kahn had deposited into the hotel safe. could perhaps be condensed to something like ''Todryk tells George that Khan is at Hotel Ubu, where gangsters Flap and Guido search his pockets,[28] and George obtains an ancient manuscript Kahn left in the hotel safe.
 * Real people are also usually referred to by last name only after their introduction - so Charles Cecil on first introduction in the lead and perhaps in the body, then just Cecil therafter (unless it is in a direct quote or caption or note)
 * This needs a reference. It should also give some sort of time frame (year) ''Revolution has confirmed that there will be a new Broken Sword game in the future – in 2D, not 3D – but did not confirm they are currently making one.
 * The problem is that they confirmed it on Facebook, which is not considered a reliable source... --Khanassassin ☪ 08:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Real people are also usually referred to by last name only after their introduction - so Charles Cecil on first introduction in the lead and perhaps in the body, then just Cecil therafter (unless it is in a direct quote or caption or note)
 * This needs a reference. It should also give some sort of time frame (year) ''Revolution has confirmed that there will be a new Broken Sword game in the future – in 2D, not 3D – but did not confirm they are currently making one.
 * The problem is that they confirmed it on Facebook, which is not considered a reliable source... --Khanassassin ☪ 08:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they confirmed it on Facebook, which is not considered a reliable source... --Khanassassin ☪ 08:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)