Talk:Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon

Article Improvement

I shortened the plot summary, though it's probable that it can be cut more. What the article really needs, though, is some information on the gameplay, development, and reception, because that's what the uninitiated are going to care about. Since I can't personally provide this, I'd like those who know better than I do to put this stuff in the article. Anything will help. Thanks. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it! ;) --Khanassassin (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Allens (talk · contribs) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. Unfortunately, I would have had to flunk the article on criterion 1a, except that I went through and cleaned up the grammar, etc. I'll have to check on whether copyediting is sufficient involvement to disqualify myself from being the reviewer - I'm consulting with one of the GA reviewer mentors (Arsenikk) right now. Allens (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, looks like I'm OK. Arsenikk did point out a couple problems, namely:

• A lack of accessdates in citations
• Lack of a screenshot (not required but greatly preferable); a single screenshot falls within fair use, although more than one may not

I'll continue to go over it and other stuff (copyediting its sequel plus the Parliament of Croatia article). Allens (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Still looking at the rest (anything not down as good) - just wanted to put down these to keep track

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   1a now looks OK; will clean up 1b if need be (checking).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References checked (BTW, you seem to be a bit mixed up between "accessdate" and "date" - the former is the date at which someone last accessed the review/whatever, including in order to verify them, while the latter is the date the review/whatever was published, if available); sources appear reliable for the purpose; no OR found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "Setting and characters" could use some expansion - the setting appears to be modern-day but with secret superscience or magic, and should be commented on; a bit more detail should be present as to at least some of the other characters. "Setting and characters" fixed, good job - I note these could be used as the basis for an expansion to the linked list of characters article. Does not appear overly detailed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Covers major critiques, especially now.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems noted.

6. 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):

   Checked 6a; good job on finding the developer images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass!

Comments

• All accessdates are added -  Done
• Screenshot added -  Done
  • I think I added enough to the "Setting and characters" section. :) --Khanassassin (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I deleted "26/32 + 6 mixed, 0-)", because I think it's kind of unnecessary, and I never seen that added next to the MetaScore... --Khanassassin (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • OK. I thought that it had gotten 0 negative reviews was of interest, but I'm not experienced in the area of video game reviews... Allens (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Voynich Manuscript? Excalibur?

Why is there a See also for the Voynich Manuscript, and why does "sword" link to Excalibur? Subtle hints/in-jokes are not particularly appropriate for Wikipedia, if that's what they are... Allens (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The manusript is actually a pretty big part in the game, and the sword in the game is actually excalibur, so.... :) --Khanassassin (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass! -Khanassassin (talk • contribs) 09:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure... it deserved it, with a bit of help. Allens (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles Cecil interview with GMR

Online here: [1]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Source

I found this: [2]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20041022201745/http://www.gameboomers.com:80/interviews/SteveInceInterview.htm
• https://web.archive.org/web/20080517003049/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=131508
• https://web.archive.org/web/20010301171659/http://www.ga-source.com:80/all/news/bits/01+14+2000/6:18:28.shtml
• https://web.archive.org/web/20010413051043/http://justadventure.com:80/Previews/BS3/Charles_Cecil.asp
• https://web.archive.org/web/20030115164302/http://eurogamer.net:80/content/i_bssd_ects02
• https://web.archive.org/web/20051020093434/http://www.afjv.com/press0311/031112_thq.htm
• https://web.archive.org/web/20030116130021/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=601
• https://archive.org/details/edgeuk108/page/n63
• https://web.archive.org/web/20151118055148/http://www.1up.com/features/mystery-man