Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam & Max: Freelance Police

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

---

Sam & Max: Freelance Police

Nominator(s): Sabre (talk)

This is the first FAC I've worked on by myself, so I'm a little apprehensive about how this is going to go; I usually feel I have trouble hitting the "brilliant prose" standard. Nevertheless, I'm going to give this a shot, I think its ready. The article's passed GAN and had a peer review conducted. The article concerns a graphic adventure game under development by LucasArts until its abrupt cancellation in 2004. Unlike the clear majority cancelled games, there's a fair bit of commentary to support an article and it's significant in the history of both LucasArts and the Sam & Max franchise. Also, unlike my last FAC, this game's actually completely cancelled: its dead, and not getting up again. -- Sabre (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.mixnmojo.com (usage significantly decreased, now only a single use -- Sabre (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
  • http://www.adventuregamers.com
  • http://news.spong.com/article/7451/LucasArts_Feels_the_Force_of_New_Presidents_Rationalisations?cb=265
  • http://www.telltalegames.com/summerofsamandmax/history/history4 (It's a primary source)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • International House of Mojo is part of LucasArts Fan Network, LLC, established back in 1997 and host to some twenty odd sites, some user-generated wikis, others, like International House of Mojo, with some form of editorial process and pernament staff. Looking around, this is the one with the most high-profile activity on in out of all the LFNetwork sites. They've conducted interviews with many of the big developer names in this particular area (Simon Jeffery, Tim Schafer, Ron Gilbert, etc) from which one could reasonably assume that these people regard the site as reputable. I know they've been cited in places including by LucasArts themselves, but I can't find the links again to back that up. In any case, the actual page being cited contains summaries from coverage of the game by other media outlets, mainly print sources that aren't available online, and would be extremely difficult/near on impossible to locate physical copies of. It is mostly the content of those sources and comments made by lead designer Michael Stemmle which are really being cited, rather than the MixnMojo's own content.
    • Adventure Gamers is listed as a reliable source at WP:VG/S.
    • Spong: I got this source from Grim Fandango, which is an FA; the source was there when the article was promoted last March, so I'm assuming that it has been verified as a reliable source. Looking at their about page, they aim to be a database, but they do journalistic stuff as well - in this case, it is the latter sort of content being cited. They seem to have an editorial process and a structured staff. has been removed; see below
    • Telltale Games is the developer of the Sam & Max games, and as you say its a primary source. Most of the team are ex-LucasArts, so it would have been written by the people it covers in the article, which is a simple history recap for the franchise. I've never had to justify the reliability of a primary source, or seen it done before, so I'm a little lost at what more to say with regard to this one. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • • Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, so I'm wondering if there might not be secondary sources that are reliable for the same information? It's also a heads up to other reviewers to make sure that the source is a primary source. As for the others, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Now, now, let's be accurate. Secondary sources are not preferred to primary sources as such. Secondary sources are required, and secondary sources are necessary for some types of information. But to actively prefer secondary sources outright would violate NPOV - the viewpoint of the creators and the company is absolutely an important point of view that can't be minimized. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
            • But there is a strong tendency with video game articles to rely a bit too much only primary sources such as interviews and such. I don't have a problem with the source, as long as it's clear that it's the opinion of the people putting forth the information, not an uncontested fact. It's their view of what happened with the cancelation of the game, and it needs to be treated carefully so that it doesn't obscure whatever the LucasArt side of the story was. On telltale though, I'm fine with leaving it out as a note to other reviewers that its a primary source and needs to be used with caution. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Are there actual spots where you think this is an issue? As it stands, the criticism of the account of the cancellation doesn't seem to me actionable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
                • It's not really so much an "actionable" item as a "comment" to other reviewers to be aware that a good chunk of the article is sourced to a primary source, that's all. You'll note that the whole section of my comments is comments not a support or oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • At least for Adventure Gamers, I see them used for three claims. At least two of these there's no doubt about - one is a repost of Steve Purcell's comments on the game's cancellation. That's straightforward, though if the original posting of the comments survives, that would be a preferable source. Another uses them as a source for a review - as a significant player in the adventure games community, this is a simple matter of NPOV - it's an opinion, and their opinion has weight. The phrasing of the sentence, "Freelance Police's cancellation is often cited as the culmination of the downward decline in the adventure genre," is not a statement that the game's cancellation is a culmination - it's a statement that it is cited as such. A major player citing it as such is valid evidence of that, flat-out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No problems at all with using any of those as reviews, as long as their opinion is attributed, it's a fine use. I did double check that the ones I questioned were not being used just as reviews, but were being used for other information and not being attributed as "opinion" either. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Spong's gone and has been replaced by sources from GameSpot and Edge (magazine). Shouldn't be any problem with the reliability of those two, they're strong media sources within the industry. The editorial by MixnMojo is gone, as it is a straight opinion piece, but the other MixnMojo article (reference #1; the one cited with all the info from other press sources and the developers) isn't as I think that page can be justified alone. I'll get back to you on that and Adventure Gamers. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Adventure Gamers is regarded as a trustworthy site for CBS Interactive's aggregator sites Metacritic (e.g.) and Game Rankings (e.g.). Its also been used by publishers for examples of press comments on their products ([2][3][4][5]). In addition, its been cited as a source in a few scholarly works ([6][7]). They have an editor-in-chief and structured staff, and info on their editorial policies is available here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • MixnMojo: While I can't find an about page (I'll see about contacting them for their editorial stuff), their content have been cited by some print publications and at least one online publication ([8][9][10][11][12]). In addition, the site has those industry contacts with the likes of the former president of LucasArts and key designers in the field, from which it can be deduced that those people think the site is reputable. (this indicates the statement by the series creator was originally delivered to MixnMojo - not all their interviews are within the interview section, some are spread in reviews.) I personally believe that's enough to justify the use of the one source in this article, which relies on other publications and developer comments for its info - I'm not too willing to remove that source, as it will put a sizeable hole in coverage and its information isn't available elsewhere online as far as I can tell. As stated above, I have removed the source that comprises entirely of MixnMojo's own views and content. Its a borderline case without having found out about their editorial processes, but reviewers can decide on the source's own merits and use in this article while I try to contact them. -- Sabre (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Images/Comments

• File:Freelance Police concept art.jpg - did Purcell actually do this piece of concept art? Otherwise the rationale is kind of weak.
• The reception section is missing, did you kill it again?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The game is unreleased. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That does sort of make reception trickier. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the image. As for reception, the quote and the paragraph preceding it would count as reception information, but it seemed more appropriate to cover it as part of development as there isn't much of it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that should take care of images. I'll do a thorough review later (I didn't actually read it, so I didn't realize it was unreleased :D) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Prose is hit and miss.
  • "was originally intended to be released for Windows in early 2004 and was intended as a sequel to the 1993 title" Ungainly repetition and parallelism. You already have "intended" in the beginning: "intended to be released for Windows in early 2004 as the sequel to the 1993 title"
  • "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" Citation for quotation?
  • "and was later fully unveiled" I'm not getting how something can be fully unveiled if it was canceled. Also, you give dates, so you can safely remove "later" for tighter prose.
  • "Like its predecessor, Freelance Police was designed as a point-and-click adventure game, using a new 3D game engine in place of the SCUMM and GrimE engines used in past LucasArts adventure games" This seems contradictory. Seems to read that the game, like Freelance Police, used a new 3D game engine. But then it says that past games used SCUMM/GrimE engines. If the 3D engine is unique to Sam & Max, try "but used a new..." and recast the second clause accordingly. If not, you'll need to modify "past" ("older", perhaps?).
  • "The development of the project was lead" Proofread, proofread, proofread!
  • "Very" is not the best intensifier.
  • "The game engine itself ", "the actual gameplay itself, " Why itself?
  • The switch to conditional is a bit jarring in Overview. Why not keep the "was to" construct? Works fine, I think.
  • "many of these minigames would be entirely optional as to whether the player played them or not, while others were necessary to continue in the plot" Unnecessarily wordy and problematic shift in tense.
  • "Steve Purcell, the creator..." Don't understand what this and the next sentence have to do with the game's plot.
  • "taking up a job" Colloquial. I stopped reading here. BuddingJournalist 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing them, and a few other similar things after you stopped reading. The only thing not done is the citation of the "hyperkinetic rabbity thing", as its the stock description used for the character throughout the series rather than a quote - back-of-the-box sort of stuff. Its in quote marks because it wouldn't look right if it wasn't. -- Sabre (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

More, at random:

"the player was required to play some of these to advance the game's plot; others were designed to be entirely optional" Can this be tightened further? "some advanced the game's plot while others were entirely optional."

Still seeing "very" used as an intensifier.

"had been confirmed for the game." Why "had been"? Makes readers wonder at what point and whether this changed.

"Although the game was projected " The two clauses don't seem to make sense with an "although". Where's the logical contradiction?

"Hell on Wheels,[12] leading the media to speculate that Freelance Police might suffer a similar fate." Why? What's the connection?

"PC Gamer US in particular"

These, plus the errors I spotted/corrected do not lend confidence. Give the entire text an audit. BuddingJournalist 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried some further fixes, but as I stated at the beginning of this, I have little confidence in my own abilities to copyedit. I've requested some outside help. -- Sabre (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The connection with Hell on Wheels is explained in the second sentence of the development section (albeit as "Full Throttle II"): the game was another graphic adventure, closely related to the Sam & Max one. Hence, when that got cancelled, the media voiced concerns that the same might happen here. -- Sabre (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the prose should be a lot better now. Both Gary King and Ashnard have given the article a full copyedit, and it reads better for me at least. Hopefully, that will deal with any further prose problems. -- Sabre (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking better. Only skimmed the article, but I've struck my oppose for now. Will more thoroughly revisit the article later. Did spot this still unchanged: ""Although the game was projected " The two clauses don't seem to make sense with an "although". Where's the logical contradiction?" BuddingJournalist 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded that particular sentence now. -- Sabre (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support—I performed a light copyedit, and the prose looks fine to my eyes now (not saying much, but still.) Images of appropriate resolution and with proper fair use rationales. I checked through print archives and couldn't find any substantial sources to add, so I'm satisfied with comprehensiveness, and I think the borderline references are used properly that they can pass muster. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Nice looking article in terms of sourcing and writing and whatnot. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Please ask supporters to review and comment on the outstanding reliable sources concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because I believe the article is too short. Also as a general rule I would oppose any article of this type from being FA status because I don't believe it's importance is high enough. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid reason to oppose a nomination. Please comment on its adherence to WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Please explain how that oppose is related to the Featured article criteria. "Too short" is not valid, because you did not say where the article is lacking. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree this is not a valid oppose - length is not a criterion at WP:WIAFA. Can this be struck? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1c. The research is subpar and reflects a "web search" only. An hour or so with a scholarly search engine like LexisNexis should solve the sourcing problems. The particular deal-breaking here is the mixnmojo site; I don't see any evidence that reliable sources have referred to this as an authoritative source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Ealdgyth's other unresolved items are of concern, as well, since better sources are almost certainly available. Examination of the prose is not possible until the sourcing is fixed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I myself have checked LexisNexis over and the only print source I found with any real relevance to the topic was a Globe and Mail story that was essentially a rehash of the cancellation press release. I am confident that Sabre has used available sources for this article. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, the issue at hand is that this and a few other sources don't meet WP:RS. We need proof that a reliable gaming source considers these sources reliable. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
      • That's valid, I'm just saying in terms of available sources I think all that can be found has been. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
        • The article does have several print sources from the gaming media in use, so that this represents a web search only isn't entirely accurate. I've also checked over JSTOR (crappier version of Lexis Nexis) for anything they might have, but likewise to no avail. Now, to the current sources. I haven't seen the information in the Telltale Games source regurgitated anywhere else, lestways not anywhere that would be considered reliable. At present, it is the only source available for that information, and we shouldn't hold out on the basis that a secondary source may become available in the future (although if it does, I will add it). As for the other two, I have provided evidence of usage as references in works by industry publications (not game press, but developer books) and one or two scholary publications on video games in posts above. If that's not enough, I don't know what is: Adventure Gamers has been challenged and passed at several fairly recent successful FACs by the same people commenting in this FAC, so I don't know what further can be done. Mixnmojo is a borderline case, but again, it has been cited within industry and scholary publications that I've posted above. I've already cut the use of the source which relied on MixnMojo's own content, the single remaining use consists mainly of information taken from and credited to the game's developers, and game media sources that would be extremely difficult to get ahold of. Combined with the evidence provided in its favour as a reliable source, I believe the use of that particular page on that site is justified. -- Sabre (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't actually have a problem with the use of Telltale Games, since it's not used for anything POV or likely to be challenged. However, I maintain my position that Mixnmojo is a no-go. That it is cited in other works doesn't do anything to prove its reliability, unless it's cited as being reliable. I saw a reference in the back of a book, but it could just as well been cited for being a crappy source of information for all I know. I know how the gaming industry works—everyone and his brother has a forum or a game review web site and most of them eventually chase down some industry people for an interview, and so on. But that doesn't make them reliable, even in the realm of VG articles where the sourcing standards are already relaxed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
            • In one of those print sources, its being cited as an authority for the LucasArts iMUSE system (used extensively in their adventure games), whilst in another its used as part of the research for the book. I'm having trouble accessing the other two at the moment. Either way, its not a statement of "don't go here, they're unreliable". If you're looking for a page somewhere that categorically states "mixnmojo is a reliable source", I don't think you're going to get that: I rather doubt you'd find that for the likes of IGN, GameSpot, or many of the other game sites considered reliable for the purpose of FAC. I guess that we are going to agree to disagree on that particular source. -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Okay, it is sounding like less of an issue. Striking my 1c objection but I have yet to examine the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
                • I've managed to phase out a lot of the usage of mixnmojo; turns out some of the information was in other sources after I went back to look them over, whilst other uses have been reworded so not to need a citation. I take back the statement that finding the sources which the Mixnmojo article relies on would be difficult. That leaves only a single use of the source for which I could not replace. -- Sabre (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment "Overview" is too generic for a section title. You can put any conceivable bit of information under there, and so it doesn't help with the future when people have new bits of information and decide to put it under the Overview section, passing over other sections since Overview is a catch-all. I'm fine with small sections, but not happy with an Overview section. The section title itself doesn't encourage any particular logical order for the information to be shown. Gary King (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Having as small sections as these simply looks for very poor presentation, there simply isn't the information to pad out decent gameplay or plot sections. Consolidating that into a single section makes for far better presentation than sections with literally a couple of sentences. The overview section is still structured; it covers technology, gameplay, plot and distribution, in that order. In the highly unlikely event that new information will come to light (the game has been dead for five years), it would be clear where such information would go. -- Sabre (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If an Overview section is used, then I suspect the article is poorly organized. The stuff that do not belong in a Gameplay section but are in Overview could probably be fit in somewhere in Development as they are related to the game's development. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • That still sounds like creating sections simply for the sake of padding out the contents table. I vehemently disagree; the stuff in the overview section provides a summary of the features of the game, while the development section shows a summary of the development history of the game. -- Sabre (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I am opposed to naming a section "Overview" as it is too generic, and can mean anything. If an article requires a section named "Overview", then it can be organized better. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree with Gary here—the reader has no reasonable idea of what they will encounter in this section. You're really telling three stories in this article: the premise of the game, the development of the game, and the events surrounding its planned release and cancellation. That should give you a better idea of how to organize it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm open to suggestions for a different name, but breaking the section up because the title isn't desirable isn't the way to go about it. I've just tried previewing several ways of breaking up the information, it simply messes up presentation and gives a bunch of two or three sentence sections. It severely fragments the article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment (Leaning oppose) I was the sole peer reviewer - see here - and several issues still have not been fixed from the peer review, nor was there any response to the suggestions in the PR itself (though some things have been changed since). here are the relevant items again:

• Would it make sense to add the start date to the first sentence of the lead, perhaps something like Sam & Max: Freelance Police was a graphic adventure computer game developed by LucasArts between 2002 and its cancellation in 2004. ?
• Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE quotations in the lead need a ref, such as ... an anthropomorphic dog and "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" ...
  • The ref does not seem to contain all of the information needed to find this source, if desired. From a breif search, it seems to be included as an extra in the DVD here. Is that the source?
    • Yes, its an extra PDF document included with the DVD. However, for extra clarity to help find the source, I've replaced it with a ref to one of the comic book compilations, complete with an ISBN. -- Sabre (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Define abbreviations, so change it to ... at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) convention ...
  • I am not sure what is so difficult about adding this, but I just did it for you.
    • It was more difficult than I realized, as I missed the first use in the lead, where you had added the (E3) - sorry and my apologies.
• The quote in the peer review is no longer in the article, but the initial part from the peer review is still true: "Specific attribution of quotes is better (especially at FAC) than vague things..." I note there is now a sentence Commentators in the industry's media felt that the decision was another example of a decline in the adventure genre,[15] with many concluding that LucasArts was moving to maintain its position with low risk Star Wars-themed titles instead of the adventure games that had brought them success in earlier years.[15] This refers to "commentators" (plural) and "many concluding" but it uses one ref, which is one article by one person (Steve Adams at IGN). Better to say something like Steve Adams of IGN felt that the decision was another example of a decline in the adventure genre, concluding that LucasArts was moving to maintain its position with low risk Star Wars-themed titles instead of the adventure games that had brought them success in earlier years.[15]
• I reserve the right to make more comments once those I made at peer review have been resolved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I managed to miss those in the peer review, I thought I had sorted those. Evidently not. Anyway, I've dealt with some of those comments. I've added a further reference to support that Star Wars thing not being unique to IGN; if I'd realised yesterday, I'd have been in a position to add a further print reference to PC Gamer because I know they've had similar sentiments, but alas that's now several counties away from me now. The "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" isn't a proper quote, its a back-of-the-book/box stock description of the character. Its in quotation marks because without them it wouldn't be encyclopedic language; the quotation marks are meant to indicate that its not intended to be serious. Unless there's something in the MOS about how to approach that sort of stuff. If not, I'll just shove a ref up. -- Sabre (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Struck two. If it is a direct quote, it needs a ref. Period. A Google search on "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" finds over 5000 hits, so it is a well known quote and needs a ref. I will weigh in on the reliable sources question once these are addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref added. -- Sabre (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More Ruhrfisch comments - looking pretty good

• Nitpick - refs are usually given in numerical order, so fix ...who published various previews and interviews with the development team, particularly with lead designer Michael Stemmle, one of the original designers of Sam & Max Hit the Road.[5][2]
• The media implies more than one ref, but only one ref is given in In August 2003, LucasArts halted production on the Full Throttle adventure game sequel Hell on Wheels,[12] leading the media to speculate that Freelance Police might suffer a similar fate.[13] It either needs at least another ref cited (to make it the media) or should be made more specific "...leading Hyper magazine to speculate that..."
• Having read the article on the first game Sam & Max Hit the Road, there was a game planned but never released between that and this. Should it at least be mentioned?
• I also liked the bump maps quote - why not keep it and put it into context, briefly explain what these things are, how this made the planned 3D game very different from the first 2D game, how it meant they seemed to be doing things right (for the time), etc.
• I read most of the mixnmojo.com article (current ref 21 "Sam & Max Freelance Police". The International House of Mojo.") and it mentions lots of plot details not in the article, supposedly gleaned from pre-release interviews. Are those sources available? I am not sure mixnmojo is reliable as it does not specify the sources more clearly. I am not really familiar with gaming sources and am reluctant to weigh in on the reliablilty of the other sources.
• Question - has any reason been given for the 9 year delay between the first game and the first announcement of this planned game?

Looks pretty good overall, now leaning to support but will wait for replies. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First point: done, the various bits of tinkering led to the refs getting out of order. They should all be in order now. Second point: Changed to be specific to Hyper magazine. Third point: you're referring to Sam & Max Plunge Through Space? My understanding of that is that it had no bearing on Freelance Police; the project was short-lived and Purcell did not involve LucasArts. I don't think it ever got out of pre-production. Fourth point: I've re-added it and attempted to explain the purpose of the effects a bit better, though I'm reluctant to go into too much detail with them—they are rather throw-away points at the end of the day. Fifth point: If you're looking at the same bit I think you are—the bit with the very brief descriptions of a couple of the game's cases just a couple of paragraphs up from where they list the credits—I've not seen that in any other sources and its not in any of the others already used. I'm not too keen on citing new things to Mixnmojo based on the discussion on the source here. Sixth point: No, not really. Just seems to be the generic and entirely useless business descriptions saying "now is a great time to return to a franchise a decade old". No proper reason has been given. -- Sabre (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, I did mean Plunge Through Space, but am Ok with leaving it out. I have changed to support as all of my concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Quotes:

• In the Overview section, this quote: "achieved via a precarious balance of shaders,bump maps [and] lightmaps" has 3 wikilinks (in an 11-word quote - 10 if you don't count the bracketed "and"). Maybe there's a good reason for this, but I don't see why the average reader would need to know about those concepts to appreciate the article. In fact, the quote itself seems very technical and doesn't really mean a whole lot to those without prior knowledge of those things. In the next section you have another quote with a wikilink (Full Throttle II), but it's a much longer quote and the wikilink doesn't clutter it up nearly as much.
• This is real nitpicky, but for some of the quotes, like the aforementioned Full Throttle II, they have a sense of finality and so I wonder if the end quotation mark should be placed after the period. It seems like it could be reasonably articulated either way, so not a true suggestion as much as an observation.

Prose:

• Media coverage continued: PC Gamer US ran an interview with Stemmle as a cover story in February 2004. - The first three words of the sentence make it kind of all-inclusive, then there's only one example. Maybe something like Media coverage continued; for example, PC Gamer US ran an interview... Or maybe a hyphen in place of the semicolon, something to lighten it up.
• Little was revealed of the gameplay, other than that Freelance Police would not follow... - I wonder if a "that" is necessary after the "than" in this case.
• Steve Purcell, the creator of Sam & Max, assisted in the development of both the plot and the art, producing concept art of various characters and locales. - You have two "arts" real close to one another - maybe the first one could be replaced with "design," or "artistic direction." Or maybe the second one could be replaced with "sketches" or "drawings" or some other synonym.
• The game was officially announced for Windows at the Electronic Entertainment Expo convention on May 12, 2003, where the full title Sam & Max: Freelance Police was unveiled. - Maybe you could switch "announced" and "unveiled" somehow - unveiled seems a little dramatic for a title alone.
• The game's trailer was also revealed at E3, reintroducing the characters and showing that the original voice actors for Sam and Max, Bill Farmer and Nick Jameson respectively, were set to reprise their roles. - "Presented" might be a better choice than "revealed" in this case, because it's simply a trailer. Also, "confirming" might be a better choice than "showing," or even "revealing" if you replace it in the first part of the sentence.
• When LucasArts' license with Purcell to produce Sam & Max games expired in mid-2005... - Maybe it would read more smoothly as "When the LucasArts license expired in mid-2005, Purcell..."

Punctuation:

• Some of the former Freelance Police development team formed Telltale Games in June 2004, to continue developing the sort of adventure games that LucasArts no longer wished to produce. - This sentence may not require a colon comma.

Support. I'm satisfied with the sources, especially with Spong being removed. Adventure Gamers has an adequate explanation on their Editorial Policies page, in my opinion, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the LucasFans affiliate. Vantine84 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've deal with all of those, bar the last one as the sentence you refer to doesn't have a colon in it. I didn't really want to let the shader/bump/lightmap quote go, but I think you're right that its a little too technical and unnecessary for the general reader. -- Sabre (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops you're right, that should read comma.

I've removed the comma. -- Sabre (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At the suggestion of another reviewer above, I've re-added the bumpmap/lightmap stuff, but a few sentences further down. I've tried to explain their purpose some more, rather than relying on the wikilinks alone. They're also no longer contained within a direct quote. -- Sabre (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Much better.

• Comments on prose:
  • "The game was to be powered by 3D computer graphics and rendered in real-time." A game isn't powered by graphics, really. Can we say, "The was to feature 3D computer graphics rendered in real-time."?
  • "The game engine contained elements ..." Such as?
  • Attention is needed to your punctuation at the end of quotations.. you are inconsistency using logical punctuation when you end a sentence with a quote that is itself the end of a sentence. That probably made no sense, but you have: the game's story was "really six stories, loosely held together by a thrilling über-plot." (period inside) and: but noted that it contained "all the barely plausible grandeur that fans have come to expect from Sam and Max". (period outside)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done the first one and the third one—all the periods should be outside the quotations now. As for the second one, I can't tell you what sort of elements as the sources don't say. Full quote from the source: "It's a point-and-click adventure game engine that's been cobbled together from parts of engines that are already lying around LucasArts. There's a little bit of the new Full Throttle game in there, along with a hint of Gladius, a smidge of RTX, and even a touch of Obi-Wan." The interviewee only gave enough information to say that the technologies from other games were being utilized, but not what those technologies were. -- Sabre (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it looks good now. I made some other changes so you might review them, especially where I added mention of the fan web site. You mention a petition was submitted, but not by whom. Since we know, might as well say. --Laser brain (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.