Talk:Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues

PS2

Will this game going out for PS2? Basically, my only doubt is whether it will come or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laundromatlock (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lego always release their games to all consoles (expect Lego Battles which was only for DS) and this one is no exception.123.200.196.98 (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard in the Lego Indiana Jones 2 offical sites said is going to come to PS2 but the other websites said that is not going to come out to PS2. I'am not quite sure whether is cancel or postphone for PS2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.18.239 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

At least one of the sources I checked earlier in the week did NOT say it was coming out on PS2. In addition, a quick check of a couple of online stores (like Amazon) did NOT have any PS2 versions for sale either. umrguy42 05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In the main official sites said is going to come to PS2 and I wonder whether this official sites tell wrongly or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.24.123 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How about wait for the main official sites explain about whether can come to PS2 or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.24.123 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Few days ago, I found that the official sites said is going come to PS2 and now I found that PS2 had removed from the official sites for the unknown reason whether is cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.21.50 (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That TT Games cancelled the PS2 version very unfair just like Lego Harry Potter for PS2 also cancelled. They all lie in the trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.54.119 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Boxart

Shouldn't the boxart image be replaced by one that doesn't have "RP" rating? Alpheta (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Used the old image and put the E10+ rating from another cover and put it over the old one. Davie247 (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PSP remote play

It may have been promised but it doesn't actually work.

S!egfried (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

DS/PSP Version no mention?

There's no mention of the differing gameplay between the PSP/DS versions of the game against the PS3/Xbox360/PC version. Should a mention be made of these versions in the article, as the gameplay is vastly different between the PSP/DS versions and the mainstream versions? Ggctuk (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

PSP version totally different in content?

I was looking at the "Doom Town" level gameplay videos online that I think come from the XBox version and they're nothing like the PSP version! (Lego Batman was pretty much the same across platforms) How much of this game is different on different systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

usk rating is 12

it should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-Op Patch

Well? Any developments on this front? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

notable as promotion

By no means is this article contradicting Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING right? And it is certainly not blatant promotion of a product of dubious virtue, right? -- Kku (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to achive with these means of introducing a discussion, but at 65,300 hits in our realible sources search engine, the game is definetly notable. If you feel like it reads as if it was an advertisment, you're free to fix it as you find the time. Lordtobi (✉) 12:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for picking out this one which might be particularly dear to you in some ways. I am altogether unsure - as a rule - whether the proliferation of descriptions of individual games, their generations, variations, branchings, and versions is something that helps WP become something that helps the world become a better place, if you know what I mean. -- Kku (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Your message still does not explain what you would like to change or have changed, or what exactly is your concern with this particular article, as you just speak aobut the general image without clear point you are aiming for. Lordtobi (✉) 17:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SyntheticSystems (talk · contribs) 22:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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 media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is decent but requires an understanding of the game to comprehend and many of the transitions are weak.	On hold
(b) (MoS)	No MoS violations.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References match up what is in the article.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All statements are sourced.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research, although the author may have played the game.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No plagiarism.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	As stated earlier, an understanding of the game is necessary to understand the article.	On hold
(b) (focused)	Certain sections, such as the development section, don't go into enough detail.	On hold

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images need alt text.	On hold
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Image placement could be better.	On hold

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	Needs more improvements but is workable.

Discussion

This is one of my favorite games so I am happy to be reviewing it. SyntheticSystems (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've added the alt text, and hopefully improved a bit of prose. I also did some small reformatting to make the image placement more ideal. I also renamed Development and release to Leak and release, as it more accurately reflects the content of the section. Regarding concerns that prose requires an understanding of the game to comprehend and many of the transitions are weak, could you show prose that you found egregious in this regard? I'd noted myself that those who had never played Lego games may have a tough time understanding characters and such. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

While I am not the reviewer of this article, I just wanted to butt in and note that the portable version of this game is individually notable and should not be a part of this article, but rather located at Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues (handheld video game). The Nintendo DS version got reviews from IGN, Nintendo Power and Nintendo Gamer, as well as a GamesRadar+ one unlisted on Metacritic, and should be split off before this becomes a Good Article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Is splitting the article off based on different releases with different content commonly done? I know that it's not the case in Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy, an FA, for its mobile release, which is seemingly even more distinct than Lego Indiana Jones 2's handheld release. Although, I don't really know the notability of that release over the main. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's individually notable and markedly different from the console release, yes. Also, Lego Star Wars II became a featured article in 2009. A lot of FAs from that time were way more lax on standards and it's likely the mobile version should be split off too, although with only an IGN and Pocket Gamer review, I am unsure if it actually passes GNG and may need to remain merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead section needs to be expanded. Stuff like "In addition to the level creator, there is also a character creator, although Lego Indiana Jones 2 is not the first Lego game to include such a feature" could also be reworded. I think Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes is a good example of what the article should look like. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded the mentioned section, clarified/rewritten a couple of other sentences, and added a new sentence to the lead. By the way, I'd appreaciate to hear what you make of Zxcvbnm's inputs regarding the hanheld's notability. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the Lego Batman 2 article is still a good example. SyntheticSystems (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the 2 weeks of no edits, I've returned with some rewording and a new section regarding character abilities, like is in the Lego Batman 2 article. Other than that, I don't know where there can be more parity. Looking through the information contained in that article, it seems that it's all either not applicable or poorly formatted in the Lego Batman article. Also, I'd like to ask about the status of the On Hold boxes, which do you now consider complete? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I will write a more thorough review later today or tomorrow. SyntheticSystems (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Second review

Lead

• Mentioning the platforms in the first sentence is weird.
• The Lego theme is already established.
• "2008 game" could become "2008 video game".
• Could mention the credits in there.
• "The game" is used way too much, needs better sentence starters.
• Could mention leak and development (if possible).
• Reception section needs work. Maybe add in the platform stuff there and then talk about Metacritic and individual reviews?
• "It is generally seen as inferior to the original game" is not NPOV.

Gameplay

• First sentence could offer a broader overview on the game (e.g. what type of game is it, point of view), something like "Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues is an action adventure game themed around Indiana Jones. The game uses a third-person perspective" instead of the Lego minifigure sentence.

Plot

• I think "Synopsis" works better as a title.

Leak and release

• This section really needs information on the development of the game.

References

• Looks good. I found a few sources on Google Books that could also help, like Archeogaming.

Comments

Mebigrouxboy Done. SyntheticSystems (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It's going to take me a while before I can implement these — my browser abruptly closed and did not save my almost-done edit. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've made nearly all of these changes and cleared up some of the density of 'the game' usage. However, I'm confused what you meant by The Lego theme is aready established. What is this in reference to? I have a similar issue with Maybe add in the platform stuff there and then talk about Metacritic and individual reviews? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess I've lost the edit twice now. Don't know what happened there... Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and split off the handheld parts to a new article, and added enough sourcing it can stand on its own, as I noted before. This shouldn't really affect the current article at all, it was pretty much entirely removing content that was in a different section anyway. But, if there is anything remaining in this article that is specific to the handheld version, it should be moved over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"A Lego-themed game" for the first one. Don't worry about Metacritic. SyntheticSystems (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've cut out the redundancy and did some minor rewordings at the lede. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 04:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one since your last review stalled. Don't want you having to wait forever to get this fully reviewed. I'll go through the article and post comments in the next day or two. -- ZooBlazer^talk 04:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up! As for the questions posed, I do not believe any other RS named a ballpark for how many characters there are other than in the Youtube interview. Also, 'adventure creator' is in quotes because it's the exact phrasing and not very descriptive at that. Although, I do admit that I did use the wrong quotes unless it was correct, in which case yay me. In the case of the "IGN" source, it's really from howlongtobeat.com, but it's owned by IGN and I consider its information both valuable and, of course, not perfectly accurate to anyone's playthrough. If you think I should write that it's from howlongtobeat or nothing at all, I'm willing to do that. I'm also willing to remove the IGN Wiki source, but as far as I can tell it's only ever been edited by one IGN staff member, and archives to the relevant sources all exist.

Other than that, I've fixed the issues you mentioned. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In the case of IGN, I'd just remove their name from the sentence then. I think everything is looking good, but the reception section should still be addressed. After that I'll do spot checks and if they come back good, the article should be good to go. -- ZooBlazer^talk 21:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Reception section is all done now! -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mebigrouxboy You still have a lot of "A said B" and versions of it, as well as the two instances of saying someone "noted" something. The best thing to try to do is find things that multiple reviews mention and then, for example say something like "the story was praised because..." or "New gameplay features were criticized because..." and then expand on those main points. Try to organize paragraphs to have a theme so they're talking about the same thing. -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've redone quite a few sentences to cut down on the 'A said B' phrasing. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mebigrouxboy Looking much better. One last thing - Reviewers noted that the final bosses - word it differently to remove "noted" and I think the article will be good to go. -- ZooBlazer^talk 01:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Done! -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, looks good. Passing the article. Congrats! -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Images

• File:Lego Indiana Jones 2 The Adventure Continues Game Cover.jpg
  • Looks like a direct source is needed, like a link to the website that the image is from per the message on the image's summary page.
• File:Lego Indiana Jones 2 Split Screen.jpg
  • Looks good. Properly licensed with FUR

Infobox

• Link "OS X" under publisher as it's the first mention and the unlink it under platforms

Lead

• although released under the same name
  • The game, although a commercial success
    • Rewrite one of the sentences to avoid repetition of "although"

Gameplay

• Are you able to find a non YouTube source for the 80 characters? Not a huge deal if not, but generally sites are preferred over YouTube videos when possible.
• Maybe change "money" to "currency"
• solve puzzles and defeat enemies with. - remove with
• Indiana Jones can use his whip to attack enemies, tie enemies up, manipulate objects, or swing from the ceiling - I'd suggest changing it to something like "Indiana Jones can use his whip to attack or tie up enemies, manipulate objects, or swing from the ceiling"
• On 23 November 2009, LucasArts revealed on Twitter that it was working on - you can pebably change it to just "On 23 November 2009, LucasArts revealed that it was working on"
• using assets unlocked through progression through the game - rewrite a bit so you don't use "through" so much that close together
• is an 'adventure creator' - is there a reason that adventure creator doesn't use quotation marks like the other things in the article?
• At the end of the section, you mention the estimated time to beat the game according to IGN. However, the source doesn't directly link to IGN and that info. The source does include links to IGN's wiki for the game, but just like other wikis, that wouldn't be a reliable source as it can be easily changed by people.

Marketing and release

• would offer 'a tongue-in-cheek take on all four cinematic adventures of pop culture's most iconic archaeologist' - like mentioned a little above, shouldn't you use regular quotation marks?

Reception

• You start the first 2 paragraphs with either "on announcement" or "on release". I suggest changing the wording of one of them to not be so similar to the other.
• Reception is the hardest section to write. I suggest having a look at WP:RECEPTION. You have a lot of "A said B" or variations of it, as well as saying someone "noted" something, but noted shouldn't be used in reception sections per WP:RECEPTION.

Spot checks

• Earwig found no copyright issues

Ref numbers are accurate as of this revision

• Ref #7 - Digital Trends on YouTube - Confirms roughly 80 characters in the game around 0:59 into the video. Y
• Ref #8 - GameSpot - Mentions that the currency is called studs. Y
• Ref #10 - Kotaku - Mentions the addition of online co-op. Y
• Ref #17 - The Guardian - Mentions the changes made for the first three movies compared to the previous game. Y
• Ref #24 - Feral Interactive - Confirms the Mac version of the game was distributed by Feral Interactive in 2011. Y

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the existence of Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues was accidentally leaked when it was displayed on an animator's résumé? Source: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/lego-harry-potter-indiana-jones-2-in-development/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mongolia at the 2022 Winter Olympics

Improved to Good Article status by Mebigrouxboy (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lego Indiana Jones 2: The Adventure Continues; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Hi Onegreatjoke (talk), review follows: article promoted to GA on 15 April; sources used look to be reliable for the subject matter; I didn't find any issue with overly close paraphrasing in a spot check on some of the sources; hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to sources cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Dumelow: Forgetting something...? BorgQueen (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)