# Talk:Dying Light: The Following

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dying Light: The Following/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: OceanHok (talk · contribs) 04:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Random aside: is it purely coincidental that there are three Pawels??
Can any of the people listed be cited to RSes and included outside of the article in any capacity?
The engine ought to be cited and mentioned outside the infobox
Should clarify and cite all dates in the infobox in the article, including which platform they were released for, when, and where.
Lead

Platforms not mentioned outside of lead or infobox
Gameplay

While anytime isn't grammatically incorrect, any time is preferred for formal text
Plot

I feel like the plot section assumes that some info, like the "Tower," "Antizin," and who Camden is.
Development and release

Is Binkowski the lead designer of this, Dying Light, or both?
The process of implementing them was described as "hard" -> Can probably simplify it and say "was described as difficult" or "Was difficult for them."
"the story had a different mood when compared with the main game." -> Is this the opinion of the developer or a critic?
Reception

Common enough words like "versatility" honestly ought not to be quoted
Sources

International Business Times is considered an unreliable source, criticized by multiple reliable sources for inconsistent quality and reliability.
OpenCritic may be helpful to include to provide a snapshot of how many critics recommend it
Spotcheck

Checked [1]; I do not see what is being cited for "As the game is set in a rural environment, the expansion has a larger focus on gunplay."
Checked [2]; looks good
Checked [3]; looks good
Checked [4]; looks good
@OceanHok Progress? Tarlby (t) (c) 17:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: - I think I have fixed most of the issues. OpenCritic was in its very early stage when the game was released, so I opted not to include it here. MC alone should be sufficient for simple aggregation purpose. OceanHok (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
All right, it all looks good. Nice job - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)