# Talk:Deus Ex: The Fall

This page was linked to on reddit. Expect trouble!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverEzhik (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 
As per my reverted change, I disagree that the Controversy section isn't warranted. So far we're seeing articles on Kotaku, MacRumors, Polygon, iPhoneHacks, TouchArcade, Inagist, MacHash, FreshAppleNews, Cult of Mac, Apple Insider, etc. How large does the controversy need to be before there's a section for it? DeusExMacramé (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I imagine we should at least wait until an official response. Also thanks for removing that stuff in the development section, totally missed it. —SilverEzhik (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Deus Ex: The Fall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150201090632/http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/08/deus-ex-the-fall-lands-july-11/ to http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/08/deus-ex-the-fall-lands-july-11/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deus Ex: The Fall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 21:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Meets GA criteria top to bottom. No qualms about passing as is. 

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Review notes
Some notes and a cursory copyedit, though, for improvements:
Lede

First sentence could be much more impactful if it described what matters about the game rather than repeating the infobox. The most important aspect of this game is that it's in the Deus Ex series and was designed as a 2013 mobile game to appeal to new players, no? And the challenge of making a "console-like experience" on a piece of glass with no buttons? Not clear from the current lede, which gets lost between focusing on the different companies involved.
"in 2013 and Android and Microsoft Windows in 2014" is awkward
Akin to my first point, knowing its precise placement in the series is not the most important part to link here. What's a summary of the plot in broad strokes: the protagonists hide from the Illuminati?
"the story remains incomplete"—say why?
"WW" not needed in the infobox—can drop unless the source specifically specifies worldwide, as it's assumed the release would be as wide as possible
Some infobox credits are unsourced in article
"Microsoft" in "Microsoft Windows" is only included as a natural disambiguator; for all purposes, you can list in infobox as "Windows", which is the name of the platform
The citation source, if a blog or a creative outlet, should be italicized via using the |work= parameter
Gameplay

{{r}} is slightly easier to use than <ref> tags
Why does the reader learn about the view perspective before any other aspect of the game? What's the objective? Knowing that the player can provide contextual actions is less important than knowing that the player can resolve action scenarios through choice of playstyle, for example
Goes back and forth between "players" and "Saxon"—could be slightly clearer that the player is Saxon
"portable devices and computers" are these items? reader has no idea
remember to keep specificity/granularity appropriate for a general audience, one that may have no specific interest in video games or the Deus Ex series
plot gets into the weeds with all of these names/proper nouns to track
Dev

"expand the series into other areas" areas? what else?
"create a dedicated mobile game that would expand the lore of the series while translating the gameplay elements onto the platform" – any connection with Deus Ex Go?
"There were several times where the game refused to function." what does this mean? was the game sentient when it refused?
Unity's "user-friendly architecture" helped who how?
"Production of the Android version met with separate difficulties to the iOS version." is this self-evident? delete?
"Microtransactions were included due to it being the dominant mobile business model" – Was this really the explanation offered? Or was it suggested as the main way for the game to make money? Did it work with the game structure proposed?
spent a bit too long on the teaser timeline—consider the takeaway for readers
"caused some controversy" any more specificity?
Reception

"based on 43 reviews" could give some indication of the breadth of mixed/average, but "gave it a score of 69 out of 100 points"—not sure how repeating the review score box there helps the reader
almost all of the quotes here could be further paraphrased without losing their effect; currently reads like a hodge-podge of reviewer opinions
Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections has some useful advice
Let me know if you need help with any of the above. Otherwise feel free to treat my comments as rhetorical that do not need individual responses—only there in service of what you want to write. 
czar 21:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)