# Talk:Deus Ex Go

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deus Ex Go/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I will take a look at this article and scan for any errors that need to be corrected. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


### Formality
environmental features like turrets and platforms > environmental features such as turrets and platforms
felt like they belonged > felt as if they belonged
predecessors like Lara Croft Go > predecessors such as Lara Croft Go


### Development
"Several elements from the series did not translate well to mobile, such as player choice, which had too many possibilities to suit the game's puzzle-solving." This sounds like a writer's opinion.
It's a direct report from an interview with the dev, so I added a direct citation in case a reader wants to challenge it
"This new puzzle design mode is planned for release several months after the game's launch." This seems outdated.
Updated
If Étienne Giroux is the game's designer, should he be mentioned in the infobox as well?
Source said "designer" and not "the designer"—I try to only add credits when it's something the sources cover in depth


### Reception
Ryan McCaffrey (IGN) > Ryan McCaffrey of IGN (without italicization)
Colin Campbell (Polygon) > Colin Campbell of Polygon
The first paragraph should follow the second paragraph.
There should be Metacritic statistics in the prose as to what the score was based on the given number of reviews.
"IGN" and "GameSpot" should be unitalicized.
"The GameSpot reviewer..." Who was the reviewer?
"Gamezebo's reviewer..." Again, who was the reviewer?
"IGN wrote..." should include the reviewer's name and should look like this: [reviewer's name] of IGN wrote... (without italicization).
"TouchArcade wondered..." should include the reviewer's name and should look like this: [reviewer's name] of TouchArcade wondered....
"TouchArcade concluded..." should contain the reviewer's name and should look like this: [reviewer's name] of TouchArcade concluded....
"...GameSpot explained..." should contain the reviewer's name and should look like this: [reviewer's name] of GameSpot explained....
in the fewest amount of moves > in the fewest number of moves


### Sources
Sources 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are bare links.
Source 12's website, Touch Arcade, should be TouchArcade and hyperlinked.
I am not so sure about the reliability of source 5, zam.com. Can a better source be used?
Status:  Done
All right. I have finished my review. I have read the article entirely and given all the issues that I have with the article before passing it. As such, I am placing this article on hold for changes to take effect within 7 days.  On hold. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Gamingforfun365, thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. A few other replies: I italicize all publication names as titles of creative works (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"). I also avoid adding reviewer names when they are of no consequence to the article—it's more work to make the reader remember who "Campbell" is, when they're primarily noting what publication they represent. By the same token, parentheses is sufficient when reviewer names are used. I also avoid the Metacritic score in the prose on purpose—it's been discussed  several times in the bowels of WT:VG but suffice it to say that I don't think the score adds anything. I say 76 vs. 74 and the reader doesn't know the difference unless it's moored to something. Readers are better served by quoting the qualitative phrase Metacritic uses to describe the score, as it gives an immediate sense of what the reception actually was. (I'd note also that these points, while the attention to detail is appreciated, are outside the scope of the GA review, though, again, I'm happy to have them.) ZAM should be okay. It's not the best of sources, especially while it's new, but I believe it'll stand up to basic scrutiny. Thanks again, czar 05:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess that this means that I am happy to  Pass this article. Well done! Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
One question, though: should we italicize "IGN" and "GameSpot" in this infobox as well? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd argue that all of the publications in the reviews template should be italicized (I imagine I already have, just haven't looked at the archives) czar 05:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)