# Talk:Portal Reloaded

I was reverted after boldly changing the article's referencing style, so I'd like to propose here to change the article's current referencing style from being list-defined to body-defined. The current style is very much unhelpful for the Visual Editor because it does not let you create or edit references, and forces the editor to use the source code editor to actually add or edit references. This is not the case with body-defined references, which lets users create or edit references in both modes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally as a wikitext user I find inline references much harder to edit, as it is difficult to read the text interspersed with the ungainly reference templates. There are tradeoffs to both styles, which is why WP:CITEVAR leaves that up to editor preference. Given that this article isn't frequented by a lot of people there may not be a sufficient quorum to decide one way or the other but we'll see what happens I guess. ― novov (t c) 09:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we should wait. I'll start expanding the article using the current referencing style. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portal Reloaded/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 18:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

Should use consistent terminology for the multiplayer mode
Development and release

I would recommend cutting off the quote as "celebration of all [Portal's] achievements"
Reception

"Lane argued that the looks of Portal Reloaded were not on the level of Portal 2." This feels a little awkwardly placed.
"but he admitted that the additional elements in the puzzles could cause frustration occasionally." I think you could justify replacing "but he admitted that" with "but felt that"
Spotcheck
Checked the following sources, and am comfortable that the article does an adequate job citing information from these sources correctly: [1] [2] [3] [4]
@Vacant0: Due to the relative triviality of any issues I've found with the article, I'm going to pass it, though would recommend making these few fixes. Nice job. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)