| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because me and some other editors are gonna be taking this article to FA soon. So any feedback is gonna help!
Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a quick look. Condensing the development section is the most obvious point, as stated by the message at the top of that section. I would also try to find references for the pieces in the Music section that have the "citation needed" message in front of them. If you can't I think it's best to delete them. Also, you might try adding references for some points in the Release section. Several sentences do not have a citation to back up their claims (not the Mods section though: that's beautifully references). I haven't looked at grammar yet, but I might well do when I have the time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! ProtoDrake URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero
editPR buddies! Alright, here are my thoughts:
- I strongly bolster ProtoDrake's points about citations. There are lots of unreferenced statements, sometimes whole paragraphs, and honestly I'm surprised the page passed GAN with all of those. If you can't find citations, they have to go. I require all statements to have sources, with very few exceptions (plot sections being one of those exceptions), before passing a GA, although recently I've become more lenient with citation formatting.
- For FAC, though, consistent and complete citation formatting is a must. A non-exhaustive list of things that will need to be fixed:
- It's just Gamasutra, not Gamasutra.com.
- Keep date format consistent. Citation 99 contains both kinds: ""GameSpy's Top 50 Games of All Time". GameSpy. Archived from the original on 2004-08-18. Retrieved March 20, 2007."
- Combining the first two, keep how you refer to a publisher consistent. 18, for example, refers to IGN as "ign.com", whereas elsewhere it's just IGN. (Use the latter.)
- Some citations don't include the publisher, e.g. 23 (it's Rock, Paper, Shotgun).
- Some citation formatting is just weird (e.g. 30 [Unatco Handbook], 31 [GameFAQs]). Also, GameFAQs isn't a reliable source.
- 57's completely unformatted aside from a URL with a title, and I'm not even sure "Blue's News" is a reliable source. And including an unreliable source like Blue's News for a statement is like getting a letter and not knowing who it's from.
- There's a "clarification needed" tag in there somewhere.
- There's an error for citation 32.
- The "Organizations in Deus Ex" section is pretty crufty and can probably be merged into Setting or Plot.
- That section was recently added before you looked at the article. It has since been removed. GamerPro64 15:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Not gonna lie; there's a lot to do here. But you can do it if you exert enough effort. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from EdwardH
edit- Images are missing alt-text.
- Oxford commas are sometimes being used in error; e.g., "Deus Ex was designed as a single player game, and ...". The manual of style states that these should be used in lists of three or more elements.
- The References section uses bold pseudo-headings, which WP:Accessibility expressly forbids.
Overall, though, it's a very high-quality article. I hope this helps, EdwardH (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)