Talk:Deus Ex: Invisible War/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 09:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Japanese release date for a non-Japanese game is against the template guideline
  • Sorted.
• a variety of ways and character customization using items dubbed "Biomod Canisters" - mentioning the name of the items is perhaps too detailed for the lead and isn't really helpful. It can be saved for later mentions.
  • Sorted.
• "Easy", which increases damage to enemies and decreases enemy accuracy - I don't think most readers will understand what enemy accuracy is.
  • Rewritten a little.
• All guns found in the game share the same ammunition, which is represented by a bar; different gun types drawn differing amounts of ammunition - Isn't this contradicting?
  • No. They draw from the same ammo pool, and use the same ammo pool rather than seperate ammunition. I've rewritten for clarification.
• Items, weapons, ammunition and equipment are purchased with Credits, the in-game currency - How did you earn credits?
  • Sorted.
• Due to the game being for both consoles and PC, the team wanted to minimize the number of menus players needed to navigate, maintaining the core feeling of a first-person shooter - "Due to the game being designed for both consoles and PC players" sounds slightly better in my opinion.
  • Sorted.
• They also had staff who had worked o Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, then regarded as one of the best recent stealth-focused games - worked "on"
  • Done.
• The release section is a bit too short. Is there any sort of marketing campaign from Eidos for the game?
  • All that's there is all there really was. I've merged it with the Dev section.
• In all regions, the game was published by Eidos. - I don't see this claim as being necessary.
  • Deleted.
• The reception section is a bit weak. Expansion of the section will be great.
  • Having read through all the reviews while writing this section, I felt expansion in the style of many other game articles would lead to nauseating repetition for the casual reader; as with Xenoblade Chronicles, the previews generally echo each other, so showing each reviewer's comments just makes the eyes glaze over, which negatively impacts the article's readability. That's why I wrote it like that.
• GameSpot's Greg Kasavin, who reviewed both versions - Kasavin has its own article. It should be wikilinked.
  • Done.
• the elements that worked, but said that people would focus on the missteps it made with its narrative and gameplay alterations - very vague. What are these elements and missteps?
  • Rewritten
• Steve Butts of IGN said that, while some would say the game made too many concessions - Similarly, what are these concessions?
  • Done my best here without bloating it.
• Since its release, Invisible War is seen as the weakest mainline entry in the Deus Ex series compared to both the original Deus Ex and subsequent games - "Since its release" isn't accurate since the sources provided seems to surface after the release of Human Revolution. Maybe "Retrospectively" suits better.
  • Rewritten.
• Neon Kelly of VideoGamer.com said the game was "widely regarded as a disappointment" due to its design - what are these design faults then?
  • Addressed.

GA Criteria per WP:WIAGA
1	Well-written
1a	the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b	it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
2	Verifiable with no original research
2a	it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b	reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c	it contains no original research
2d	it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3	Broad in its coverage
3a	it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b	it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4	Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5	Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6	Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
6a	media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b	media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Cmt	It is an excellent article. While personally I would have liked to see a larger and more elaborated release and reception section, the article in its current state is fine. Some clarifications is needed, and after the issues are fixed, it should have no problem passing GA. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC) @AdrianGamer: Done my best with the issues you raised. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Thanks! The article is ready to become a GA! AdrianGamer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

— Closing review as AdrianGamer (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)