Talk:Deus Ex/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 19:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll get this one. Expect comments in the coming days. Gommeh 📖/🎮 19:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Mostly good. The instances of "Deus Ex Universe" and "immersive sim" don't need quotes around them, so I would axe them unless they are being quoted from a source.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot check of a few random sources confirms that most sources are reliable and back up claims. I have a slight concern about source 44 being used to cite "A new Deux Ex game [...] fans of the original Deus Ex" due to it being an interview (therefore WP:PRIMARY), but it is accompanied by a citation to source 76. Just something to think about. Additionally, the last two paragraphs in the reception section have multiple instances of five or six citations back-to-back, which should be avoided as it just doesn't look good. I'd suggest either finding a way to split those up or delete some of them.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The setting and narrative sections, while they do go over the main aspects of the games, I feel like they could afford to go into more detail about the games themselves instead of just linking to the games' articles. More details about the plot could be potentially used here, perhaps taken from the sources on the respective games' articles. Additionally, are there any more things you could possibly include in the gameplay section as well? Finally, I feel you could go over what the sources say in more detail in the reception section, particularly sources 135 through 149.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Information appears neutral for the most part. My only suggestion is the criticism sentence should either be expanded upon or deleted depending on what the sources say. Additionally, in the last paragraph you go from talking about praise to criticism and back again; I'd split it up more clearly into praise and criticism sections.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a high quality article, however I think work could still be done to push it over the top. There are a few minor punctuation issues that don't stop it from becoming a GA, but the sourcing issues I mentioned at #2 and #3 above are significant enough to need reworking. Having said that though, I do believe that with time this has the potential to become a GA. If I were you, I'd take the time to think about the comments I've just given you and how best to address them, then re-nominate again.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.