Jump to content

Talk:Deus Ex (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDeus Ex (video game) was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 19, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
August 30, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
January 10, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Regarding the development staff

[edit]

In the development section, it mentions that 20 people worked on the game, while this mentions [1] 50 people worked on the game. Which source should we use here? Timur9008 (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably trust the current source more. The newspaper one seems like it may have been an exaggeration for dramatic effect to show that games will take less risks as their development cost rises, while the one used in the article actually breaks down who was working on what. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has lots of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.