Talk:It Takes Two (video game)/GA1

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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

Nominator: Umais Bin Sajjad (talk · contribs) 07:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, this nomination has been waiting too long, lets do this. I review articles by posting a list of issues as I read through, rather than a template; I'll fix minor grammar issues myself rather than call them out.

• The lede feels oddly short. In general, paragraphs should be 4-7 sentences, but here we have 2-3-2, and it does not appear to summarize the Development or Adaptations sections at all, and only barely mentions the non-awards reception. I'd recommend adding a sentence or 2 for each of those sections.

 Done

• The gameplay section fundamentally does not explain the gameplay. It tells me that it pulls from a lot of action-adventure/platform game conventions, but doesn't really tell me what playing the game involves. It also does not explain at all how the game is presented (3rd-person? 1st-person? Isometric? Freely-controlled camera?). It says there are minigames, but not at all what kinds of minigames there are. It's really a long way from being comprehensive- even games with straightforward gameplay typically have twice the amount of prose in this section to explain what's going on, and this does not sound straightforward.

 Done

• "Dr. Hakim, who has assumed the anthropomorphic form of his relationship therapy book" - I think I understand what this means, but if so, flipping the sentence around would be helpful- the book has turned into a person, not a not-yet-mentioned person into a book
• Minor- you use the word "team" 6 times in 4 sentences in Development
• "Fares provided motion capture for Dr. Hakim, one of the key characters in the game" - given that the reader has read the "plot" section, the aside is not needed
• "Hazelight abandoned the trademark application of the name, making it difficult for them to engage in certain types of marketing" - I don't understand how not having a copyright would prevent any type of marketing. It means you can't sue other companies to stop them from using the name/similar names, but not that you can't buy ads. In fact, the source for this sentence says "The team also did not comment on how this had impacted Hazelight's ability to sell or market It Takes Two currently", so it's not supported at all by that citation.

 Done - Removed the unsupported claim about marketing difficulty and kept the trademark paragraph limited to what the source directly supports.

• It's generally better to not have single-paragraph subsections; while I think the "Trademark complaint" subsection is justified, the "Sales" one could just be the first paragraph of Reception, leaving Accolades the only subsection of Reception
• There's a citation needed tag in Reception, which is justified as that's a lot o editorial summation without a cite
• "while other reviewers noted [...] However, some critics..." - which is cited to a single PC Gamer review. I don't doubt that these were common comments, but you need to cite it to more than one review if you're going to claim it as a general deal.
• You cite 5 reviews in the Reception section, but you have 8 in the review template. Anything in the template should be used in the prose (the reverse is not required), and at that amount of reviews, a single sentence from each reviewer feels like they're being underutilized.

 Done - Expanded by adding more reviews and using what we already had in table

• "In retrospective coverage [...]" - this game is 5 years old, so "retrospective" coverage would be pushing it, but especially so when the only cite is to an article from 1 year later.
• " Feature articles and year end lists frequently cited..." - You cannot say that and then cite a single source.
• As impressive as the sales numbers are, having so many callouts to when it crossed different numbers feels like padding to make a full paragraph. "It sold 1 million in the first month, 7 million just over a year after release, and 20 million by 2024. Sales reached 30 million in April 2026." gets the same point across without as many small details.
• "The game was frequently cited as one of the most critically acclaimed titles of 2021" - again, you can't say something was "frequently" cited and then cite one source.
• There is no reason to have a one-sentence paragraph as a lead into a one-paragraph subsection. Just combine them.
• "The project will be a joint-venture production" - at this point, this would be better as "is planned to be", as many/most film projects never actually get started and this seems to be following that trend.

 Done - all above issues are sorted.

• I did not review sources (beyond the above sentence that was not supported by the source), but I can see a few instances of ALLCAPS in titles, authors not included in references when they're present and up top in the cited article, and multiple date formats. Also, Youtube isn't a publisher, the company that put out the video is, youtube is the "|via=" hoster.

 Done - fixed the citation issues, including title casing, author details where available, citation formatting, date consistency.

Overall, I feel this is pretty far away from GA. The lede is anemic, the gameplay section doesn't really explain the gameplay, and the reception section would be under-utilizing the sources as given if that's all you had... but that's not all you have, this was considered possibly the best game of the year, there are a dozen other RS reviews that are excluded. Development is also short, which happens a lot when there aren't sources, but 10 seconds on google got me these interviews (, , , , ), none of which are used. I'm not going to fail this article, because this has been waiting for a few months for a review and I've had pushback before that it's very reasonable for an editor to rewrite the whole thing in a week and I'm not going to argue about that, but I'd frankly have expected this article to be at least half again as long in terms of content given the sourcing available. I'll put this on hold for a week and then check again, but to be clear, the article needs substantial revision to pass GAN. --PresN 21:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough initial review. I'll go through the points carefully and start making the needed updates. I'll follow up here once the main issues have been addressed. Umais🗣 07:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Umais Bin Sajjad: Hi, just checking in on this. --PresN 20:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@PresN Hello, all above were done from my end. Please let me know if you find anything else. If all good, you may proceed with spot checking. Thanks! Umais🗣 20:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of improvement, and I'm happy with where it's at now. Spotchecks didn't show any issues, so promoting. --PresN 21:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your comments were very helpful, and the article is much stronger because of them. I really appreciate it. Thanks for passing to GA. Umais🗣 21:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)