diff --git a/docs/architecture/microservices/architect-microservice-container-applications/direct-client-to-microservice-communication-versus-the-api-gateway-pattern.md b/docs/architecture/microservices/architect-microservice-container-applications/direct-client-to-microservice-communication-versus-the-api-gateway-pattern.md
index 3b5cf83332f65..cd7de0c5f9e75 100644
--- a/docs/architecture/microservices/architect-microservice-container-applications/direct-client-to-microservice-communication-versus-the-api-gateway-pattern.md
+++ b/docs/architecture/microservices/architect-microservice-container-applications/direct-client-to-microservice-communication-versus-the-api-gateway-pattern.md
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ After the initial architecture and patterns explanation sections, the next secti
 
 ## Drawbacks of the API Gateway pattern
 
-- The most important drawback is that when you implement an API Gateway, you're coupling that tier with the internal microservices. Coupling like this might introduce serious difficulties for your application. Clemens Vaster, architect at the Azure Service Bus team, refers to this potential difficulty as "the new ESB" in the "[Messaging and Microservices](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXi5CLjIQ9k)" session at GOTO 2016.
+- The most important drawback is that when you implement an API Gateway, you're coupling that tier with the internal microservices. Coupling like this might introduce serious difficulties for your application. Clemens Vasters, architect at the Azure Service Bus team, refers to this potential difficulty as "the new ESB" in the "[Messaging and Microservices](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXi5CLjIQ9k)" session at GOTO 2016.
 
 - Using a microservices API Gateway creates an additional possible single point of failure.