Talk:Watch Dogs (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The1337gamer (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing, should be quick...

I'll be away in Hungary, so I won't be able to work on this a lot. I might edit as an IP from time to time. Samtar, this is mostly all on you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

• Development section needs expanding. Here are some sources to expand that are either unused or underused:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/216009/hackman_an_interview_with_watch_.php

https://www.gamestm.co.uk/interviews/interview-the-making-of-watch-dogs/

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/05/16/watch_dogs-behind-the-scenes-with-2013s-rule-breaking-action-epic/

You can find alot more with a simple Google search.

• Reception section is far too short. It is just a handful of quotes and a list of scores. It doesn't go into any detail and about the positive or negative aspects of the game at all. This game received over 100 reviews from professional critics.

• There is no information about the release of the game's downloadable content. There is only a small plot summary about the Bad Blood DLC, but the article doesn't tell the reader what the Bad Blood DLC is. It doesn't cover any of the other DLC. It doesn't cover reception of the DLC.

• The soundtrack listing is unsourced. And arguably should not even be included in the article per WP:VGSCOPE.  Done

• Reference 71, 79, 98, 110, are dead links.

• Extraneous detail could be trimmed from the plot summary.

• Gameplay should be expanded. There's no explanation about what the "competitive decryption combat" or "ctOS mobile challenge" modes involve.

• There's no information on the game's marketing campaign or promotion, which I know has been covered by reliable sources.

I could spend hours writing a more thorough review, but there is no need. It qualifies for immediate failure due to being incomplete, the presence of valid cleanup banners, and failing the first three GA criteria. I would say it is still a C-class article currently. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Thanks for your review - I'll work through these and try to improve the article. I must add I find your addition of both valid cleanup banners somewhat disingenuous - adding them before accepting the GA review, then citing them as a quick fail rationale just doesn't sit well with me. I can't fault you on your other valid points, and would like to thank you again for a speedy review -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The outcome to the GA review would have been the same had I not added the cleanup banners. The article is missing crucial information and definitely not up to the standard I would expect from a GA article. I added them after you nominated the article, hoping that you would recognise there were issues with the article and correct them before someone opened a review. I added the expand section tag to the Reception section 5 days ago and no improvements were made. You nominated the article for GAN 21 minutes after you made your first edit to it. You made 5 minors edits and no significant contributions before your nom. You shouldn't feel hard done by because you didn't put any work into the article anyway. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)