Talk:Watch Dogs (video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I will pick up this review in a day or so. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No concerns about copyright violations, Earwig's only hits were quotes. Will review section per section shortly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• "and its world is navigated on foot or in vehicles." - I am not sure if there is an issue with this line, but it does seem to read somewhat awkward to me ( the "in vehicles" part). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked it. Cognissonance (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "QR codes and audio logs are included as collectibles,[1][2] and ctOS towers unlock map icons and side missions.[3]" - could this possibly be split into two separate sentences or separated by a semi-colon? It seems kind of awkward with the 'and's. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Implemented semi colon. Cognissonance (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Multiplayer mode can host up to eight free-roaming players,[1] with whom the player may complete hacking contracts and engage in races." - might want to add an 'other' somewhere in there. Something like this? "Multiplayer mode can host up to seven other free-roaming players,[1] with whom the player may complete hacking contracts and engage in races." --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cognissonance (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Free-roaming with multiple players and decryption mode, where two teams of four are tasked with acquiring and holding data, were excluded from the game's Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions.[1][2]" - do we know why they were excluded? My guess would be due to technical limitations, but if it is known why, it should probably be elaborated upon. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This originated in a Ubisoft article saying it was "more of a "bonus" than a core gameplay experience". It's less of a reason and more a description, which I don't think would contribute much to what is already there. Cognissonance (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot

• "and Brenks retaliates by kidnapping his younger sister (forcing Pearce to comply with Brenks' demands)." - couldn't that be "and Brenks retaliates by kidnapping his younger sister, which forces Pearce to comply with Brenks' demands."? Seems better without the parentheses. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That came from the Guild copyedit, I don't care either way. Cognissonance (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "With the help of Clara Lille (a member of the hacking syndicate DedSec),..." - couldn't that be "With the help of Clara Lille, a member of the hacking syndicate DedSec,..."? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Guild preference. Reverted. Cognissonance (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "After meeting Pearce (and completing several tasks for him), Kenney agrees to help decrypt the data." - again, the parentheses seem unnecessary here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cognissonance (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Markowicz leaves a recording that Lille helped locate Pearce and Brenks months earlier (which led to Pearce's niece's death), and Pearce angrily tells Lille to leave." - that seems extremely awkward. What is it trying to say exactly? As for the latter part about the niece's death, it could probably be replaced with "which resulted in the death of Pearce's niece" (first part still needs working out though). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarified. Cognissonance (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Thanks for these. I will continue this tomorrow as it is a holiday & will have some downtime then. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Release

• "The final release date was set for 27 May 2014,[45] before its release for the Wii U on 18 November in North America and 21 November in Europe" - the "before" doesn't sound right to me. It seems that "Before" is either the wrong word or that it is missing something. If it sounds okay to you though, I am happy to strike this point myself. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It sounds okay to me. Cognissonance (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reception

Pre-release

This section is short (only 4 sentences), but I am not sure how it could be expanded. Maybe it should be combined with another section? I am willing to give it a "pass" on this though. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried merging it with another section, but it didn't look right. Cognissonance (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Post-Release

• "sixty percent of gamers changed their view of technology after playing Watch Dog" - nothing wrong with this point, just have to say, that is a large percentage. I think the game got its message across, don't you? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Really does look like it. Cognissonance (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Chris Carter of Destructoid liked the virtual rendition of Chicago and the detail of non-player characters, and thought the gameplay was fun." - the comma seems like somewhat of a comma splice and there appear to be one too many "and"s in that sentence. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the second "and" and made better use of the comma. Cognissonance (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "His favourite feature was the extra content such as collectibles and minigames" - seems to be lacking something/doesn't sound right --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you wanted, so I simply tweaked it a bit. Cognissonance (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "...provided by the campaign missions provided..." - seems like one too many "provided"s, maybe the use of a synonym would be beneficial. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Cognissonance (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "...and was grateful for how the hacking component added." - that doesn't seem grammatically correct. Is there a word missing somewhere? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarified. Cognissonance (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "On GamesRadar, Andy Hartup..." - shouldn't that be "In GamesRadar,..."? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I chose "At". The Guild c/e changed all my prefixes. Cognissonance (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• "He also enjoyed the combat: "The cover-based gunplay feels good" " - the colon shouldn't be there, perhaps it should be replaced with "stating" or another synonym? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem, it's one of the things the Guild did that I agree with. Cognissonance (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Adaptation and sequel

This section seems short, but there isn't much to say really as most of it is covered in Watch Dogs 2's article. Overall, while short I think it is okay given the lack of information available. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all the information we have. Cognissonance (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary

@Cognissonance: If you have any questions please feel free to let me know. I have completed my anaylsis of the sections and left my points above. Until they are addressed, I am placing this  On hold. My overall opinion of this article is that it is decent enough for the GA classification, it just has some minor tweaks that need to be done. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I went over your notes. How is the article now? Cognissonance (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I am now satisfied that the article now meets the requirements to be listed as a Video games good article. I extend my congratulations to the nominator, Cognissonance, and all other editors who have constructively worked on this article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: