Talk:Watch Dogs 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 10:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept this review. If I haven't posted comments and suggestions by Friday, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Review

• a young hacker from Oakland, California - Why is his birthplace important to the gameplay?
• Marcus Holloway (Ruffin Prentiss), an intelligent twenty-four year old hacker from Oakland, California - Why is his age important? Also, his birthplace again?
• the city's ctOS 2.0 - Elsewhere it's referred to as a singular entity rather than related to something.
• Raymond "T-Bone" Kenney (John Tench), who is determined to battle Blume. - Isn't T-Bone a character from the original game? If he is, this bears mentioning.
• take down the ringleaders of the Tezcas, one of the local gangs after they kidnap Horatio and kill him after he refuses to cooperate with them. - This sentence is rather confusing, and features repetition of the word "after". Also, this is the only place Tezcas is mentioned and doesn't seem to play a role in the rest of the plot, so why is it being treated as such a major part of the narrative?
• was developed by Ubisoft Reflections, the developer of Ubisoft's own Driver series - Link Ubisoft Reflections.
  • Also, while it's said in the infobox that Reflections, Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft Toronto, Ubisoft Bucharest aren't mentioned in the development section at all.
• Ubisoft Montreal made frequent scouting trips to California to research the setting - From novice and those who didn't read the infobox: "Is Ubi Montreal the main developer?"
• A general note about the references: many of them don't have the accessdate value in place or filled, but this isn't strictly necessary for a pass.

And good thing too. I do not see accessdate= as useful information. Cognissonance (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I saw that stood out this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I guess there's nothing overtly wrong with the article now, just more along the lines of stylistic choices. I'll Pass this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)