Talk:Watch Dogs 2/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
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
[edit]
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)