Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 07:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I will review this article shortly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: The article is written well overall, however, I did notice a couple of things that could be addressed. I have noticed that throughout the article, the company name is used a lot more than it potentially could be. To improve the flow, would it not be better to simply state "the company" in some cases or refer to it as the developer/publisher or something of that nature? It would make it seem less repetitive.
- "Ubisoft also envisioned Rainbow Six Siege as an eSports game. Ubisoft had their first meeting with David Hiltscher, vice president of ESL, in late 2013" - It seems kind of redundant. Wouldn't it be better as "...an eSports game. The company had their first..."?
My suggestion is similar with what has been done by referring to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege as "the game" instead of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege in every mention of it. In the meantime, I have placed this nomination 
On hold until the above is addressed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @AdrianGamer: I realize that you are unable to respond at the moment due to a planned vacation and, as such, I am in no hurry and await your response. To avoid any confusion as I did indeed pass this nomination previously, I have been requested to redo it by the Video games WikiProject due to concerns over my lack of comments/suggestions when reviewing nominations. I am, however, confident that this GA nomination is passable, even more so with the suggestion(s) above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: - Thanks for the review! I have fixed the issues you have raised above. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @AdrianGamer: You're welcome and thank you for fixing that issue. I now have no problems promoting it. Well done!. Also, thanks for your understanding and I do apologize for having to re-do the review. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)