# Talk:Tom Clancy's The Division 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Clancy's The Division 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: OceanHok (talk · contribs) 11:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. I've started reviewing the article. The article appears to be in good shape and only some relatively minor grammar issues have stood out to me. I will post comments after I've finished the review. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC))
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is in great shape. The only things that stood out to me are marked on hold below.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Commas are a recurring issue throughout the article.
Per MOS:SERIAL, a serial/oxford comma is not required in serial lists. The article needs to use it consistently though, and I saw both uses. Not sure which one appears more often, so I'll leave it up to you as to which style to use. Some examples:
"...assault rifles, sniper rifles and submachine..."; "...gun turrets, shields and combat drones..."
"..gear, XP, and blueprints.."; "The Agent, JTF, and the Civilian..."
There are also instances of a comma used before a conjunction when the second part is a dependent clause rather than an independent clause. I may fix those myself since they are simple fixes; double check any of my edits in case I change the meaning.
There are many complex sentences that pack a lot of information. Nothing wrong with well-written complex sentences, but I recommend swapping out some of the comma pairs for parentheses and dashes to help the reader parse the information more easily. Alternatively, breaking up some of the complex sentences into multiple simple sentences isn't a bad idea either, but it looks like you're going for FA-class well-written prose, so whichever you think is the best route.
I saw a few sentences that had commas after adjectives. This is should be done when the order of the adjectives in a similar category can be swapped. Based on my knowledge of gaming, the cases below don't seem to fit that description.
"The Division 2 is a cover-based, third-person shooter..."
"The Division 2 also includes a traditional, competitive, multiplayer mode named Conflict..."
Last recommendation for the prose is to provide a brief explanation of what "endgame" is. I've never played such games before and had to look it up. I'm sure other laymen won't know the term either.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Passed spot checking
C. It contains no original research: 
Passed spot checking
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Passed spot checking
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
A caption for the cover art would be good. This is a chance to point out elements illustrated in the cover that are explicitly discussed in the article. The setting, player classes, and weapons come to mind. ALT text for accessibility would be good for all the images in the article as well.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
On hold while the few issues are addressed. Please let me know if you need additional information about the points above.
I will check back later. Overall, very good job, and the article is almost there. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC))

I made copy edits to address the ", and" with dependent clauses issue. Feel free to edit them further if I altered the intended meaning. The only such sentence I didn't touch was this one, as I'm not sure what the intent is:
"Carter praised it for its replayability, noting it reuses locations from the campaign, Black Tusks as an enemy faction is fierce, and it provides ample opportunities to explore builds, promoting players to work cooperatively."
Is it a serial list of things that Carter noted?
"it reuses locations from the campaign"
"Black Tusks as an enemy faction is fierce"
"it provides ample opportunities to explore builds"
If that's the case, then the commas are fine. But I think the Black Tusks part throws off the flow as it's not apparent how them being a fierce enemy contributes to replayability. When reading, it felt like the topic was shifting to something else at that part. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC))
@Guyinblack25: - I think I have fixed most of the issues. I used serial commas for longer sentences. OceanHok (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Great. I'll take a look later today. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC))
@OceanHok: Good progress made. Here are the remaining issues:
Commas are better. Still see a mix of serial lists with and without a serial comma. If you let me know which way you plan to use (use serial commas or not), I can edits the ones I see to make the article consistent.
Add a brief laymen explanation for "endgame" at the first instance.
Add an image caption for the cover.
Add Alt text for the images.
Looking good. Almost there. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC))
If I have to choose, I would prefer not using serial commas. Do we have to be consistent with this? Serial commas make more sense for long sentences (e.g. The diverse environment also enabled more-varied level design, the incorporation of natural cover and the inclusion of more interior spaces), and doesn't make sense for text like including the deployment of gun turrets, shields and combat drones OceanHok (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, using it consistently is part of the Manual of Style. Per MOS:SERIAL, "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent." Alternatively, mixing in some dashes or parentheses might help with the longer sentences. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC))
@OceanHok: I made some copy edits to address the comma usage. I kept the serial/oxford semicolons, as I could not find a grammar rule about its usage but some people online believe they should always be used because they help with readability, which I agree with. I will defer to someone more adapt at grammar though. The link to "endgame" works for context. I also took care of the Alt text for the images.
The only remaining issue is the caption for the cover art. Expand it so the text is more than a short label. Based on what I read, those look to be specific player classes mentioned in the article. Identifying them to connects the text to visual information, which helps with readability, and is a chance to enrich the article for the reader. After this last caption is done, the article will pass GAN. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC))

@Guyinblack25: - wouldn't naming the classes falling into WP:OR? I will have to infer that based on the weapon they are holding. OceanHok (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
@OceanHok: Unless all classes can hold the different weapons, I would say no. It's a reasonable observation of visual information. Just like if there are two characters on a cover: one male and the other female. If the sources cited in the article provide you their names and identifying features, you can name them in the caption based on the text and image. Because even if you need to combine information from various sources (text from citations and the image itself), it is still verifiable.
If the weapons are interchangeable between the classes, then identifying just the weapons is good for the caption. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC))
 Done OceanHok (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)


### Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Great article. Very long and complex, but well written, well sourced, comprehensive and informative. The few issues I saw have been addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC))