Talk:Crash Bandicoot: Warped/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 talk 16:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Here are the prose issues that stood out to me.
 * The "Gameplay" sections goes into a bit too much detail, and I think some parts should be trimmed. Just keep in mind that this section should not tell someone "how" the game is played, but rather "what" the game mechanics are. Here are some examples of what could trimmed:
 * Is this necessary: "Crash can increase his jumping ability by jumping after a slide."?
 * The descriptions of the different boxes seems unnecessary.
 * Replace with something like "Boxes contain helpful items or can augment the character's mobility."
 * There are also five consecutive sentences that start with "Boxes". Summarizing the content would alleviate this.
 * This is all I think is necessary for check points: "Check Point boxes allow Crash to return to specific point in the stage upon losing a life."
 * Do we need to know that all the nitro boxes can be exploded?
 * Information about starting a Time Trail is not necessary.
 * Not an gameguide issue, but the phrase "Crash and Coco" is used a lot. I suggest using "they", "the two", or "the characters" to avoid monotony.
 * Likewise, a number of sentences start with "Crash". I recommend switching out a few with "the character" or something similar. Once you've mentioned the character once, you can use pronouns until a different character is brought up.
 * The "Reception" section has a lot of direct quotes. I would like to see them paraphrased more.
 * For example, the comments from Ryan MacDonald about the audio are within reason, but his first comments about the gameplay is excessive.
 * When attributing authors in the "Reception" section, once you've introduced them (Johnny Ballgame of GamePro), you can use a shortened version (Ballgame, or Johnny Ballgame in the case of this pseudonym) for subsequent attributions.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've fixed up the article accordingly. Most if not all of the addressed problems have been accounted for. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the list to reflect the issues addressed and outstanding. 1A and 2B are the most important aspects in my mind. Once those are addressed I'll pass the articles. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Don't know if it showed up in your watchlist yet, but I've addressed the last two big problems on the list. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes look good to me, and I believe that the article meets the GA criteria. I do, however, suggest further trimming of the "Gameplay" section and summarizing in the "Reception" section to ward off a GAR in the future and improve chances at FAC should you chose to go that route. I think my comments in 6B would also help, especially for FAC, but in general it makes the article more accessible for readers.
 * Good job on the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've fixed up the article accordingly. Most if not all of the addressed problems have been accounted for. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the list to reflect the issues addressed and outstanding. 1A and 2B are the most important aspects in my mind. Once those are addressed I'll pass the articles. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Don't know if it showed up in your watchlist yet, but I've addressed the last two big problems on the list. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes look good to me, and I believe that the article meets the GA criteria. I do, however, suggest further trimming of the "Gameplay" section and summarizing in the "Reception" section to ward off a GAR in the future and improve chances at FAC should you chose to go that route. I think my comments in 6B would also help, especially for FAC, but in general it makes the article more accessible for readers.
 * Good job on the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Don't know if it showed up in your watchlist yet, but I've addressed the last two big problems on the list. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes look good to me, and I believe that the article meets the GA criteria. I do, however, suggest further trimming of the "Gameplay" section and summarizing in the "Reception" section to ward off a GAR in the future and improve chances at FAC should you chose to go that route. I think my comments in 6B would also help, especially for FAC, but in general it makes the article more accessible for readers.
 * Good job on the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC))