Talk:Crash Team Rumble/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Cat's Tuxedo (talk · contribs) 04:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs) 04:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:
A few minor grammar issues stood out to me. They are minor enough to fix with a copy edit sweep, which I can do. If I find more, I'll post them here.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead paragraph should have a middle paragraph that summarizes the game's development. The "Gameplay" section ends with an orphan sentence. Paragraphs should be at least three sentences long. Can these two sentences be added to existing paragraphs?
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:
The only thing that stood out to me was the paragraph of the presentation. It starts with saying it was "positively received" but only focuses heavily on the negatives. Add in more positive critiques or update the intro sentence to the paragraph.
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:
More informative captions would help laymen understand what they are seeing. For the cover, this is the only visual information as to what the characters look like. They should be named in the caption. For the gameplay, explaining what is happening in the example will help the reader better understand the prose they're reading. What actions are the characters doing? How is the stage or aspects of it important?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is in good shape. After the above issues are addressed, it should pass. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Cat's Tuxedo: Saw the edits you made and they are all in the right direction. The only remaining issues are:

The gameplay image caption. Describe what gameplay is happening in the image and connect it to the prose.
The audiovisuals paragraph in the Reception section needs a bit more work. If all of the reviewers (like Delaney, Croft, Wood, and Arroyo) praised the visuals or audio, you should at least briefly mention it for a few of them to better reflect the introductory sentence. For example: "While Delaney [praised XYZ visual element, he] mentioned cosmetic clipping issues and odd error messages." If the reviewers did not praise those aspects, the intro sentence should be written to better frame the rest of the paragraph. For example: "Feedback on visuals and audio focused on technical issues." Normally this isn't an issue, but the audiovisuals aren't mentioned anywhere else in this section except for a vague praise of "colorful designs". So the statement of their positive reception does not have specifics to support the claim.

The article is in good shape and will easily pass after these fixes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies for the delay, but the last two issues have been taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second 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:
Passed. The issues earlier have been addressed. Good job on the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]