Talk:Crash Bandicoot (character)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Though the article is informative, more neutral and out-of-universe writing would really give the article extra shine. Always try to imagine what basic information a general reader would need to understand the topic.

   Most of the specific examples below have been addressed, but some there are still more here and there in the article.

   • For instance, the "Conception and creation" section brings up the series without properly introducing it. Did the creators want to create a Sony mascot that would also star in its own series?
     • Some more context about the character's creation wouldn't hurt.
   • What is Crash's relation to Crunch and Coco?
   • You did a good job condensing the plot info into three paragraphs, but I think it could benefit from some more context. Like what game does the first part of the plot occur in? What events happened in the first game? Stating the game the plot applies to will give more real world context.
   • The first racing and party games seems kind of trivial to the plot. I would remove it unless you can find a proper source that states it's canonical.
   • Some excess wikilinking: "pancake", "belching", "dominate the world", etc.
   • The review section uses a lot of direct quotes. Short phrases are fine in my book, but there are a few lengthy ones that should probably be paraphrased.
     • Some more paraphrasing wouldn't hurt.
   • I know this is more personal preference, but the placement of some citations seems excess to me. The sentence that lists Crash's abilities he obtains from bosses for instance, each item in the list is followed by a group of citations. This could be cleared up by simply having ref #20, 21, 22, and 24 at the end of the sentence.
     • Still a few instances of this in the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The content is adequately sourced, but I question whether some of the sources meet WP:RS. Specifically, what makes "Crash Mania" a reliable sources? The "Gaming Target", "Game Revolution", and "PALGN" should be ok as they are only being used for the authors' opinions. I'm on the fence about "WorthPlaying" though.
   The comment about the fleas seems more like original research. It would probably be best to omit that.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the major aspects of the character, but bare minimum in my opinion. For instance, I wouldn't pass this for A-class or FA. More real-world content would help balance things more; like the character's promotion as a mascot and any related merchandising.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overall, the article is neutral in its coverage. The few instances of POV are more style and prose issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   The article appears stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image usage is fine and both are relevant to the topic. But I'd like to see the Fair use rationales expanded.

   • For instance, the descriptions of both images can be expanded to give the reader more details.
   • Both are described as single screenshots, but one is conceptual artwork and the other is just a image.
   • File:MindOverMutantCrash.PNG says it is replaceable, but since it is of a copyrighted character, that is not possible.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm placing the GAN on hold until the above issues are addressed.

   Sorry, but it does not meet the criteria at this time.

I have this review page and the article on my watchlist. I'll monitor the changes you make to the article and check this review for any questions you may have. If the article has not improved enough in one week, I will have to fail the GAN. The article is already off to a good start, so passing should be very doable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Update- I'm sorry, but the article still has some outstanding issues. The recent edits are certainly improvements, but it is not quite there for GAN. The remaining issues are prose issues—a copy edit from another editor would help smooth things out—and the reliability of Crash Mania and WorthPlaying. I hope you try for GAN again as the article is in good shape and could pass with a little more work. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC))