Talk:Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy/GA1

GA review

Passed. Pres N 02:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Cat's Tuxedo (talk · contribs) 00:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this! I do GAN reviews by listing issues I see as I read through the article, rather than using a checklist template. I'll make minor grammar edits myself rather than describe them.

As a general note, though it's not a GA requirement: for readability, it's best for paragraphs to be 4-7 sentences long; the gameplay and development sections are primarily composed of 10+ sentence paragraphs, which is a bit difficult to read. Consider chopping them in half.
"...but enhancing the visuals, audio, and adding quality-of-life features." - this sets up what looks like a list of things that are enhanced only to have the third item not be part of the set. Consider "...but enhancing the visuals and audio and adding quality-of-life features."
Should mention that Coco was playable in parts of Warped originally but not the other two games; right now the article just assumes you know.
I don't really love how the gameplay section doesn't actually describe the gameplay, but instead just the changes; they were 20+ year old games when the trilogy was released, so it's very likely many players (and readers) never played the originals. Compare Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 + 2 (also by Vicarious Visions, lol), which describes the gameplay without assuming the reader has read the articles on the original games. I don't think you need the full four paragraphs that the articles on CB1/2/3 have, but a solid paragraph or two about the platforming elements and crates or whatever would be good to have.
I know the source calls it iconic too, but "The reconstruction of the iconic "N. Sanity Beach" level" feels a bit peacocky
Not a GA criteria, but the reviews box currently has 18 reviews listed; the general recommendation is to have like 7, 10 at most, as examples of prominant opinions, rather than a catalog of reviews. It also stops it from stretching down so far.

Not quite sure how to approach this one. All of the listed reviews are used in the section's prose, so leaving any of them out would feel weird, and I certainly doubt I'm in a position to pass judgement upon which reviews stay or go. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you're doing with the notes. For the first use sentence, "The trilogy was lauded for its exceptional graphical update, with Alvaro Alonso of HobbyConsolas and Peter Brown of GameSpot comparing the vibrant, cartoon-like visuals to modern animated films.[c]", I'd expect from that text for there two be two citations- one for the HobbyConsolas review, and one for the GameSpot. Instead I'm giving a laundry list of 11 references. Is this every review that lauded the graphical update? You don't need to do that, and in fact really should not- no sentence should have more than 3 references, even tucked away like that. If you really want to justify having summary "reviewers said X" sentences, just pick 3 good examples to cite, not 5–11, and if you're worried about being too broad, you can make it "reviewers like A, B, C said X" and cite those three.
In fact, the way you're not doing that is creating an odd dichotomy, where some sentence are general statements about reviewers that are tagged with a sea of references, while others are specific points raised by specific, named reviewers, which makes them feel out of place or singled out. "Reviewers loved X.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. John at BB said it was okay.[9]"
"No plans for a patch to align the remaster's handling with the originals were mentioned." - this feels odd to say about an 8-year-old game; they not only didn't mention one, they didn't make one. Maybe "No patch to align the remaster's handling with the originals was ever announced or released."
Ref 23 is in ALLCAPS, which should be fixed
No issues found in spotchecks

Overall, this article and its writing are really solid! --Pres N 22:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just about all points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good! It's perfectly valid to have reviews in the prose that aren't in the table (though the opposite isn't); the template gives some guidance, but at a glance I'd cut it to Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, GameSpot, GamesRadar+, IGN, Jeuxvideo.com, Nintendo Life, and PC Gamer (that's 8), maybe add Polygon? That's just me, though, and it's not a GA requirement as I said. I'm going to go ahead and promote; good job on this article and good luck finishing off the Crash Bandicoot series- I've been rooting for you to finish the whole set! --Pres N 02:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.