# Talk:Crash Bandicoot: On the Run!

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crash Bandicoot: On the Run!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
LEAD

The lead sounds like an advertisement. There's no need to highlight that the team wanted to make "The Crashiest Crash game ever". it comes across as promotional and bias.
The lead doesn't cover enough about the article's actual gameplay and development details.
GAMEPLAY

Avoid subjective words such as "Widely" and "immediate".
Progress throughout the game is driven by "battle runs", in which a mini-boss at the end of a level must be defeated using an assortment of weapons such as serums, bombs and rayguns.
What does it mean that the game is "driven" by battle runs? I would advise using more recent sources to supplement the descriptions given by the initial press release sources.
Additional resources can be obtained by completing a checklist of three achievements regularly provided by Aku Aku.
What does "regularly" look like? Daily? Hourly? Weekly?
The weapons must then be crafted from the gathered ingredients within a hub area referred to as "Coco's Base"
Avoid "must" unless there's a clause for it. Why must weapons be crafted from the gathered ingredients? For example, in Tetris "Players must make a complete horizontal line using tiles, in order to gain points and prevent tiles from reaching the top"
In terms of sourcing, two of the sources are used by the games quotes. I don't think that would be enough to prove the content.−
The Gamereactor source may address both points adequately enough, but the first game quote clarifies the game's structure of defeating a series of mini-bosses before accessing a boss, and the second game quote elaborates that the explosives used in boss battles are berries as opposed to generic cartoon bombs as Gamereactor might suggest. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The gameplay section isn't clear enough, and should be revised. Ask yourself, can someone understand how the game is played without actually playing it? If not, then it needs to be revised. Apparently, there is a "narrative" that's being driven, I'm not so sure that's the best way to describe the gameplay.
Zapped that wording. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
DEVELOPMENT

The title's existence had apparently been leaked through Brazilian Facebook advertisements.
Again, "apparently" is one of those words that need context, or be removed altogether.
I don't think it should be relevant to list the characters if it doesn't give new readers any context.
Zapped Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
RELEASE AND UPDATES

I touched it up myself, but it needs more work. For starters, I think it gets into too much detail on what each seasonal content offers, and where characters come from. It may be beneficial to add an order to the
I condensed the update info into a single statement summarizing the general gist of them. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be an overuse of Twitter comments as sources. I understand in some areas, Twitter comments are covering content that isn't covered in other third-party sources, but for the redundant ones, I recommend removing them. Some of the Twitter sources imply Crash 4 was successful because of Crash on the app, but it doesn't outright say it in the tweet.
Substituted a source which clarifies that point better Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
RECEPTION

For the critical responses, I recommend breaking down aspects. Making one paragraph related to the gameplay, and another on visuals or music.
That's what I'd normally do for a bigger title, but in this case, the amount of reviews is too few to make the kind of sweeping consensuses that would make that format viable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Avoid using parenthesis in the main body of the article regarding encyclopedic content. All relevant information shouldn't be sidelined in parenthesis, and all irrelevant or trivial information should be cut down or summarized further.
I'll give more of an update soon on the rest of the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

All points thus far have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
New points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Pinging after a week of silence. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait. I'm still reviewing the article. I'm also not sure if in-game tutorials should be used to reference gameplay. Although somewhat verifiable, the quotes aren't the most descriptive. I made some changes, not to improve the content, but to make it easier to navigate and easier to review.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
After careful consideration, the article uses too many inconclusive sources. Sources such as Pocket Tactics, GameReactor, Collider, and Firstpost. On top of that, other sources can be used such as Eurogamer Italy and Multiplater.it are not used. These are things that I don't think I can give enough time to wait for it to pass. Once you clear out questionable sources and use more reliable ones, then it can be re-reviewed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)