# Talk:The Last of Us Part I

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Last of Us Part I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 10:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd be glad to take this. I know it's further in the GAN queue than some of the shorter articles, but I'd like to learn a little more about this cash gr—uh, I mean, "remake". You never know; I loved TLOU1 and this might inspire me to pick it up again one day when it's on sale. I already have some preliminary comments but I'll get it all to you in bulk over the weekend; if I'm late, don't hesitate to ping me. Cheers! — CR4ZE (T • C) 10:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed version as of 12:50, 5 October 2022
A bit earlier than anticipated. I have copy-edited through Gameplay and Development to minimise the need for trivial comments. As you know, I try to be meticulous and, naturally, some of my changes may not be to your taste. Feel free to revert anything you don't like.

Lead
No concerns.
Gameplay
"The remake features revised gameplay and controls [...]" – you provide examples of gameplay changes, but not of the controls. If there's not much to be said, control revisions may (?) not need to be mentioned.
The final paragraph on PS5 features needs work. I was able to follow the technical jargon, specifically the DualSense features, but the non-gamer likely won't. Both sentences are fragmented and the flow between clauses is poor.
Development
"and detailing or redesigning those that required it" – that required what?
"identifying its most crucial scenes and storylines to maximize their impact" – as written, this doesn't really say anything.
This paragraph is a little heavier on jargon, which may be solved by recasting or wikifying where appropriate. I haven't edited much here to leave room for you to take another run at it. If you apply the principle of starting sentences with the word "the" less, you'll get to something stronger.
Release
I removed "was in development for PlayStation 5"; we're well aware this was the platform by this stage, so does it need to be mentioned? You may perhaps disagree.
Reception
Check for plurality disagreements. I fixed one ("The improvements to enemy and companion AI was were praised by critics").
"found the improvements led to more tense and difficult encounters with enemies, assisted by the improved companion AI" is clunky. The enemies assisted the AI?
"but was ultimately thankful for it, as it led to more tense gameplay encounters" is awkward.
"likewise, Reilly of IGN [...] dodge mechanic like in The Last of Us Part II"; same problem.
"GamesRadar+'s Avard found the changes ..." the "it" that is the subject of the second part of this sentence is unclear. Is the "it" the combat changes or the game itself?
The prose here is noticeably weaker than in other parts of the article, which does make it harder to follow. It's not GA-standard in some cases.
Sales
No problems. It's very short, which I know you can't do anything about. Perhaps consider a level-three heading instead?
Images
File:The Last of Us Part I cover.jpg is the game's box art.
File:Matthew Gallant (Naughty Dog), 2022 (cropped).png, File:Shaun Escayg (48378720307) (cropped).jpg and File:Erick Pangilinan, GDCA 2012 (further cropped).jpg are in the Commons.
File:The Last of Us Part I - gameplay comparison.gif and File:The Last of Us Part I - Tess comparison.jpg have adequate FURs and are highly additive to the article.
References
Spot-checks done on the following: #4 ("Rebuilding The Last of Us Part I"); #9 (the PushSquare review); #11 (" I Thought The Last Of Us Was Better Than This"); #54 (the EGM review) and; #58 (the IGN review). I didn't check every single attribution for every ref because you're seasoned and I, of course, AGF. All other references are correctly formatted and taken from reliable sources.
Out-of-scope
I always offer suggested improvements that are beyond the GA scope. You may consider these during or after the review (or not at all). 

I note you've taken on my feedback from another page about the word "also". Thank you as always for taking the initiative. If you're interested, WP:REDEX can be quite helpful (e.g. in the lead, you had "completely rebuilt", so would the opposite be "incompletely rebuilt"?)
I have noted a few instances where syntax rhythm could be improved: "The gameplay of some of the Infected were adapted, such as new animations for the Stalkers and a charge move for Bloaters"
I generally find clauses constructed in past tense that then switch with an "-ing" gerund clunky; past participles are much cleaner. "Reactions to the remake's announcement were mixed, with some journalists and players considering it" → "Reactions to the remake's announcement were mixed, as some journalists and players considered it". I would be forever on this if I applied this principle to the Reception section, but it's something to consider in your own time.
"(Publication's author)" instead of "(Author of publication)" is generally simpler and places stronger attribution to the publication i.e. The Verge's Andrew Webster instead of Andrew Webster of The Verge. Up to you.
Much of the time, the word "that" can be dropped from a sentence with no loss of integrity.
Could the second or third sentences of the third Reception paragraph be tweaked to avoid repeating the word "performance"?
I'm not finished (obviously) so if you have responses/pushbacks, please do so inline or wait till I'm done (should be tomorrow evening). Great work thus far as always, Rhain! — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 On hold for now. I do think the Reception prose needs a lot of elbow grease. I'm sure you've heard this before, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but read the sentence, reread it, and reread it again aloud. Hate to sound nit-picky but it is quite clunky and hard to follow in some spots, which is a definite GA problem. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: Thanks for the review! I've made some edits per your suggestions. Please let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Diligent and prompt as always, Rhain. Thanks for the effort you put into the Reception section. It's more concise and flows better now. I've made a few other tweaks, which again you can revise as you see fit. The only thing I'll snag now is "The game was rebuilt to take advantage of the upgraded technology" from the second lead paragraph, which is quite vague; the "upgraded technology" could be tweaked or cut, but I'll leave that up to you. It's nothing worth holding this up on, though. Thanks for a pleasant read, but I still think I'll wait for the sale or inclusion in the PS+ lineup.  — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Result
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Great job! — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I just tried to delete a paragraph from the lead but it was restored by another editor.
Personally, I feel like the paragraph that begins with "Development was led by" is entirely information that, dealing with the game's development process, doesn't belong in a lead and would be best presented later in the article.
It feels even more out of place when you notice that the following paragraph, which describes the game's date of announcement and reception does seem much more fitting.
What's everyone else's take here? uKER (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is meant to summarise the article's content—the Development section is the largest, so it's logical to summarise in the lead as well. I'm not entirely sure I understand your point about the announcement and reception paragraph; the development paragraph does not impact it in any way. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rhain i know it's not particularly necessary but a small section wouldn't be too harmful to the page, would it? COD4 remastered and MW2 remastered both have one. I know an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument isn't really strong but it would still make sense to keep a plot section (if it would only be a "see also" that would be fine) Cambam3291 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't be harmful, but I'm not sure it's necessary, especially as the article is focused more on the gameplay and technical changes rather than the narrative. I considered those Call of Duty articles before reverting as well. I've added a link to the plot in the § Gameplay section, where I think the brief overview is most relevant. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
👍 Cambam3291 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)