# Talk:Golf Story

@Sergecross73: Are there specific notability guidelines for video games? Wicka wicka (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL has plenty of notes on how to write articles, but notability-wise, it mostly just operates on the general notability guidelines, which isn't met with a one sentence, one barely reliable source article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Can you also tell me if the article still requires more citations, or can the box at the top be removed? Thanks! Wicka wicka (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup, its good now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been a couple months now and it seems that the article has been cleaned up. Also seems to be more start-class. Epicandrew1220 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Golf Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 13:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging this one. Except the full review to be posted on Wednesday (rather than in chunks). ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Lee. Let's get this show on the road. ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This should be fairly straightforward. A few minor concerns. ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
A few suggestions (see Prose). I've implemented all but one of them. Structurally, the article is in good shape. ImaginesTigers (talk)
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?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Copyvio is down, but will revisit later.
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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Prose
From the lead: Originally designed as a Wii U game, it was later released for the Switch due to a lengthy development time and gained assistance from Nintendo to create the game. The subject of this sentence isn't clear. "It was later released for the Switch [...] and gained assistance from Nintendo". Minor re-jiggling needed.
I've made a reword. I'll agree it is a bit of an odd phrase. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Also from the lead: critics praising the games' tone, should be game's.
A sequel is currently in development for the Switch, named Sports Story with [...] -> A sequel, Sports Story, is currently in development. 
[...] originally in development as a Wii U title by Sidebar Games' -> Sidebar Games ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This was a straightforward one after all. Promoting. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)