# Talk:Top Spin (video game)

This article should be moved to topspin, and the topspin(shot) needs to be moved. Or redirects to all of them. Anyways, this article was hard to find, and really needs to have a new spot in Wikipedia.-Hairchrm 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the top spin is more than a videogame, I believe this article is well placed... The name of the videogame was inspired by this particular type of shot used in the tennis game (and other ball games). I did not find this article hard to find, in fact I was expecting it to present in this way, as a link on the top spin page, or as a disambiguation. It is fairly presented in the same way others articles are presented, the general therm first.--Burzukk 19:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? I'm not seeing it. Arcendet (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. It's gone. Protectthehuman (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that an article about the whole TopSpin video game series should be created. This will make the information for all 3 games easier to find since they will be in one article. RG104 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Top Spin (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Cukie Gherkin: for any updates when you can. No rush at all - the GAN process isn't a race - but thought I'd check in. Also let me know if you have any GAN nominations of your own! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey, my bad, life's been really chaotic, and when that happens, I just make articles to zen out. I'll finish the review today. Also, with that offer, if you would like to review Virtual Lab, well, that would be much obliged. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
No issue at all! WP:VOLUNTEER after all. I should be able to pick it up on the weekend but will wait until then to be sure I have the time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Cukie Gherkin, I've updated the below, removed some redundancies and duplicated words in the reception section. Definitely something that happens when you patchwork review sources together without considering the flow, so great feedback. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Gameplay

I assume that XSN Sports is no longer usable for Top Spin? If so, its function should be past tense, and perhaps mention that it is no longer usable.
Fixed and put into past tense. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
There's some consistency issues with XSN Sports and Xbox Sports Network; I assume these are the same entity?
Yes, that's correct. Fixed by making it clear that XSN Sports was the brand, which is a shortened version of Xbox Sports Network referred to by most sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Reception

The review table should be reduced to just the Xbox reviews, and only using 10 reviews (which is usually what is suggested for a review table). The other reviews are too few, and the number of "N/As" just doesn't look great. I'd also suggest that any reviews used in the table should be incorporated into the text; these include Edge, Famitsu, Game Informer, and Official Xbox Magazine.
Thanks - I've removed some review sources that are insubstantial, such as GameInformer, or WP:OFFLINE, including Edge and Famitsu, as they don't contribute to the text. I've also added in some minor points from reviews cited in the template that are not mentioned in the body of the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Metacritic should only say the "generally favorable reviews" and "mixed or average reviews," keep the actual aggregate in the review box.
The writing in the reception seems good, though one thing to improve would be to diversify word usage in order to avoid repetition. For example, in the same sentence, you use 'finding' and 'found'
Game Revolution found the game's skills system found the training sessions to be not "very thrilling" Seems like an error
All right, just looked over the changes, all looks good. Passed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)