Talk:Golf Story/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Prose
[edit]- 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
- This was a straightforward one after all. Promoting. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)