Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Golden Tee

Golden Tee edit

I have made a large amount of edits and additions, and feel this article should be moved at least to a Good status. It is definitely no longer a stub. Please only review if you are familiar with the game itself, since most of the added content is game-specific. Thank you. Tigreye007 21:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Una Laguna edit

To be honest, you're pushing it with the "no longer a stub". There's still plenty which needs doing. Here are some points you might want to consider:

No sources. See WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V.
I'm sure you could just provide a link giving a list of all the versions - lists like this aren't particularly suitable for an encyclopedia.
"Controls" section is too much like a game guide, per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Consider merging this into a "Gameplay" section, describing how the game is played and the main aspects of it. You should seriously trim what you have now down: if it's only useful to someone who intends to/plays the game themselves, then it's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
Any images?
Any information on the development history aside from the different versions? When, where, why and how?
Assuming you incorporate all the above, the lead section will need a rewrite. See WP:LS.

That's probably enough to keep you busy for some time! If you have any queries about the article, don't hesitate to put them here.

Una Laguna^Talk 06:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigreye007 edit

I agree I probably should have looked at the video games guidelines prior to this request, but I felt the content that was added truly deserves more than its stub status (though I will agree this is my first writing here, so I will definitely take into consideration anything said by the "pros").

In response to what you wrote:

I absolutely despise citing web sources, and that is basically all that exists for Golden Tee, so I am going to allow someone else to jump in with that.

You're going to have a hard time taking this article to anywhere beyond Start-Class, unless you have tomes of non-internet sources lying around. Something which I saw another Wikipedian had written somewhere went along the lines of "Wikipedia isn't about correct information, it's about verifiable information". We simply can't trust people who say "this is correct because I know it is" because we don't know if their intentions are good or malicious. Una Laguna^Talk 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying create a separate page with a list of the versions? If so, how do I go about doing that?

What I was saying is that a list of that sort doesn't really want to belong on Wikipedia at all, and that if relevant you include a link to an external website with this information. Una Laguna^Talk 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the basic content provided in the "Controls" section is imperative to describing how this game might be different from other golf video games out there. I'm not sure how having this in there is detrimental to the article, as there is plenty more advanced information that could go out there that I decided to leave out. The information is correct (obviously not cited), and at the time I started posting information, there was nothing more than "This is a golf video game, and here are the versions". If you have any suggestions about what type of information (beyond history) needs to be added, I'll gladly take you up on that. As far as renaming from "Controls" to "Gameplay", I would agree.

Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. To be fair, it's hardly "basic content". Just because it could go into more detail doesn't mean it is therefore brief enough. As someone who's never played this game and never played golf or knows anything about it, the majority of this information goes whoosh over my head. "Stock... 1w, 3w, 5w, 2i, 3i, 4i, 5i, 6i, 7i, 8i, 9i, PW, SW" has zilcho meaning to me, and doesn't help explain what the game is about. It is detrimental to the article in that going into such detail may well put off readers. You've only described the moves and what I assume are clubs in this section. What are the objectives of the game? What decides winning or losing? If it's the same as normal golf, then you can say that this game follows the same basic rules of golf and link to the relevant article.

Another point: the second person "you" in this section and possibly elsewhere should go, per WP:MOS. Una Laguna^Talk 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to go about getting permission to use proprietary images, but would appreciate any assistance.

WP:FURG. Una Laguna^Talk 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one area I'm not sure I could write, and didn't bother trying to write. I've played most of the versions that exist, but other than knowing a few differences in the console itself, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Though writing about the game itself is important, it's also vital that an article shows its role within the wider world (or universe, in some cases). For this reason, information regarding the game's history, development, critical response and such are useful. Take a look at some other arcade articles, as they'll probably give you a better idea of what to include than I can. Una Laguna^Talk 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I spent very little time with the lead section and should touch on it some more. I tried to correct what was out there to be more factual information than opinion. I'll look around for some quality examples of what I might want to include.

Thanks for the insight, though I didn't realize how much I apparently missed. I'll be updating periodically the next couple/few days.

Tigreye007 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Update 10/9/2007 edit

Just finished an overhaul of changes from work over the past week, which include many of your suggestions. I am also working on getting permission to use some proprietary Golden Tee-related images from Incredible Technologies, the creators of the game, who also helped me verify dates and add a couple citations. I'm hoping this makeover will help the wiki audience more than the prior versions.

One thing that still needs to be done is to go through and add any internal wiki cross-links. I did go through the opening section, but haven't quite made it to the other parts yet. Anyone who's up for it can take the reins. Tigreye007 21:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Question 10/16/2007 edit

I would like to keep the version list, but don't want want it to be a main focus - is there a way to make the font smaller, as well as move it off to the side, similar to a thumbnail image?

I had a stab myself, and sort of achieve the desired results. The use of code doesn't seem very efficient to me, though, and I'll admit tables or anything else requiring fancy code isn't really my speciality. Una Laguna^Talk 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've come close to what I wanted. Can't say I could do much better with my limited wiki markup knowledge.67.39.59.66 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now definitely beyond Stub-Class and isn't too far from B-Class. Good work so far. Una Laguna^Talk 18:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]