Talk:Nintendo Switch Sports

Edit-War

Please stop. It's not fun, nor is the information being presented 100% accurate. There is no this guy says this, this guy says that, and this other guy says something else. MestFanLol (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose to change the wording to: It is the successor to Wii Sports. and just that. Current wording felt wrong because there's no definite name for the series, and putting "Wii" in there is ironic. Neocorelight (Talk) 13:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neocorelight: I agree, especially since that is what the source says. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, So I did it but it will most likley get edited back LittleMAHER1 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf @LittleMAHER1 @Neocorelight

It is a series though, with four games

Wii Sports

Wii Sports Resort

Wii Sports Club

Nintendo Switch Sports SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@SpiderBreadIRL: This isn't about whether or not it's a series. It's about whether or not it's the 3rd or 4th game in the series since Wii Sports Club is merely a remake. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that alongside Miis, Nintendo Switch Sports features new avatars known as "Sportsmates"? Source:
  • Comment: Article is currently classified as a stub, there are a few primary sources from Nintendo as well, I'm not sure if it's fine given all the information in the article is from Nintendo or sources that quote Nintendo. (EDIT: I should also mention I'm currently participating in the WikiCup)

Created by ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC).

• The article was newly created before nomination and currently sits at 1524 B (249 words) of prose, which is just barely enough for me to re-rate this as start-class. There needs to be more sourcing. The "Gameplay" section has an uncited paragraph and the hook fact is cited to a tweet by Nintendo. Please find a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: Hello! Most of the issues that you have mentioned have now been fixed (citations have been added and the secondary source is included). Please let me know about any other issues in the article! Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 21:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • AGF on the German-language sourcing. I just ran the QPQ check and this is exempt as your second. Almost forgot to check. You don't have to perform a review until you have five, though you're encouraged to do so earlier to help learn the process. Keep 'em coming. This is good to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @ActuallyNeverHappened02 and Muboshgu: ooh, excellent article! Wii Sports was my whole childhood :) unfortunately, I've got a bit of a problem here—there's a rough consensus that hooks on thematic/narrative gameplay fall afoul of the rule on in-universe hooks. Is there a hook about reception or impact that can be offered instead? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
        • @Theleekycauldron and Muboshgu: Thank you for letting me know, I think I probably scrolled over C6 and didn't notice it when running through the supplemental guidelines. But regardless, does this hook work:

          ALT1 ... that the physical copy of Nintendo Switch Sports comes with the Leg Strap accessory from Ring Fit Adventure? Source:

        • Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 15:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
          • I was not aware of that rough consensus. I'll keep in mind in future reviews. ALT 1 approved. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Does the source actually mention that Miis will be in the game as well as the new avatar? (only asking since I'm unable to view the source myself) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes the source does quote that you can play with Miis as well, although given that you're unable to view the source, which is a tweet on Nintendo of America's official Twitter page, I might have to switch it for something that's not on Twitter. Doesn't make it any less reliable, but it will eliminate the primary source and the fact it's on Twitter Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: I'm unable to view a lot of sources for reasons I will not explain. As long as the source does say that then it's fine. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Ok! For reference, the tweet reads "In #NintendoSwitchSports you’ll have plenty of different, all-new customization options for the Sportsmates seen in the trailer. In addition to the Sportsmates, you’ll also still be able to select and play as your Mii character!" Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 02:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: I can confirm that even the Nintendo Switch e-shop says that Miis will be in the game (it's considered an additional accessory though), although they weren't selectable in the Online Play Test. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Awesome, ty for confirming :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 04:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: No problem! I enjoyed the game in the online play test and will help make sure any info is accurate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Fourth or Third?

Hello! So I've noticed that the lead has been changing back and forth between it saying that this is the 3rd entry and that this is the 4th entry. I've heard someone say that on Nintendo's website for the game it says 3rd so it's ignoring Wii Sports Club which is an HD remake of the original Wii Sports game. So which is it? 3rd or 4th? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: It doesn't matter what Nintendo says, because there have been 3 games in the Sports series before (Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, and Wii Sports Club), which makes this the fourth. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 21:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually we usually go by either what they officially say (because remakes aren't usually considered new games) or what reliable sources are saying. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically, both viewpoints are correct. Nintendo Switch Sports is the third main game and the fourth game in the series simultaneously. It's just a matter on which wording to use. However, saying there's three would confuse readers, and saying there's four wouldn't make much sense because you don't consider a remaster a completely separate game. I agree with doing what was suggested before on this talk page: Saying Nintendo Switch Sports is a successor to Wii Sports. GameTriangle (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd just say leave it at latest. Either way will be confusing to viewers because third will mean Wii Sports Club doesn't exist to some people, and fourth will mean that Wii Sports Club is a sequel to Wii Sports Resort, which it isn't. MestFanLol (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Bowling tweet

Can you talk about the fact that Nintendo of Europe tweeted info about the bowling sport in Nintendo Switch Sports when the bowling ball GIF was still trending?--24.44.76.188 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No. That's not notable at all. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

I've heard many people arguing about whether it was a good idea or not to replace the Miis with the Sportsmates. Should we note on this controversy? Jan Gamecuber (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Many people" is not a good measure for notability or verifiability. Is there significant coverage from reliable sources on the Sportsmates' reception? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Chanbara

The link is to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_cinema Which seems odd, there is a French page

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_chanbara

Which seems to be the correct topic. Hglman (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Im going to fix somethings

Im fixing the lead, and partially the development section. Protoeus (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

This is so vague it's hard to support or refute. What's needs fixing? Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The lead is too short in comparison to similar articles (Wii Sports, Wii Sports Club), and the development section is disorganized. Protoeus (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how how this edit was an attempt to solve the lead being too short... Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I was editing the lead, and was simply too lazy to finish the lead, going to write a new one, and Im removing citations per WP:LEAD. Protoeus (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, you removed pertinent sales info without explanation, so that wasn't a good move. Please don't start an edit/rewrite if you fear you may become too "lazy" to finish it. You can draft up ideas in the WP:DRAFT space if you need to, but this article is publicly viewable, so you shouldn't be publishing incomplete efforts. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I@Sergecross73 I added back the info, if you disagree with it, just explain it on a summary so I can fix it., trying to GA this article, pretending to make a GA topic around Nintendo sports games. Protoeus (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to focus on just getting the basics down before you take on these ambitious GA plans. Your edit added a bunch of redundant ideas and formatting errors. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate, this version is not an improvement in many ways:

1. There's no reason to have it split up into 4 short "paragraphs", each one is only 2 sentences long.
2. There's no reason to add the namedrop 3 staff while adding virtually no content for them. Listing their names contributes nothing.
3. You include two sentences in a row that basically say the same thing - that motion controls are used to to replicate movements of sports.
4. One version of said sentence mentions "majority" of sports use Joycon motion control, though I'm not sure what this alludes to - which ones don't?
5. You added that it was a "commercial success" to the lead, which is, probably true, but isn't sourced anywhere in the article. Its best to just stick to the facts of sales figures and being part of the highest selling of the platform.

All in all, if you're planning on expanding the article, you probably shouldn't be starting with the lead. You should see where expanding the article takes you, and then adjust the lead accordingly. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 so I reworked the reception section in user:Protoeus/Sandbox2, it’s fine or should I add something else? Protoeus (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Protoeus (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Are you active now? Protoeus (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't very active yesterday. I looked it over. Was your rewrite in response to the Peer Review below? Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yea Protoeus (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Your changes are fine. I'm not sure they really fully address feedback of the Peer Review - it's still a big rigid with the "Source said X" format. And you don't need to say "review" in every sentence either. You can always ping them too and ask how they feel about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 took feedback and got to more or less fix it Protoeus (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like they're saying pretty much what I just said... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Some quick suggestions: first, avoid the word "you". We're not writing this for people interested in playing the game. Second, don't use contractions (change "didn't" to "did not"). ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup - see WP:YOU. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I decided to rewrite it again, is it fine? Protoeus (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is better, it's just now on the other extreme. It doesn't name anyone at all, so you get "they thought X was good", but who is "they"? ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Nintendo Switch Sports

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to later nominate this article into a GA, but at a simple view, it only seems the lead needs improvement, so Im requesting a peer review of the entire article except the lead.

Thanks, Protoeus (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The main thing that jumps out to me is also one of the hardest parts of writing video game articles: the reception section. The current version of that section has every review summarized as "Critic X said Y." This is not how high-quality game articles should be written. Instead, they should summarize the general consensus of all critics, broken down with either a paragraph for each aspect, or paragraphs for positive followed by paragraphs for negative. Either style works, but simply stating critic opinions in a line doesn't. For an example of how reception sections should look, see the article for Mario Party DS. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR edited the article according to your feedback, is it fine? Protoeus (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It could probably still use some work, since it's still very heavy on "X said Y", but it is definitely better than the original. However, you will need to find a source for the leg strap, since that information is currently unsourced and that issue might hold up a GA nomination. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

And it is like 1,000 bytes less than the prior version, and it’s still better! Protoeus (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR and now? Protoeus (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to just remove their names and leave the rest of the words the same, since now we have direct quotes that aren't attributed, which is a big no. If you are using their exact words, you do need to mention who said it. Some of those reviewer opinions also look like they might have been taken word-for-word from the review without being marked as quotes, which is another big no. Again, to get an idea of what the Reception section should look like, see the article Mario Party DS. Also, you still need to find a source for the leg strap in the Gameplay section. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, Thomas is right that you need to avoid using contractions (like can't and didn't) and the word "you" in articles, because they are too informal for an encyclopedia article. While you are fixing the above concerns, I'd recommend taking care of that too. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR so I rewrite it again, is it fine, is it a B class article? Protoeus (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I am a YouTube content creator, so that’s why I have that informal language, lol Protoeus (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure a peer review alone may not be enough to guide you to rewrite this article by yourself. I think it's better to read over FA- and GA-rated articles and see how those articles are written before continuing to get this one up to GA quality. There's no rush, so it's best to take your time and learn the encyclopedic "voice." Probably the best place to start is on Wii Sports#Critical responses, which is a FA and is the grandfather of this game after all. ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think like how it is right now, I better don’t touch anything on the article, just needing to expand the lead. Protoeus (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

With two citations needed tags in Gameplay and a still-subpar Reception section, if the only changes you make are expanding the lead, this will not pass a GAN. I'd recommend you get a bit more experience first and read over some other high-quality video game articles to get an idea of what a good article should look like before nominating one yourself. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed citation needed tags Protoeus (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Did Ryujinx copy the text from here, or it was viceversa? Protoeus (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJRsourced citation needed tags Protoeus (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Citing the update log likely won't hold up in a GA review. Try to find some secondary sources that aren't published by Nintendo themselves. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Rewritten again the reception section @QuicoleJR@ThomasO1989@Sergecross73 any comment about it? Protoeus (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR? Protoeus (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely better. It could still use a lot of work, but you're certainly making progress. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments about the reception? If there isn’t any, then I will move to the lead. Protoeus (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This is much better. It takes parts of multiple reviews that say similar things and puts them together. That is what the Reception section tries to accomplish. You put multiple reviews together and combine them to get a general critical consensus, with a couple quotes from the reviews thrown in to illustrate certain points. It isn't perfect, but it's probably passable for GA in my opinion. I think you can move on to the lead now, although you might want to also consult Thomas and Sergecross to see if they have any comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is B-Class or it’s still C? Protoeus (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR? Protoeus (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR? Protoeus (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it will go up to being B-Class once you fix the lead. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR@ThomasO1989@Sergecross73 Any comments about the lead? Protoeus (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR? Protoeus (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead appears to be fixed now. I'd say this is currently a B-Class article. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have concerns about the lead. I started cleaning it up some, but some of this needs more work than I can clean up on a whim:

1. I made this edit because it said "also had setbacks" without any previous mention of any setbacks up until that point in the article. Wasn't sure if you forgot to mention something or if the "also" should just be deleted like I did.
2. I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations like "football was considered the worst sport" when the reception section seems to only cite one single review giving that sentiment (and you interchangeably mention soccer and football - you should probably pick one for consistency.) Even 2 sources is a bit weak for such a strong, unattributed statement.
3. Statements like "golf was announced to be delayed from fall to winter" violate WP:SEASON.

Not sure what the articles current status is, but this is the sort of stuff that would definitely hold up progress on it becoming a GA. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 fixed Protoeus (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing #1 and #3, but I don't think #2 has been addressed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 Fixed, since many of the sources say they are unintuitive sports, i decided to place that, revert if you consider so. Protoeus (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No, its not fixed, I don't think you're understanding the problem here. The WP:LEAD must reflect what's in the article. But the reception section does not establish that a statement like "Football wasn't well received by reviewers". All it establishes is that one reviewer, Destructoid, criticized the sport.

In order to make generic statements ("Football was reviewed negatively", "Bowling was well received", etc), you need to establish a pattern of reviewers reflecting the sentiment. You haven't done that with just 1-2 reviewers saying something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 tried? to fix it, revert if you consider to, I can work this in my sandbox if you want Protoeus (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not fixing the right part of the wording. The problem isn't whether or not we say "negative" or "mixed". The problem is that you can't make make generalizations about how reviewers felt when you're only pulling from a single review. Like, you can't say "Reviewers disliked football". You only have the sourcing to say "Destructoid disliked football". And that's too specific for the intro. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 I really ain’t putting that again, apart from that the article is fine? (I think I will have to search a better source for the leg strap) Protoeus (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR I found a better source for the leg strap is it fine? I should nominate it for GA? Protoeus (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the now-abandoned GA nom you made, please review this talk page. You...really haven't addressed concerns mentioned to you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This editor raises concern, you make an edit, ask it to be reviewed, editor says it doesn't address the concern, repeat isn't working. It feels like you're trying to rush the GA process. I recommend stepping back for a bit. I suggested before to read other GA and FA articles to get an understanding of how those articles are written. ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@ThomasO1989 I have read Wii Sports reception section, and I consider I can rewrite it again because looking a it comparing to the one I have, I think it’s better i rewrite it Protoeus (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

No. I recommend you step back from this article for a while and focus on others. Not necessarily getting them to GA but doing small fixes where possible. It'll give you a chance to see more than just Wii Sports. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree. You've got less than 800 edits to your name, and multiple failed GAs. I recommend spending more time learning the basics of writing and policy. I think you need to slow down and learn the basics before you move on to more advanced stuff like GAs. Get a few thousand edits of content creation to your name and then revisit it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better, before I even knew GA was a thing I just searched for stubs and tried to expand them, I did not have the most profesional thing, but well, I am doing all this edits in good faith, and I think for now I Will close this peer review, and maybe revisit it when I have more experience, though I don’t think I Will have a better grammar, I Will definitely known about article structure, the is no rush here, and if a take a time, I Will take it, bye. Protoeus (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. GA/FA status really isn't that important. Just focus on edits you find enjoyable or fulfilling. Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s almost the exact same reason I never wish to be admin, because I don’t think I’m prepared for such job, and I think I will never be, because after all, my purpose here is to build a better encyclopedia. Protoeus (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nintendo Switch Sports/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Protoeus (talk · contribs) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 13:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I will handle this one. Expect comments in the coming days.

1. Prose: ✗ Fail. The prose is relatively basic, and contains several wording and grammatical errors. For instance, "positioning in a way in which it resembles the actual sport", "when on September 2022, golf was announced", "update against cheating came with a bug that caused the game to crash, forcing to removal". Those are in the lead only. I couldn't find much of these in the rest of the section, but the lead is (IMO) the most important so I'm placing a greater amount of emphasis on that.
2. Verifiability: Acceptable. There are a decent amount of primary sources cited, but as far as I can tell they are all in accordance with WP:PRIMARY.
3. Broadness: ✗ Fail. Others may disagree, but I think that you could go into more detail about the gameplay section. In every sport, what was different from the Nintendo Switch Sports version compared to real-life play? (For instance, the soccer games only take around 4 minutes, where real-life games typically last over an hour.) Additionally, I'm unsure if enough of the gameplay has been covered beyond the basic controls.
   1. For instance, nothing about the game's system for unlocking cosmetics for their Sportsmates (its main way of rewarding players for playing) is mentioned beside source 13.
   2. Additionally, I feel like you could use the interview with the devs to expand the development section a little more.
   3. "forcing Nintendo to stop distributing the update and take the game's servers offline until a solution could be found." Did the bug ever get fixed? What did the bug do, and how were players cheating?
   4. Finally, some of the reviews could I think be covered in more detail than they currently are.
4. Neutral: ✗ Fail. I have a slight issue with the badminton review in particular and how you worded it: "there is a pleasant learning curve". That makes it seem like the reviewer was telling an objective truth, when that should be for the reader to decide. Needs to be reworded. Same for the reviews about chambara and tennis. Generally these should be phrased as "Author X of publication Y said/wrote/argued that [...]" to make it clear that it's the opinion of that author. Several reviews by reliable sources are also not attributed to said sources in the text, although they are cited correctly. Again, you can refer to the format above for how I think this should be done.
5. Stability:  Pass No obvious edit wars.
6. Images:  Pass There is an image of both the cover and the gameplay. Both images are fair use.

Sadly, while this is an improvement compared to your nomination of Ben 10: Omniverse 2, there are some glaring issues that I think would need to be fixed to bring this up to GA standard.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.