Talk:Shadowrun (1993 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Shadowrun-snes-screenshot.jpg

Image:Shadowrun-snes-screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shadowrun (Super Nintendo Entertainment System video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bridies (talk · contribs) 10:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing. bridies (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Review so far (have only read down to the development section and have been called away) Done:

• 1 Lead should summarise the article. It needs to summarise the critical commentary and mention the main development points.

Might want to clarify this sentence, which raises eyebrows: Upon leaving the morgue.... Leaving a morgue alive is not exactly an everyday occurrence; he just gets up and walks out?

• 2 Battles within Shadowrun often require sharp reflexes and This is further complicated by the fact that the Seattle in the game is a tough city - practically every screen contains at least one hidden assassin who... need cites.
• 3 Broad, just about. Lack of reviews means it's just scraping, but we have verifiable statements that it was critically acclaimed and commercially successful, plus the later commentary, so meets the minimum IMO.
• 4 Neutral
• 5 Stable
• 6 Improve the screenshot FUR.

Actually the screenshot should be rather replaed by something that is not such a blatant spoiler. --Niemti (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Fail Doesn't seem like this should be a big deal to fix, but the lead still doesn't summarise anything from development or the critical commentary, and now has a clean up tag. bridies (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It summarized "anything from critical commentary", you removed it. --Niemti (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

By "critical commentary" I mean "reception" and "legacy". bridies (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shadowrun (Super Nintendo Entertainment System video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shaun9876 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written: {{GATable/item|1a|y|
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'd disagree and say they're perfectly fine actually. There was, of course, no DLC or anything else that can be added. And whatever could be still added to Legacy (which is a big section), I have no idea. The screenshot has "free-use rational[e]" alright, it's in the section "Summary". --Niemti (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK now? --Niemti (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job, you convinced me! §h₳un 9∞76 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)