Talk:Claw (video game)
|Claw (video game) was nominated as a Video games good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: March 14, 2015.
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
A complete rewrite
This article is horrible, I think it needs a complete rewrite.--SimCity4 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
As of July 2008, it still needs a complete rewrite. Looks like text was imported from a walkthrough or something. All of it needs to be deleted and the article reduced to a concise summary of the game and its history. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:ClawBox.jpg
Image:ClawBox.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 insure 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.
Improved quality of article?
I've seen some comments dating back from 2006 and 2008 saying that this article is in a horrible condition. I've checked the versions of the articles dating from when those posts were made, and I have to agree on that aspect. However, after 10 years since this article has been created, is it any better? I would like to know. Also, what do you think could be improved about this article?
- A123bs, I definitely wouldn't say it's ready for GAN. Take a look at the articles listed at WP:VG/GA to see what that would look like. Gameplay and Reception each should be several paragraphs longer, the "Levels" section is probably unnecessary, and everything should have citations, as the main points. Tezero (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)