Talk:Cauldron (video game)

Fair use rationale for Image:CPC cauldron.png

Image:CPC cauldron.png 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My main concern with this artical is how short it is, and that you have mixed the gameplay with the plot.

Concerns:

• Make a plot section separte it from the Gameplay.
• Look for more reviews if you can.
• It has a sequel so make a section of legacy or sequel with info about devolopment.
• But it it has a sequel add some info on the artical
• You do not link the devoloper in the artical.
• Consider having it copy-edited

There's not to many faults but the ones that are here are quite big so work on it, i will put it on hold for some days. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The only point I addressed so far was the Palace Software link in the article. In regard to the others:

• The plot in the article is only two sentences. I can probably elaborate it to three, but the game's plot is very simple. That's why I integrated it into the gameplay, because the plot is very short and mainly serves as a brief explanation for the setting and objective.
• The few reviews not included were redundant to what's already in the article. Basically, adding them won't really lengthen the article.
• Same this with the sequel. The basic information is so short, a separate section felt like undue weight. There is information about development, but it felt best to include that in its own article: Cauldron 2: The Pumpkin Strikes Back.
• I will seek a fresh set of eyes to copy edit the article.

I know this article is short, but I tried to make it representative of the coverage received (which wasn't like what games normally receive today). There really isn't much that can been done about that aspect. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

The articles has been given a sweep. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

No more, it's done, paass. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

• Jeux & Stratégie #37
• Jeux & Stratégie HS #3

References