# Talk:Pac 'n Roll

Image:Pacnrollbox.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) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pac 'n Roll/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 16:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox
Lead

Made some small fixes of typographical errors
Images

Screenshot fair use rationale is incomplete
Filled it in a bit. It was incomplete because I originally tried to find a gif to use for the gameplay and couldn't, so I got sidetracked.
Box art could use a more detailed infobox
Do you mean fair use rationale?
Yeah, not a failing issue but it's just good to have a little bit stronger if you can.
Caption could reasonably drop "Gameplay screenshot of Pac 'n Roll", as it's implied by the description
Done.
Gameplay

Should mention that it is a single-player game
Done.
The category mentions that it's a multi-player game, but the article does not.
I have no idea why that category is there. The game isn't multiplayer at all, so I've dropped it.
Release

I think it might be a better to switch it up and call it "Release" and include the Pac 'n Roll Remix stuff.
Merged the Pac 'n Roll remix section into Release.
https://archive.org/details/NintendoPowerVol195September2005/page/n73/mode/2up?q=%22Pac+n+Roll%22 (its use as part of an NP contest may be worth mentioning?)
Will add alongside the new sources brought up below.
Done.
Reception

Found some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
I did originally find the Nintendo Power review while searching, but I questioned it's value due to its short length. The other reviews on the other hand are extremely beefy and I'm surprised I missed them, so I'll take some time later today to try and incorporate them. Thanks for bringing them to my attention!
I've added the reviews from Hyper and Edge since I didn't want to risk mistranslating a non-English source at the moment and I want to keep the video game reviews box to about ten. I also wasn't sure how much those other reviews actually said that the others didn't. I might see if I can integrate more in the future but for now I'm personally satisfied.
Metascore generally ought to be relegated to the review box (you could tweak it to say "Pac 'n Roll received mixed or average reviews from critics according to review aggregator website Metacritic."
Just as a note, the GI author is Jeremy, but I don't know their surname. I'm assuming it's Jeremy Zoss, but I'm too tired to look deeper into whether he worked there at the time, haha
Looking through it, I'm pretty pleased as punch with how it's all written.
@Cukie Gherkin: Pinging to let you know that I've addressed everything above except for one thing that I'm asking for more clarification on. λ NegativeMP1 21:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Spotcheck

I have checked both Edge and Ultra, and can verify that they are both actually cited.
[9]
[10]