Talk:Major League Baseball (video game)

message: I've added the screenshots, but I think that they look a bit ugly maybe... maybe someone can clean them up a bit or remove one or two? I just wanted to make sure I had all my bases covered (nyuk nyuk) so I took six shots. Canadian Paul 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: The reception part of the review doesn't seem to hold a lot of credibility. It links to some user reviews on large sites to pass them off as the official word of what critics thought of the game. The one that is most concerning is the "Gamespot review" of the title. Since there really isn't a huge online archive of classic video game magazines from that era, the entire "reception" portion should maybe just be a legacy section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lava Wolf (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Validity 

message: Hello.  I saw this page on the GA review article and released it hasn't been reviewed in almost a month.  I'm trying to clear up some of the backlog on the VG Project GARs and thought I'd help out on this one.  This article was a good read, and I think it could be considered GA if the following changes are made:
* Reduce the number of overall images.  The images themselves have nice FU templates, but too many can make an article difficult to qualify for fair use.  Try and chop it down to 2 or 3 screenshots that are the most relevant.  You also need to add a source for each image you keep.  If you got these yourself from an emulator, just make a note of it on their image pages.
 Cheers, CP 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review on hold 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Good work!  I'd say this article now qualifies.  A peer review might be useful for improving it further, but for now it has everything a Good Article should.  Appropriately the first baseball game GA, too. 
About the "See also" section, if you want to add similar games or series from this era I think that would work, or another sports game from this developer.  Nall 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! GA status fully deserved. Una LagunaTalk 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass

message: Atlus developed this game, no? --Hydao (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. What is your source for that? Canadian Paul 04:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The GDRI site: http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Atlus >> Much more reliable than GameFAQs and etcs, if we are talking about developers... but yeah, I'm gonna ask that site. --Hydao (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... that's interesting, along with what you posted on my talk page. I certainly have no attachment to using GameFAQs over anything else, so if something else is uncovered, that's good enough for me. Canadian Paul 17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: It does. I've updated the article, thanks! Canadian Paul 20:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlus 

message: The Reception section's really lacking right now. Any reason it's so short? czar ♔ 02:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because it's a 20+ year old video game, making contemporary sources difficult to come across, in addition to it not being a very good/popular game, thus limiting the amount of reviews in modern sources that are considered reliable. Nintendo Power is a dead end; there was never any substantial coverage there. But I suspect somewhere obscure out there, there is probably an extra review or two that could help beef up that section. Canadian Paul 07:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some leads for offline sources you would like me to help follow, please let me know. Otherwise I'm not sure this can stand as a good article with next to no Reception. czar ♔ 11:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what you feel that you need to do to improve Wikipedia, then I won't argue. Canadian Paul 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception