# Talk:Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom

Image:NinjaGaiden3 - Titlescreen.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days.  Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found.  As criteria pass, a  or  will be replaced with a .  Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found.  Feel free to work on them at any time.  I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article.  At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.


### Criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Issues found
Lead - "It was developed by Masato Kato, who took over for Hideo Yoshizawa—designer of the first two games in the NES series."  Did you mean "designed by", or was Kato the only developer?  It's also mentioned this way in the Development section.
I changed to "designed". Basically, the source said that Sakurazaki (Hideo Yoshizawa) was in charge of the development of the first two Ninja Gaiden NES games, in which Masato Kato (Runmaru) then took over with Ninja Gaiden III. –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Gameplay - ""Fire Dragon Balls" which launches fireballs downward at an angle"  launches --> launch
Plot - "the truth behind Castle Rock – that the ruins is an dimensional warship called the "Ancient Ship of Doom"."   "the ruins is" --> "the ruins are"
For some reason, I always thought "ruins" was like "news", but I suppose I missed the quotation in which I took that from, which also uses "are" :) –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Plot - "He then fires a test shot from the ship into the distance to demonstrate its power, which Irene watches in horror."  Irene stayed behind, right?  Some clarification is needed, as she's mentioned in the next paragraph too.  Can the ship be seen by those who didn't go through the rift?
I added "The ship reappears in the real world, ..." at the beginning to try and clear things up (and this makes sense, as the Ancient Ship of Doom and Castle Rock Fortress are two separate structures; they both explode and fall apart separately in the ending). –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Reception - "VideoGames & Computer Entertainment praised the game but surpassing the arcade version that was previously released for the Lynx but they were disappointed that Tecmo did not port the first two NES Ninja Gaiden titles to the handheld, as well."  I didn't understand the first half of this sentence - can you clarify?  Also the comma at the end might be unnecessary.
Changed to "praised the game for being better than the arcade version that was previously ported to the Lynx." –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Reception - "A few modern video gaming websites had a chance to review Ninja Gaiden III upon its release to the Virtual Console in 2008."  "video gaming websites had a chance to review" --> "video gaming websites reviewed"
Reception - "Nintendo Life gave lackluster ratings, saying that the game "passed under the radar of many a videogame enthusiast"."  They are not cited here, and the reviewer should be mentioned since its known
Those first four sentences in that paragraph are from that review (whose name I now added, by the way). I would think it would make sense just to have one inline citation at the end of what that citation covers, instead of having two redundant ones - one after the quotation and then the same citation at the end of that passage. –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Reception - "It added that while the presentation was great, the silly plot, inconsistently laid-out level designs, and frustrating difficulty in addition to the five-continue limit."  This sentence is incomplete as it doesn't explain how they felt about the plot, levels, and continues.
I added "he pointed out criticisms in". I knew I was missing something in there :) –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Reception - "The review said that many gamers would play the previous two Ninja Gaiden titles than this one."  That they would prefer the other titles?  Also, the reviewer should be mentioned since its known.  The same with IGN later on.
Reception - "The review's chief criticism is the difficulty,"  is --> was
References - The NES instruction manual is referred to as "Instructions", while the Lynx version is referred to as "Instruction Manual"
Because I took the titles directly from what it said on the front covers of the manuals themselves. –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My review is now complete.  I'll give the obligatory one week for corrections.  If more time is needed just let me know.
Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the appropriate corrections with this one edit here. –MuZemike 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
PASS  --Teancum (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mention this? Back in the late80s- 90s there was a Tiger handheld version made for most games, and most (if not all) are spectacularly unimportant. ScienceApe (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)