This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 26, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Where was August 17, 2010 taken from? The source points to the Namco Bandai site, but only to the initial press release. Only release date I can see is September 28, 2010 from both Amazon.com and Gamestop.com.
Akatsuki.sousui (
talk)
18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Hokage's Room is the official fansite of the Namco Bandai Naruto games, right? So would an update on their twitter account be credible as news? They listed September 28 as the release date (at least for the US).
http://twitter.com/HokagesRoom I'll wait to see if you think it's legit before I update anything, Dragon.
Akatsuki.sousui (
talk)
21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Fansites are generally not considered RS, and I'd consider a Twitter account even less so unless it's mentioned on the site proper, but if Namco Bandai are running it (or at least authorizing it as 'official') then I'd say it's a legit source of information. --
Andrensath (
talk |
contribs)
22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)reply
The biggest source of credibility I can give them is that they were the site that had the contest to design the US Storm cover. But as I said, I'll wait until DragonZero looks at it before I do anything.
Akatsuki.sousui (
talk)
02:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I couldn't find any statement saying Hokage room is the official fansite so any information found from the site can not be used unless its backed up elsewhere.
DragonZero (
talk·contribs)
00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Note: Do not add this to the ratings yet until the actual CERO rating has been confirmed
So, today, I just want to talk about this game's CERO rating.
Well, first of all, It has come to my attention that I think this game doesn't deserve to be rated A (All Ages) like all other Naruto games do, instead, I think that the game deserves to be rated B (12+). Here is one reason why (One for right now):
The game goes much further to the Naruto Shippuden anime, it even covers the episode of Jiraya's death, which is too graphic and bloody in my terms, that Jiraya's death should be a reason for the game's possible B (12+) rating, as in the original episode, Jiraya gets stabbed too many times, even in his throat, blood came out of him, and that episode is considered to be one of the most bloodiest and graphic moments in the Naruto Shippuden anime.
I also noticed today that both gamestop.com and amazon.com have changed their release dates to October 19, 2010. Why, oh why, did they both do this when it was said that it was October 12?
Akatsuki.sousui (
talk)
20:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Definition of "interactive and destructable stages"
While some of the fighting stages are "destroyed" during boss fights (the Uchiha hideout and the training field are good examples) these scripted events are tied to those particular story fights and (to my knowledge) do not occur during Free Battle or Online Battle modes. Therefore I'll change the wording in the Gameplay paragraph regarding them, unless anyone has any objections in the next day or so. --
Boradis (
talk)
02:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)reply
[5] First thing I see is a "X of Y said Z" format.
Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections gives some advice on how to vary sentence structure, stack related ideas into a single sentence, and remove unnecessary detail. "X of Y" format makes the reader keep authors and publications in mind when the point should be more what major reviewers said about the work's merit, flaws, successes. Probably won't have time for a full copyedit unless I get sucked in but you can request one at
WP:GOCE and feel free to {{ping}} me if I can be useful czar05:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I see. But isn't "Many sites complimented the story mode as well as the graphics which might attracts multiple gamers who are not too familiar to the Naruto series.[29][27][31]" how it's supposed to be? I only added IGN and GameSpot then cause they had different opinions about this area of the game.
Tintor2 (
talk)
10:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Tintor2, definitely, but it might have gone too far—many of the statements are broad generalizations that cannot be verified in the source. For example, make sure the language reflects a subset of reviewers rather than the imaginary body of all reviewers. The current Sonic FAC's Reception might give you some ideas. I'd also reduce the passive voice ("arenas were said to be", "strategy was praised", etc.) czar19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Yep,
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/archive3 or another recent FAC—this one was just fresh in mind. By the way, {{ping}} only sends when you include your signature in the same edit. Re: the above sentence, "many" is a kind of value judgment (how many is many?) but "multiple" implies more than one without the same value judgment. "Multiple reviewers praised the game's story [what about it?]" and did all of the cited sources really discuss how the graphics would bring new consumers to the series? I imagine it was a subset, so the refs should reflect who said what and where it can be verified. czar04:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I will be doing this, but I'm a little busy due to real-life activities, so it may take a while for me to finish this review. All I can say though is so far so good: I'm not really seeing many problems with the article. Just a suggestion though: can at least some Japanese reviews be included in the article? You know, from sources like Famitsu and others.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew05:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I can't read Japanese, but a fellow user added Japanese sources to development of the article,
@
Narutolovehinata5 and
Tintor2: After a request from Tintor2, I've included Famitsu's review, in addition to comments from the reviewers as part of the prose. I also corrected a minor formatting error by Tintor2 when including his original Famitsu score reference. --
ProtoDrake (
talk)
16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)reply
A few typos and missing spaces (and in at least one case, an extra space) here and there. There are also inconsistent tenses throughout. Also, try replacing the word "good" with a more specific synonym whenever possible.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Tintor2:@
ProtoDrake: The following sentence does not have a citation: "Clearing the story mode unlocks an additional "fragment" chapter detailing Sasuke's team's failed capture of Killer Bee, following their alliance with Akatsuki." This is the last issue that needs to be addressed before the nomination passes.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply