Talk:Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA-Class criteria

For further detail, see WP:WIAGA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues found

• The gameplay section is poorly sourced, with only two references for four paragraphs. I would say with that amount of content at least 8 sourcings are needed
• The two images in transition to the Game modes section are messy, and the first paragraph in the Game modes section is long and daunting. I recommend right justifying the first image, breaking up the first paragraph of Game modes at the sentence "Mid-way through the Quest...", then moving the Rush image to that paragraph, left justify. That should break up that section
• Reference #42, OXMUK's wikilink is a redlink. Link to Official Xbox Magazine
• Aggregate scores (along with the accessdate) need updating.
• Is there no official website? I don't see one listed, but if there is it should be added
• File:Gh wor cover.jpg should use {{Video game cover fur}}
• There are a few disambig links as well

Don't see much else at the moment. Feel free to fix existing issues, but I'm still

Done finding issues'

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start tackling these in the next day or so but here's a question: Pretty much most of the sources I can recall off hand say "GH:WOR plays like the rest of the games in the series" and are mum on specifics, only going into what's changed. As the details of how the game is played really hasn't changed and I can source that, and would be the type of information I would not consider controversial, I'm thinking that if I use refs that assert the repetitiveness of gameplay sprinkled with other refs that address specific points, this should cover it. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I didn't find anything else, so as soon as these are fixed we can pass the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've tackled the details above, including the use of a few sources to summarize that this is the same gameplay from previous games. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

PASS --Teancum (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)