Talk:Guitar Hero Live/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 13:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• and forgoes the traditional use of downloadable content that previous Guitar Hero games had used - "that previous Guitar Hero games had used" sounds redundant and unnecessary
  •  Done
• The lead is a bit too short when compared to the article's length. More development information would be great.
  •  Done I've tried to add a few more sentences.
• The main Live portion of the game received mixed reviews - Does it refer to "GH Live" instead?
  •  Done Addressed to identify it as career mode
• There is no source to support information from Notes may be held and sustained, to and the speed at which the on-screen display scrolls.
  •  Done
• The first and second paragraphs of the Career mode section are also unsourced.
  •  Done (note, renamed to "GH Live")
• and later jeer and boo at the performer. - a bit informal
  •  Done
• The player can either work to play more of the notes correctly over the course of the song to win back the crowd - "work to play more of the notes correctly" was awkwardly written
  •  Done
• The career mode is broken up into a dozen-some show sets, each set consisting of about 3-5 songs, and includes full-motion video for the band's introduction and banter and the crowd's cheering and ovation before, between and after the songs, completing a full on-stage experience. - Break this sentence into multiple parts. Here's something optional: You have mentioned the full-motion part already so you should probably either trim the sentence or move them to the first paragraph talking about the full-motion video.
  •  Done
• Avoid short paragraphs like the third paragraph of the career section. Try to merge this part to somewhere else.
  •  Done
• There are no present plans to include other instruments such as bass guitar or drums in the title, with Jackson stating that the game is "all about guitars" - This would be something for the development section.
  •  Done
• he player can pick up and play on any song that is being shown, but they also are able to use "Play tokens" to replay a specific song outside of the channel's rotation. - Can't find "play tokens" in the source.
  •  Done It is the same as Plays you point out below, but see comment
• Most information in the first paragraph of the GHTV section belongs to the development section.
  •  Done I've moved a small amount of info around between gameplay, dev, and soundtrack on GHTV, splitting out a new para on GHTV in the dev section
• Who is Jackson? You should mention who he is in the gameplay section.
  •  Done
• "Hero Power" in a similar fashion as the main game, which replaces the concept of "Star Power" from the earlier Guitar Hero games - Star Power should be mentioned when Hero Power was mentioned in the career section
  •  Done
• According to the Kotaku review, Plays is the name of the in-game currency. You should put it somewhere in the article.
  •  Done Actually, the system is more complex than that, but the Kotaku source does it the major points. There's coins (easy to earn), Hero Cash (which comes only from microtransactions) and Plays (which can be bought with coins or Hero Cash).
• A bit unnecessary to list the sales of all the old Guitar Hero games. Can it be summarized to something like "Sales of the previous Guitar Hero games, including Warriors of Rock and DJ Hero 2, were below estimates."
  •  Done trimmed down though kept sourcing.
• Is mentioning rumors really appropriate? (the part about the aborted reboot)
  • I think it is important to understand the logic Activision used here, following poor sales of Warriors of Rock and then trying to keep the same formula in the cancelled game.
• Harmonix announced Rock Band 4 On March 5, 2015 - "on"
  •  Done
• Is that really necessary to mention the release date for Rock Band 4 in a Guitar Hero article?
  • As it is a competiting series and released nearly at the same, and it doesn't appear that one was following the footsteps in the other, it does come into play in the other sources that compare GH to RB after their release.
• though remained an Activision studio and successful due to their work for the Wii U Sing Party. Is Sing Party even a successful title?
  •  Done More that they stayed out of the red, replaced with "financially viable"
• Activision giving the team freedom to develop the game without relying on the previous titles in the series. - "gave"
  •  Done
• GameRankings doesn't add any actual value to the article. You should remove it per the new standard.
  •  Done
• Optional: The reception section is a bit under-developed. More reviews can be used.
  •  Done major expansion...
• Since 2 reviews were actually used, Template:video game reviews should only has 2 reviews (GameSpot and Polygon)
  •  Done per above, all table sources used
• Paraphrasing quotes would always be welcomed.
  •  Done per previous 2 above, less reliance on quotes but still sprinkled with enough
• Any accolades/nominations?
  •  Done I found a couple of merit (NME + DICE) but it didn't get much
• Source 22, 24, 39 is a bare url. Are they even reliable sources?
  •  Done One replaced, the other two (22 + 24) are both reliable as music news sources. Formatted references.
• Citation format is inconsistent (GameSpot and Gamespot, missing authors, inconsistent dates)
  •  Done normalized dates, make sure consistent on web vs publication, linked where appropriate, and added authorship where possible
• Source 12 is unreliable. It was submitted by a contributor.
  •  Done replaced

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Overall it is a well-written article, supported by lots of reliable sources. The reception section can definitely be expanded. When all the minor problems raised above are addressed the article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have tagged issues I have dealt with but the others will take me a bit more digging (not impossible, just more in depth work). --MASEM (t) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Now primarily left with expansion on the reception section. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @AdrianGamer: With expansion of the reception, that should tackle everything. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Wow, that is impressive! Good to know that someone actually reads the optional changes proposed, and I appreciated that. Guitar Hero Live is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the reception section was weaker than I though, and really needed to be larger for GA. That was less "optional" in my mind. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)