Wikipedia:Peer review/Rock Band/archive1

Rock Band

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this game revolutionized gaming as did Guitar Hero, but this time they added drums, vocals, rythym and bass. Also this game is becoming a world wide hit. Please look over my article about it and give me as much feedback as you can. I want this article to give the game the credit it deserves. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ynhockey:

Before I start, let me say that I edit video game-related articles very rarely, and don't know the specific FA requirements that might be expected of such articles.
The main problem I have with this article currently is that it takes the notion that long prose is better than lists/short paragraphs too far. Prose is in fact better, but not in this kind of presentation. For starters, it needs better organization into paragraphs. Also currently it has too many unneeded punctuation marks (especially quotation marks, e.g. musical "notes" - why not simply notes?) and a severe lack of wikilinks. For example, I'd expect 'master recording' to be linked, a link far more useful than 'Rome', for example (not against that link by the way, just saying it's less important than some others).
Some sections lack sourcing. In addition, while this may be difficult because the game is recent, I think more varying sources should be found, especially those with a good reputation. For example, there are several well-known gaming magazines (e.g. PC Gamer), which aren't even cited once. Again, not sure about sourcing standards for gaming articles, but it's usually not great if most sources are from the same 2 websites (GameSpot and IGN).
Organization - the article is overall organized properly, but some choices are strange: for example, why are advertizing and pricing under 'development'?
Finally, let me commend all contributors to the article on the good work - overall the article is of high-quality, especially the lead section and smart use of tabular data.

Good luck!
-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]