I am nominating this for featured list because... erm... I think it meets the criteria. :) I've put some work into this article and have used experience from taking
List of songs in Rock Band 3 to make this list even better at the start of the nomination than that one was. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There's a spare parenthesis mark at the end of the first paragraph.
Music selection: "due in part to the nature of the album which is meant to be listened as a whole". Needs "to" after "listened", I think.
"This led the team to also including 21st Century Breakdown". Either make "including" into "include" or change the sentence to something like "This led to the team also including 21st Century Breakdown".
As a comment from when I did the GH lists, it might be better to have a separate body section (or subsection) on the exporting instead of that trailing paragraph. In this, I would add to the fact (well, I know its fact, but I can't immediately recall sources) that the songs with harmonies still support these in RB3 --
MASEM (
t)
04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)reply
There isn't any such section, I would include it in the first main section (not lead) prior to the list itself, simply to explain this factor. The exportability in GH is explained in a similar place and then shown in the tables (since it's not universal for all songs, compared to RBGD and Lego RB). --
MASEM (
t)
21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay, I moved it. I also added a note about the harmonies, but I couldn't find a reliable source for the information. However, I know that it is true (I've exported GD:RB after all!) and I don't think the statement is very controversial. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.
The "Announcement" section seems kinda small to be its own section. Maybe combine it to "Music selection" as the last paragraph.
What makes Plastic Axe a reliable source?
Why are the two notes for the set lists in different cases. I find that odd especially when the two As state the same thing.
Note C and D seem like they border on game guide content, but I'll defer to others on whether they should stay.
THANK YOU for the review! I agree that the announcement section seems a bit small, but I'm not sure where else it would fit. It doesn't seem like part of the "music selection" process. See
[2] for my reasoning regarding Plastic Axe. I've combined the notes into a separate section. Comments on missing or additional parts are quite common in the Guitar Hero song lists, all of which are FL now, and include more minor stuff such as whether or not a song has a double bass drum part in addition to a single bass drum part. I'd say that notes C and D are as, if not more, important to the game's setlist than the vocal parts; note also that
List of songs in Rock Band 3 passed FLC with one such footnote and an entire column for keyboard support. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I think "Announcement" will fit into "Music selection". If you have reservations, maybe rename the whole thing to "Selection history" or "Track listing history". (
Guyinblack25talk17:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC))reply
The only other thing I would recommend is mentioning the reception in the lead. I know leads for lists are handled slightly different than articles, so I'm unsure if this is warranted. (
Guyinblack25talk18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC))reply
Alright, done. Now, I understand a bit about web accessibility (I'm a web developer, and have read numerous articles about the topic and implemented a fair number of simple accessibility things), but I do have a question: Why is the song name a header? I'd consider it to be row data. Sure, it is unique to each song, but it still seems to me like normal information and not a special "header". Anyways, I had to do a whole bunch of code-wrangling so that the rowscopes didn't mess up the table appearance (why isn't there a class which does that better than "plainrowheaders" anyway?), but it is done. Thanks for the review –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I think it has something to do with indicating what parts of the table are rows or something. The song name is row data, its just that its the most relevant to the title of the article. I think it needs to be done to indicate that they are rows or something like that I don't really understand it myself. I agree with the plainrowheaders class, it is a pain, but I'm not aware of anything better unfortunately.
None of those appear to be "minor" console releases. Sorry, what I was getting at is if they were just released for the big 3 companies: Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, then just remove the word "major" as its a
WP:PEACOCK word. The reason is, believe it or not, there are other consoles companies out there still. Otherwise, if the sources mention the word major consoles, that should be quoted and cited.
The thing is, the track packs are console releases, just small spinoffs. If we remove the word "major", then GD:RB wouldn't be the fifth because we'd have to count the previously released track packs, and IMHO they shouldn't be included in the count. That would be like saying that Guitar Hero World Tour is the fifth game (because Encore: Rocks the 80s was a spinoff track pack release), even though everybody calls GHWT the fourth game in the series. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay. I see what you're intending. You want "major" to modify "release" however, as its right before console, I thought it was modififying "console". It will need to be rephrased then in some way to make that clearer.∞陣内Jinnai15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The 6 additional songs - are they available on every platform? is the "Plus version available on every platform? If so, that should be mentioned, if not it should. It should also be cited
broadway musical - when is it forthcoming. While the retrieval date is recent, the date of the interview is relatively old for something talking about an unspecificed future event. I'd say that part of the statement needs something more recent as it it could have been canceled or delayed indefintalty as its over a year old. It may have even come out.
I can give examples ("American Idiot" and "F.O.D." come to mind), but the cited review doesn't have any samples, so that might be construed as original research. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
You mean, take out the whole thing about the editing? This was a fairly common complaint from gamers and reviewers. I'll see if I can find a reliable source which gives an example. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It looks like IGN's review actually mentions the editing as making the songs "sound funny", but again, doesn't specify songs. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
14:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Yep, can't find any sources with examples. It really is evident throughout the game. Many songs from Dookie and some from American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown are radio-edited. Why are examples needed? –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply
the prose switches between "players" and "the player" without any rhyme or reason. Pick one and only make exceptions when phrasing it would imply something else (such as a multiplayer option when talking about a singleplayer option).
This could still use some copyediting (these are just examples so it needs more than just fixing them, but these just stood out the most). Mostly this is with excessive wordyness, but there's a few poor word choice issues.:
With these downloadable songs, the fullcomplete albums of Dookie, American Idiot,
as Harmonix had already released six songs from the album as downloadable content
they did not want to make those thatwho had purchased the songs
instead designed the game to immediately include those songs if the playerhad already purchased them.
Rigopulos determined that they needed to include the full complete Dookie album
the master tapes for the first two albums exist, but are in poor condition., and the process to digitize them would destroy the tapethem.
I've fixed a number of these, and plan to work on the rest, including the copyediting, later today. I've interspersed my responses to keep each part of the discussion separate; if you would rather they weren't interspersed, feel free to move them all down to the bottom here. –
Drilnoth (
T/
C)
13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Okay. I think the only major issue I can spot is you should go through and remove the unnecessary have and hads. There's a lot of them that make it more verbose than necessary, mostly in the first section is where I noticed this, but other sections should be looked at.∞陣内Jinnai15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)reply