The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:12, 15 November 2009 [1].

---

[edit] The Beatles: Rock Band

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/The Beatles: Rock Band/archive1

Toolbox
disambig links edit count external links alt text

Given the nature of this video game, there's actually a lot of good development information that is probably of interest to both gamers and audiophiles - and those that just love the Beatles. Because of this, this article has gain more attention than a usual VG article, and we have had constant copy-editing throughout the game. I will note that there is one piece of information that will be added in the next few days (Sept. sales numbers, though they are hinted at by analysts as sourced) but I do not expect this to be an issue with the nomination. MASEM (t) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I noticed while doing some ref fixes that you've got some dead links. The external link checker shows seven right off the bat. Pagrashtak 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm left with two I'm unable to resolve. The Game Informer one is likely due to the fact they have recently reorganized their website, so older content may not (yet) be available. The GameCulture blog one, unfortunately, has very limited and/or broken archives, so I cannot see that page. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you try looking them up at archive.org? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Neither are at archive.org. I can pull the google cache version of the GAmeCulture one, but barring checking my print version of the magazine, I don't see a cahce of the Game Informer one. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Updated I've confirmed that the GameInformer websource only repeated details from other existing articles, so I've replaced that. I've also found that GameCulture has a facebook presence and that post is posted there, and thus replaced the broken link. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks) but is missing for File:Hofner 01.jpg and for File:Beatles Drums 01.jpg; please add that. Also, the alt text phrase "The typically The Beatles: Rock Band screen shows" isn't grammatical and has WP:ALT#Verifiability problems: I suggest shortening it to "Video game screen shows" or something like that. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Added the two for the controlles, and fixed the one noted above. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a comment: the source of data I was waiting for above arrived in a timely manner (sales figures from NPD) so that portion is no longer "incomplete". --MASEM (t) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Image comments:
  • I'm uncomfortable with the use of some non-free shots in this article. I don't think File:The-beatles-rock-band-stage.jpg, as it's only really used for one element that doesn't require much in the way of visual identification (okay, so there was a yellow background.) In addition, File:Thebeatles-rockband-opening-cinematic.jpg doesn't add much that isn't covered in some portion by File:Thebeatles rockband concept and gameplay.png
  • Free images appear correctly licensed and attributed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The opening cinematic is a very different art style, and is actually not used directly in gameplay, so I don't believe it to be duplicating the existing shots. The stage picture I can see as somewhat non-essential, to some extent, but compared with the one gameplay picture that is not a dreamscape, which is one at the Budoken, it's very different to see that set, and thus the Ed Sullivan stage picture is used to highlight the detail they've put into recreating one of the more iconic appearances of the Beatles. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 3 (Beatles Rock Band official site) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 8 (Albanesius...) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 16 (Rock Band compatability...) lacks publisher and last access date.
• Current ref 23 (Courtin...) lacks a last access date
• Current ref 32 (DeGooyer..) lacks a publisher
• Current ref 62 (MTV cues...) lacks a publisher
  • These should all be fixed.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://kotaku.com/5070885/mtv-and-apple-corps-join-forces-for-beatles-music-game - removed - same info in better sources
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/01/rock-band-beatles-to-feature-harmonizing-vocals/ - replaced with Wired source
  • http://kotaku.com/5221506/retail-listings-confirm-the-beatles-rock-band-3+part-harmonies - removed - duplicative info
  • http://www.crispygamer.com/
  • http://kotaku.com/5337248/the-beatles-rock-band-preview-story-mode-beatles-beats--beyond - replaced by CNN review article
  • http://www.totalvideogames.com/The-Beatles-Rock-Band/feature-14400.html
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/12/the-beatles-rock-band-features-unreleased-material/
    • replaced with cited Billboard source
  • http://www.offworld.com/2009/06/e309-does-beatles-rock-band-ha.html
  • http://www.cartoonbrew.com/advertising/trailer-for-the-beatles-rock-band.html
  • http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/09/behind_the_music_art_from_the.php
  • http://www.thelawyer.com/eversheds-works-eight-days-a-week-for-beatles/1001954.article
  • http://kotaku.com/5182683/the-beatles-rock-band-site-slowly-fills-with-instruments
  • http://kotaku.com/5348213/the-beatles-rock-band-tv-spot-does-abbey-road-overload
    • replaced with G4TV article
  • http://www.industrygamers.com/news/beatles-all-you-need-is-love-becomes-fastest-selling-song-in-rock-band-history/
    • Replaced with 1up article
  • http://www.gamervision.com/gamer/00_19/news/article/e3_09_beatles_39_all_you_need_is_love_not_exclusive_to_360
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/14/video-interview-harmonixs-john-drake/
    • replaced with CVG article
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/02/the-beatles-rock-band-dlc-not-compatible-with-other-rock-band/
    • replaced w/ 1up article
  • http://www.esdmusic.com/2009/04/02/dhani-harrison-talks-up-the-beatles-rock-band/
    • replaced with the more complete interview from the same collection of sites (see below on reliability issue)
• http://www.gameculture.com/node/1399 deadlinked (current ref 47) What makes this a reliable source also?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• • of the above:
    • Nearly all of the Kotaku/Joystiq articles are from regular contributors to the site, and include interviews given to those sites. Kotaku has recently gained video game journalist Stephan Tolito as a managing editor. One Joystiq ref actually was replaced as it sites a more reliable source.
    • Crispy Gamer includes staff that do have some reliability in the VG area, in this case, the author, Kyle Orland, also does VG coverage for NPR among other places.
    • Totalvideogames.com appears to be under an editorial board, but in this case, it is an interview with a developer so reliability is coming from that.
    • Offworld is an offshoot of Boing Boing, its primary contributor (and author here), Brandon Boyer, is an editor for Gamasutra and other places.
    • Cartoon Brew is run by Jerry Beck, an animation historian /expert.
    • GameSetWatch is a sister publication of Gamasutra
    • The Lawyer is a trade publication in the UK about the legal industry there.
    • IndustryGamers is managed on James Brighton, editor for Game Daily (the same company that owns Joystiq among other sites), which itself is owned by AOL.
    • ESDMusic seems to be one blog of a series of diverse blogs out of a network, and though I wouldn't call absolutely reliable, is just an interview with Dhani, so take as it should be.
    • The Gamervision site, I'm not sure about, and the fact in that article, that the song is not a exclusive to the 360, is yet to be backed up by any other source, so I've removed that statement until such proven differently.
    • Gameculture is a blog run by the Entertainment Consumers Association. Unfortunately, as I've pointed above, I can google-cache the article, but its not on the Wayback. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. You've done a bit of this, but some evidence that the various authors, etc are experts would be helpful. Also, just because something is an interview doesn't make it reliable, it needs to be shown that the interviewer/site are reliable interview sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, just because something is a sister publication of another reliable source, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other site is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I'll check them in a moment. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've moved what I changed out of there.

In any case, of what is left that I cannot outright replace:

• Crispy Gamer, as a site, does not show direct signs of an editor-in-chief or the like. But I am pointing to the author of the articles listed there, Kyle Orland, who, as I've noted, has extensive history in the field in reliable sources before and would be considered an expert for this field per the Signpost suggestion. CrispyGamer does have this concept of a "GameTrust" between its editors presuming they review each others content but I cannot find a link to confirm that.
• The totalvideogames.com is difficult to assess editorial standards. Unfortunately, the statement made via an interview is irreplacible as it was based on an interview, and seems to be the only place where Drake has said something like "The entire catalogue might be stretching it a bit.". However, I did find that other reliable sources point to that interview, such as the Wired source I've added. All the other facts of the interview are consistent with other interviews/articles from reliable sources.
• Offworld and Cartoon Brew, I've pointed out the expertise of their editors. However, what is important here is that these articles are either asserting a non-controversial fact that can be gained from watching said video, or providing their expert opinion about it. In light of the latter aspects, these are irreplaceable, and the only thing I can do is assure that these are experts whose opinions matter about the video.
• GameSetWatch, as noted, is a sister publication of Gamasutra, itself the online arm of Game Developer magazine. The content on GSW is, but not always, new content that gets bubbled up to Gamasutra, or is republished from previous Gamasutra articles. Both editors [2] are key to editing of the print and web side of the articles. But also to point out again, all they are doing here is providing what I would consider non-controversial statements (where the art for the game came from with examples) backed up by Brandon Boyer from Boing Boing/Offworld. I can't prove those reliable any more than that.
• The esdmusic, which I replaced with a more complete interview from the "parent" site, Bullz-eye.com - well, I can't find editoral information for either. As it is an interview, and like the above one in totalvideogames, has a statement that only appears there, maybe borrowed in other publications, but irreplaceable. I can attest that all other statements made by Dhani in the interview agree with other sources from reliable works, so I don't believe it to be a falsification. But there's little else I can do about this one.
• I've explained the source of the GameCulture one before, but it's important to note that this, like the Offworld and Cartoon Brew articles, are only be used to express expert opinion and not state fact. (See [3] for google cache version).

--MASEM (t) 19:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the rest of these for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a noted as per below, I've taken out the totalvideogames.com and bullz-eye.com refs and the statements only supported by them. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On sources

• GameSetWatch has been demonstrated reliable enough for me, and Offworld, Crispy Gamer, and Cartoon Brew at the least meet WP:SPS. However I'm not sure that esdmusic/bullzeye or totalvideogames meets any kind of standard. As much as I wish we could just get away with "it's an interview", we simply have no way of confirming the interviews are legit and that they haven't somehow modified the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If I look at the those two sources, there are only two statements that they support not already supported by other statements, both being about what other songs the game may get - the last paragraph of "Downloadable content". The article does not hinge on these facts, nor that section, but it does help assert the breadth of the songs that may appear in the game. So technically, the above two sources could be removed along with some of these lines, the question is if that harms that para. (And I've looked for sources to replace those facts, but the only one I come up with is the Joystiq interview). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend you just remove them. If it can't be cited to something else, that's a pity, but I just can't see how those meet the "high quality" requirements of the FA criteria. I'll try and sit down and review the whole article later today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed/replaced them where appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• As promised... it looks pretty good, but some issues:
  • There need to be nonbreaking spaces between units (I added one, for example to the lead).
    • I think I got these all.
  • Why are there citations in the lead? There are no quotations.
    • There is actually one quote, but all others I've removed/moved.
  • Similarly, why are only some things cited in the infobox, and not others? (Why one platform, and not the other, for example?)
    • Removed.
  • I spotted some occasions where the tense was still indicative that the game had not yet come out. I'd also say its better to describe its reception as having occurred as well.
    • I will review again for tense issues, but I didn't seem many outside the ones you found.
  • "The game allows players..." better to restate the game's title, considering this is the start of the body.
    • Fixed
  • "The game interface is stylistically unique to The Beatles: Rock Band to reflect the band's era" reword to the simpler "The Beatles: Rock Band's game interface is stylistically unique..."
    • Fixed
  • "Some alterations to the Rock Band formula were made to preserve the sanctity of The Beatles' music." Okay, I'm probably the biggest Beatles fan of my age group, but even I would stop before calling The Beatles' music holy.
    • Changed to "sound"
  • "Four new instrument peripherals modeled after those used by The Beatles members have been introduced alongside the game." Same thing about the tense.
    • Fixed.
  • "The Rickenbacker and Gretsch guitar peripherals are sold separately." source?
    • repeat of previous source, but added
  • "Each song contains a "lead" and "bass" guitar track, and each are playable regardless of the type of guitar controller used by the player." source?
    • This para was added by someone, I don't know, but it is awkward and unnecessary. and thus removed.
  • Last two paragraphs of "#Instrument peripherals" aren't long enough to be real paragraphs. Merge or flesh out.
    • The last para was removed, rest merged.
  • "As in previous Rock Band games, players can play any song in the game either cooperatively through "Quickplay", or competitively in "Tug of War" and "Score Duel" modes." Care to explain those modes for us newbs?
    • Added and sourced
  • "For example, Ringo Starr was estranged from the rest of the band during periods of recording for The Beatles (commonly referred to as The White Album). Thus, he did not perform on certain songs, such as "Back in the U.S.S.R."." would be nice to have a source for those not familiar with Beatles history.
    • Added
  • "In addition to Apple Corps' material, Harmonix designers watched the eight-part The Beatles Anthology on a weekly basis for further reference on the band. These materials were meticulously reviewed to replicate the outfits that The Beatles wore for each of their concerts, as well as the instruments they used for recordings and live performances." source?
    • Repeat of NYTimes source, added
  • "The game was formally showcased on 1 June 2009 at E3 2009. Presented by Harmonix at the beginning of the Microsoft press conference, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr briefly took the stage to discuss the games.[51] Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, widows of the late John Lennon and George Harrison respectively, also made a brief appearance. The game's E3 demo booth was modeled as a recreation of Abbey Road Studios.[52]" There's a hell of a lot of redundant linking in that paragraph, and that might be an issue elsewhere, this is just where it caught my eye (also, you mention that Ono and Harrison are the widows earlier, so that can be cut.)
    • I will review for overlinking, but this is the only major place on a first read I caught
  • "As of August 2009, VH1 Classic has been airing music videos from the TV special Around The Beatles (1964), Help! (1965), and a music video of the "Birthday" gameplay footage, promoting the launch of The Beatles Rock Band online store." more tense issues!
    • Fixed
  • "On 8 September 2009, Dhani Harrison appeared as a guest on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien to promote the game. Harrison and O'Brien (along with Tonight Show web manager Aaron Bleyaert and The Tonight Show Band member Mark Pender) performed the song "Birthday" at the close of the show.[58]" Another non-paragraph.
  • "#Downloadable content" features more nonparagraphs and excessive spacing.
  • More nonparagraphs in the reception section...
    • Both above issues with non-paras have been fixed.
  • Having more thoroughly read the article, I'm still not convinced File:Thebeatles-rockband-opening-cinematic.jpg and File:The-beatles-rock-band-stage.jpg are necessary.
    • I have no qualms about removing these, but I would like more opinions before doing so. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll do another readthrough and watch the tenses and linkage, but I believe I've gotten all the above dealt with. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would really like the images cut, but I recognize that you would also like a second opinion, so I'm voicing approval for all other aspects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's really no question about the images. They abide by the letter of our policy and, most crucially, its spirit. They clearly contribute to a deeply informed understanding of the game and its design, and there is no conceivable way in which they are displacing free content, actual or potential. Of course, it's always helpful to reacquaint oneself with our policy. "Necessary", for instance, is not a sensible standard--and that's why it does not appear in our policy. Are these images judiciously chosen? Yes, quite. Do they significantly increase understanding of the topic? Indubitably. Is there any free equivalent, here, there, anywhere? Nyet. Job well done, Masem. DocKino (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support The article reads great, and Masem and company have done a great job cleaning up what needs updating for the FAC. I agree with David Fuchs on the amount images in the article. I think removing the image RockBandBeatlesPAX.jpg would be enough, as the McCartney/Starr image is more than enough to cover the Promotion section, and there's nothing particularly of note about the PAX image in comparison. There are also a handful of redlinks in the reference section that need cleaned up. --Teancum (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Full Support per other supporters. I'll concede on the image :D. --Teancum (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the references - I'd still like to see the PAX image removed though. --Teancum (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Well, first, its a free image, so it's not a non-free issue. But in this case, I think the image helps to demonstrate the types of promotions that they have done with the game, and to give a sense to the non-gamer what playing this game actually, physically looks like. I'm not fighting on removing it, but like the above ones that Fuchs questioned, I'd like more opinions before doing so. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, but even if it's free it doesn't mean it's adding to the article more. The external reader might care less about random people playing the game at PAX, but every reader will see note in the fact that Ringo and Paul personally came out to support and introduce the game. As far as demonstration of how to play the game, such images may be better suited for Rock Band (series), unless the image more clearly demonstrates multiple vocalists, which of course is unique to this title. --Teancum (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Is the concern is that we're putting nobodies above Paul and Ringo in this section? That can be fixed by image placement. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not really -- it's more of a is it necessary kind of thing. As a reader I wouldn't care if the game was demoed at PAX, but it makes a difference that Ringo/Paul were a big part of the game. --Teancum (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary either - but it is also a free image, so we're not as strict with those. That said, what would be your take if the image was located in the gameplay section? I don't see this as much a promotion (though we do advert where it was taken) but more "here's what people look like when playing the game" which helps who has never played a music game to get the feel of. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that I am not a fan of The Beatles and I have never played or seen anyone play Rock Band or Guitar Hero. I was therefore pleasantly surprised that I could follow this article reasonably well; it is presented very accessibly for newbies like me. A few minor issues:

• I have no idea what a "fret button" is. Perhaps an entry could be created at wiktionary and linked back here?
• I didn't know who/what "Apple Corps" was and had to click the link to find out. Perhaps we can make this a tad clearer in the article for non-Beatles fans like me?

Karanacs (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I've worded it slightly differently and linked to fret (here on WP), and explained a bit what Apple Corps is in their first appearance in the dev section. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, those little tweaks help! Karanacs (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I was reduced to some minor grammar fixes and copyedit tweaks. Nothing else stands out as a deal-breaker pre FA status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Support I agree with Casliber...--Sabri76'^message 12:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note to reviewers who supported: please comment on the reliability of the sources that Ealdgyth left unstruck above. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the above and at the sites, Crispy gamer looks okay. Will look through others later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't it a bit soon after the release of the game? I fear we're still too close to the "event" so to speak. Surely secondary source material is still actively being generated about the game. It's not that big a deal with behind the scenes information, but it does become an issue when considering still-gelling critical and commercial reaction (for example: have nominations for video game industry awards been determined yet?). Just something to think about. 10:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I did ponder that- my personal take on it is that it is settled to the point where a cohesive article of FA quality is possible, and that adjustments from this point on are minor enough so that the core of the article will remain relatively intact (with minor upkeep). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The only likely things that will change in the future of this article are more sales figures (either through the holidays or over the year), and if Harmonix decides to publish more downloadable content. There are placeholders for these should that information appear, but its information we cannot assure of being there, nor its it critical for a total comprehensive article. That is, there is no short-term instability envisioned for this article. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.