Talk:The Big Steppers Tour

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Cherrell410(t · c) 18:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Big Steppers Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

One of the better tour articles that I have seen here. (I just finished reviewing this, but it didn't save so if this review is a little messy, it's because i'm frustrated at the website for not saving my work, as now I have to do this all over again)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    many citations are missing access date and website
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    no images, but none are available, GA articles don't have to have images
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    The article needs a some work before it can pass as a good article. Here are all of the errors that I found so that someone can fix them:
  • Lead: It says that the tour is considered the highest-grossing rap tour of all-time, but the source given just gives the tour dates with gross and attendance. What is this saying?
  • Lead: Year needed for the paris show given
  • Background: How does the first paragraph show how the shows helped to develop the tour?
  • Background: I feel like if Lamar added more shows because of overwhelming demand, there should be something in there about how fast the shows sold out or how fast tickets went, etc.
  • I feel like the Stage and aesthetic and Concert Synopsis section should be swapped, as the former one can build off of the latter one.
  • Concert synopsis: needs more citations (see this for what i'm talking about)
  • Personnel: there should be a heading for the first group of people
  • Personnel: does the source given apply to all of the people in both groups?
  • Set list: sources needed for the shows in Milan, Glastonbury and Rolling Loud (SETLIST.FM ISN'T A RELIABLE SOURCE AND THE ARTICLE WON'T GET PASSED IF IT IS USED!!!!)
  • Shows: should be renamed to Tour dates as it is more formal
  • Shows: all of the shows should be in one table, with the shows seperated with headers that say Leg 1 – (this), where legs with only a few shows won't be considered legs. (this) should be a region
  • Shows: sources needed for all of the shows (only 18 of them are included in current sources)
  • Categories: there are more categories that can be added to the article, such as Concert tours of (INSERT COUNTRY HERE)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

  • Questions from Ojorojo:
  • The set list section includes a collapsed list for Glastonbury with collapsed notes. MOS:DONTHIDE discourages the most uses of collapsible article text and concealing article content by default upon page loading. What is the rationale for using it for Glastonbury but not Toronto?
Because the Toronto setlist is the one that represents all of the main arena shows, and the glastonbury one is a special, alternate one that was used. Cherrell410 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS clearly states: "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions." Also, "If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all."
  • Two sources are given for the Tour dates section: Complex,[1] which briefly talks about Glastonbury, but doesn't appear to mention any other stops; and oklama,[2] which lists 17 dates (out of 98 total). Neither of these have info on opening acts, attendance, or revenue. What are the reliable sources used for this section?
Added into suggestions part of the GA review Cherrell410 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article from Rolling Stone I just added as a reference (56) mentions the opening acts; as for attendance and revenue, the stats are listed in the article from Touring Data (3). Btheweeknd (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Touringdata is not considered a reliable source and was removed as an inline citation and noted as such in February. A recent discussion concluded "media using Touring Data as their source cannot be regarded as reliable - TD is a WordPress site that aggregates reports from other sources, including artist representatives. It may or may not be correct, but it's effectively original research."[3]
The 18 mentioned also need sources for opening acts, attendance, and revenue.
  • WP:CONCERT TOUR#Tables (referencing MOS:DTT) advises against including column headers in the middle of the table, such as those spanning several columns (Leg 1 — North America, Leg 2 — Europe, etc.). Is there a reason why this is not followed?
Because of the way that I see tour articles here on WP. Other GAs, such as Not in This Lifetime... Tour and Dream Within a Dream Tour include these headers in the middle of their tour dates tables. Cherrell410 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples from 2018 and 2010 do not include ! scope="col" and ! scope="row" to assist those who use screen readers. Since 2019, most GA concert articles try to follow WP Web accessibility goals.
—Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC); Ojorojo (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC); Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Btheweeknd: you need to keep working on this article. I know that you're active on WP (as you made an edit today), but it seems that you don't want to do the work to get this article to GA status. If thats the case, I'll fail the article and you can retry when you want to put in the effort. Otherwise, lets get working on everything that has been listed above. Cherrell410 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've begun to add more refs to the critical reception section.. Btheweeknd (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Btheweeknd: I am going to fail this article due to the amount of maintenance tags that are now included in this article. If you keep working on it, you may renominate it in the future, but as for now, it's not ready. Happy editing! Cherrell410(t · c) 18:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Big Steppers Tour/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Btheweeknd (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review; it will be used for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General comments

[edit]
  • The "Concert synopsis" section seems lengthy, at over 900 words (for comparison, MOS:PLOT advises that film summaries should take no more than 700 words). At a glance, the section could be trimmed of meaningless superfluities like "echo throughout the arena", "flashes a smile as he exits the stage", all the references to the silhouette on the curtain, etc.
  • Similarly, the "Critical reception" section needs to be reorganised. At the moment, it contains too many lengthy quotes which go beyond WP:LIMITED, especially in the last two paragraphs. I would suggest finding the most important point from each critic and paraphrasing it in the article. The essay WP:RECEPTION will be helpful for this.
  • An image of Lamar would not go amiss.
  • Otherwise, it largely looks good! I'll put this review on hold, and will perform the source spotcheck/scan for remaining problems once the above issues are sorted out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.