Talk:Love Hurts Tour/GA1

GA Review

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

I will do the GA Review on this article. H1nkles (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The article still has prose issues but it has been cleaned of the major problems.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Referencing has improved though more would help.

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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
This has been greatly improved.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A lot of work has been done and I commend you for your work. It is not a resounding pass and I do feel that more work still needs to be done but the review has been protracted and it is time to move on. I will pass it. H1nkles (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is under-developed. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article, mentioning all aspects of the article in a couple of paragraphs (size of lead depends on size of article). The lead on this article is three sentences and should be significantly expanded as there are subjects in the article not mentioned in the lead.

About the Tour

Much of this section reads like a good lead. But then this section should explore the issues more fully. For example, what success did she have with the songs that prompted the tour? Why was the tour primarily in Europe only? Then what about her illnesses? Can this be further explored?
The Show section is completely unreferenced. This needs to be addressed.

This section is also in the present-tense, but the tour happened 17 years ago.
Did all her shows go off exactly like this? Don't the artists usually vary their performances throughout the tour?

Costumes

Also completely unreferenced, and it will be very hard to verify this information.
Also written in the present tense.
All of the entries are repetitive, "For song title(s) Cher wears..." Also for the last four entries it is "Cher wear", bad prose.
I'm tempted to question whether this section is even necessary but since Cher is known for her outlandish costumes it does bear relevance to the article.

Tour Dates

"Knowing the dates of the tour is really difficult, but during 1992 and 1993 were released some tourbook." I'm confused by this sentence, it doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify, as it begins a paragraph that also is unclear to me, I'm hoping by understanding this sentence I'll understand the rest of the paragraph.
"This was the originally schedule", prose is an issue through the article.
The North American dates don't appear to be referenced is this true or am I missing something?

Personnel

Why are some people referenced in this section and others not?
Here there is one dancer, Bubba Carr, but in "The Show" section it states that, "While she changes clothes, the dancers dance on stage on the instrumental version of 'We All Sleep Alone'." Were there one or multiple dancers? I would think that there were several dancers in a production of this size. They will need to be listed here.

Broadcasts and recordings

No references and there are prose issues with this section as well.

References

Mostly formatted ok, the last two should have publisher and accessdate, same can be said for ref [3]. The last one appears to be a fan site, which is generally frowned upon but since it isn't heavily relied on in the article I won't make much of it.

Overall review

There's a lot of work that needs to be done on this article if it is to be a GA. I'm tempted to quick fail but I will hold it for a few days to see if someone will step up and begin to make fixes. The primary weaknesses of the article are as follows:

Comprehensive-The article does not cover some of the basic information that should be in an article about a music tour such as Tour reception, were the shows sold out, notable events that happened along the way, beyond just show cancellations what was the impact of her illness on the tour, what was the fan reaction to all the cancelled shows, what was the media reaction to the same. I don't think the article enumerates exactly how many shows were cancelled due to her illnesses, if it does then please ignore, if it doesn't then this should be in the article along with which shows were actually cancelled (was Rome the only show actually cancelled-if so then when were the postponed shows made up).
Prose-several grammatical mistakes were found in the article that need to be cleaned up.
Referencing-much of the article is unreferenced.
MOS compliance-specifically the lead needs to be expanded.

The rest of the issues above should be addressed. I'll hold the article until the end of the week and see if work is being done. H1nkles (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current fixes

I note several more references, especially in the bottom portions of the article. That is a welcomed sight, though ref [27] is hardly a credible reference. I also see a bit more information on the shows postponed and rescheduled. Under additional notes you may want to put down the tour locations that were cancelled completely. Am I correct in assuming that Rome is one of those locations? I'm not sure what "Never release" means in this section. The ref is to an Italian article and I don't speak Italian. The personnel references are much better. Keep up the good work, and let me know if I missed something. H1nkles (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work is being done. I will attempt to do a prose copy edit when I return from vacation. I'll extend the hold until I can return. H1nkles (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am back and committed to getting this article review done so please fill me in on where we're at. I'll renew the hold for a week in the hopes that we can communicate and keep work on the article going. H1nkles (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The article is much improved! Thank you for your work. I had a couple of questions, do you have a reference for the fact that Mackie designed all her costumes? What is a "tailleur"? I tried to wikilink it but it's a red link. Is there a way to describe it? Not a big deal and I won't hold up passage of the article on this account, just a thought to help clarify the article a bit. In the Constumes section your source are pictures of the costumes and the songs they are attributed to, that covers a good chunck of that section. The section also discusses what happens during the concert while Cher is changing her costumes. This is not covered in the source and I'm wondering where you are drawing this information from? In all the article has made fantastic strides, I would like to get your input on these questions and then I'll finish up this protracted review. H1nkles (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if further comments are forthcoming regarding my questions above? I'd like to wrap this review up. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of a response to my queries on my talk page:

Sorry I was busy with other pages and I don't see the page since late August. So, this is my answer:

Mackie designed all her costumes?
- Sorry I can't find a cit. about it, I know only that Mackie work with her since 1971.
What is a "tailleur"?
- Taillur in italian mean Suit (clothing).
This is not covered in the source and I'm wondering where you are drawing this information from?
- I got one DVD with the Brussels show, I see that here.

I apologize if I made you wait...Kekkomereq4 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here by H1nkles. H1nkles (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have gone through and done a copy edit of the article. It will suffice for GA at this time. I did catch one final thing that needs to be clarified. In the Tour Dates section you refer to a concert at the Sands. The link goes to a list of any number of references to sands. I assume it was at the Sands casino, but which one? Please clarify this. For future reference please be sure that you have someone do a thorough prose review of articles prior to nominating them for GA. I have made you wait too long and so I will pass the article because it is greatly improved from the original submission and meets the Criteria. Please check the GA Criteria and make sure your articles meet this criteria prior to nominating for GA Consideration. Thank you for your work and for your patience. I do hope we can work together in the future. H1nkles (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]