Jump to content

Talk:Super Bowl LI halftime show/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  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):
    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):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Hi GagaNutella, I'll be reviewing this for you. My typical style is to read through the article and make small grammar changes myself as a courtesy and I'll list more substantial comments below for your response. I will update the above checklist as we go along. I see that this article has a previous GA nom that failed due to inactivity. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you look through that review and make sure those items have also been addressed as well if they remain present. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • Avoid "currently". Suggest replacing with use of {{As of}}.
  • The first and last paragraph of the lead talk about the critical acclaim. No change required, but I'd recommend trying to combine these thoughts into one paragraph about the reception instead of split up.
  • "since the 2010 edition" is not supported in the article body. Conception section only describes it as "past few years".

Synopsis

[edit]
  • No references listed, but this should largely be ok per MOS:PLOTSOURCE.
  • I'd recommend adding a couple references for some of the commentary if possible. For example the "disco stick".
  • External video uploaded by an official account, so that's perfect.
  • Image: Remove "the" before Super Bowl LI.

Background

[edit]
  • Suggest: to perform at the Super Bowl LI halftime show, on February 5, 2017, at Houston's NRG Stadium. -> to perform at the Super Bowl LI halftime show, which was planned for February 5, 2017 at Houston's NRG Stadium"

Development

[edit]
  • Can you find a source for "outrageous attire"?
  • there was several speculation <- rephrase this
  • a LED -> "an LED"
  • A record number of about 5,000 LED lights were embedded in the stage. <- this is a primary source, so a secondary would be needed to backup the "record" claim. The number of lights is fine though.
  • A mention of the relevance of Intel would be helpful other than a passing "provided by", which made me think that it was more about the name and not the product itself. The Verge reference explained why their involvement was helpful with the specific drone they were launching.
  • The computer checked the GPS signal strength and the drones' battery levels. <- this sentence doesn't add much. Suggest deleting as fluff.

Critical response

[edit]
  • Caption for image is worded as if the show is named "Bad Romance". Suggest: "Bad Romance" was the final performance of the show."
  • But also the image doesn't seem relevant here?
  • Add when the Emmy Awards took place
  • Split/rephrase last sentence. Suggest: "At the 69th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards, the halftime show was nominated in six categories—the most by any halftime show—and won in three categories. It won Outstanding Music Direction, Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Variety Series or Special, and Outstanding Lighting Design / Lighting Direction for a Variety Special, and had also been nominated for Outstanding Special Class Program, Outstanding Production Design for Variety, Nonfiction, Event or Award Special, and Outstanding Technical Direction, Camerawork, Video Control for a Limited Series, Movie, or Special."

Commercial reception

[edit]
  • rising 66–2 <- in these instances (the others here as well), can you say maybe from and to?

Set list

[edit]
  • Is there a ref for "pre-recorded intro"?

References

[edit]
  • Ref 17 The Hamilton Spectator is dead and the archive link doesn't appear to work
  • Other refs check out
  • Earwigs tool shows no copyright issues and just picked up the quotes.

Discussion

[edit]

@GagaNutella: A great read! Not much for you to address. Grk1011 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for making those changes. Looks great! I was just saying that it could be helpful to add some extra detail from the provided ref to establish the reason for Intel providing the drones. For example, something from this paragraph in the press release: The Intel Shooting Star drones are a new type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), specifically designed for entertainment purposes such as festivals and entertainment events. The purpose-built quadcopter drone is built with safety in mind and equipped with LED lights that can create over 4 billion color combinations and easily be programmed for any animation. It's not required for GA, but I thought it could help frame their inclusion. Anyways, I'm happy to pass this with or without that change! Great job with this. Grk1011 (talk) 00:25, 3 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.