Talk:Confessions Tour/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * *Inconsistency in tense, the majority of the article is in the past tense, so stick to that.
 * Background: The Confessions Tour is Madonna's second live album, following I'm Going to Tell You a Secret which was released in 2005. This live album was recorded at Wembley Arena during the London stop of her 2006 Confessions Tour, which promoted her 2005 studio album Confessions on a Dance Floor. Badly worded - the phrasing implies that we are suddenly talking about another album.
 * Rephrased. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * *This broadcast made its way to the DVD, with some extended footage added.[ How did it do that? walking driving or by plane? Please reword.
 * Rephrased. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * During the concert, Madonna's performance of "Live to Tell" while hanging from a glass embellished crufcifix, faced strong reaction from the media and religious groups. Were the religious groups at the concert? That is what is implied.
 * Rephrased. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  "Live to Tell" was followed by the performance of "Forbidden Love" from the Confessions on a Dance Floor album, where Madonna took off a crown made of thorns and danced with a gay couple. Hence these performances were eliminated from the CD version but was included in the DVD. Hence what? Because she took off a crown of thorns? The prose style in this section is extremely poor.  Suggest a complete re-write, and when that is being done please consider why this section is called Background as it appears to be mostly about what is on the CD/DVD, rather than the actual production of it, which is what is implied.
 * This is definitely about the background which is supposed to be about the content of a recording and any story associated with it. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence these performances were eliminated from the CD version but was included in the DVD. were / was?
 * corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Asian gay company Fridae reported that the album was banned in Singapore, Malaysia and parts of East Asia, because of the inclusion of the performance in the DVD. How can a company be gay, in the sense meant here?
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Critical response: However, he felt that the disc loses tis momentum during the "Confessions" part, which demonstrates a trio of individuals confessing about their hard-life Confessing about their hard-life?
 * Changed to suffering. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ''Tom Young from the BBC felt that since he did not see the actual performances on the tour, "some of the magnitude of the performance is lost and the track/scene changes appear needlessly long-winded. [...] As far as live albums go, this is a job well done." So are you implying that because he did not see the performances he said "some of the magnitude of the performance is lost...."  That clearly does not make sense.  If he didn't see it how could he tell?  Obviously he said that, but your attributing that to the fact that he didn't see the show is OR.
 * The reviewer mentions it in the link itself if you would care to read. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think that I did not make myself clear. My quibble is with the word since.  This implies that because he did not see the performance, some of the magnitude of the performance is lost .  Might I suggest something like: although he did not see the performance, he felt that.....  I think it is his writing that is at fault here.
 * Definitely. Already did. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Commercial reception: repetitive use of the words "the album" try and vary this. Use a thesuarus, try words like recording, work, etc.  The single sentence at the bottom needs rescuing.
 * Done. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I nconsistency in naming of magazines, sometimes in italics, sometimes not. My mistake, I had not clocked that those examples were on-line publications only.
 * Please read WP:MOS carefully. Online magazines are not italicised. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead: The lead is worded almost exactly the same as the points it summarises, please try to rewrite this.
 * Overall, poorly written, little content beyond what I would get from watching the DVD and reading the cover and a couple of reviews. Is this encyclopaedic?
 * I don't see the article being Afd'ed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * WP:WikiProject Albums seems to suggest that this article should be named The Confessions Tour (video).
 * This will be taken in the Madonna wikiproject. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought I did it as you are right on this one. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just a suggestion anyway.
 * Actual recording dates are not mentioned in the article, which would be useful.
 * Added. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The article has references.
 * Ref #8 doesn't mention the gay couple
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * No obviously non RS sources
 * c (OR):
 * See above. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * A s mentioned earlier there seems to be little content in this article that couldn't be gleaned form viewing/listenening the video/album. Some actual production details would be good. Techniques of filming?  There is more detail about the various broadcasts and censorship of the video in the Confessions Tour article than there is here., I suppose thaht there is little more to be said about it.
 * Why would that be significant in the album article. Any banning of the album or negative reaction to the performances included have already been discussed. What you are suggesting is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * There is a personality rights tag on the crucifixion image - it may not be properly licensed. I had not seen that tag before, just wanted an explanation.
 * Personality rights tags are not for that. Licensing is proper only. It denotes that the person is alive and be sure of using the image. As you can see the flickr image has been passed by an admin. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Onhold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but please can we sort out the phrasing of the BBC review as outlined in my comment above. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovely, that has nailed it, I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Onhold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but please can we sort out the phrasing of the BBC review as outlined in my comment above. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovely, that has nailed it, I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)