Talk:Regine Rocks/GA1

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

Nominator: 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Theepicosity (talk · contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Article looks very good! Sorry it's taken me so long, I was on a trip for a few days. I have checked your new edits and will finish the rest of the review shortly. ^^
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I would check the section titled "Concert Synopsis" to make sure that it maintains a good encyclopedic tone; there seems to be a lot of extra prose which kinda reads like someone is documenting their experience there, rather than just sticking to the facts. As an example, the sentence "Wearing a ruffled skirt, she then sang Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" (1971)."
 * Thanks for taking the review Theepicosity. I believe even for FA or GA standards involving concerts or events, the synopsis summarizes it in a way were it is acceptable to describe or detail wardrobe, stage design, transitions between each segments, production descriptions, themes, differences for each acts or sections of the show, etc. (similar FA examples include R2K: The Concert and Freedom and similar GA examples include ArtRave: The Artpop Ball, 24K Magic World Tour, and The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour) Pseud 14 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course, you can describe wardrobe and stage design and whatever else is relevant! The problem is in the prose itself. I had meant to put an example, but i think i forgot:
 * "Wearing a ruffled skirt, she then sang Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" (1971)." should be changed to something like "She then changed to a ruffled skirt and sang Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" (1971)." As the article is written now, I'm not sure if she actually changed wardrobe or if the "ruffled skirt" is just the layered tartan skirt from earlier. If it's the latter, redundancies for the sake of dramatization should be avoided in favor of clarity.
 * As another example, "A mash-up of Aerosmith's "Dream On" (1973) and "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" (1998) were performed, as Velasquez returns atop the iron-throne platform and is lifted above the stage with a brief pyrotechnics display at the conclusion of the number." should be changed to "She then performed mash-up of Aerosmith's "Dream On" (1973) and "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" (1998), and returned to the iron-throne platform. The number concluded with a brief pyrotechnics display as she was lifted above the stage." This removes the present tense and keeps it in line with the rest of the article.
 * In general, the section should be rewritten a bit to clarify the order of events, and avoid matching the drama of the event itself. By just listing the facts and the sequence of events, the section will flow a lot nicer and will be much easier to understand. Hope this helps! Theepicosity (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Made the edits and some revisions on the section. Let me know if anything else still stands out. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reread it now, it looks much better! Theepicosity (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead section looks really good!
 * 1) 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:
 * 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):
 * Two things I noticed: 1. The section "Concert Synopsis" has no in-line citations at all. It's possible that there is evidence elsewhere in the article for the claims in this section, but it isn't cited in the section. 2. Citing from Ticketmaster and Facebook is highly questionable... both of the Facebook links likely have better sources, so you should only use it if you can't find anything better. The Tickmaster link seems plainly wrong, and it should probably be removed from the article and replaced with a correct source.
 * Thanks for raising this. For the first point, per MOS:PLOT, the synopsis section ideally does not require sources and is understandably self-sourced (i.e. ArtRave: The Artpop Ball), I have however included additional secondary refs to support anything amiss. For the second point, I have removed the Ticketmaster source and the Facebook source for FN20 and replaced it with secondary independent sources. Unfortunately, for FN15, this is the only available source that provides a detail of the stage design as well as its team, this is also the official social media page of the production design team that worked on the concert, so hopefully that as an acceptable primary source. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the new sources! I think the sources for the concert synopsis are sufficient enough for GA status, however MOS:PLOT (specifically MOS:PLOTCITE) does say that you should cite primary sources when giving a plot summary, and especially when giving quotes from the works (which you do). I would agree that this probably applies to the concert synopsis. So if you do have a primary source (like, probably a video link to the concert itself) I would ask that you put it in, especially at the quote "one of the greatest female pop-rock groups," since that is a direct quotation and definitely needs a source. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Theepicosity (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a video of the full concert I cited before, but it is an amateur recording, so I think it would constitute a copyright violation if used. I simply removed the direct quotation from the synopsis to avoid that issue. Let me know. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's okay to have copyrighted material as part of citations, this happens in many different articles. If it is an amateur recording though, I don't think it's that worth putting in, and your new sources are adequate with the information. I will take one last quick look at the section, and then I will update the review! Theepicosity (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's okay to have copyrighted material as part of citations, this happens in many different articles. If it is an amateur recording though, I don't think it's that worth putting in, and your new sources are adequate with the information. I will take one last quick look at the section, and then I will update the review! Theepicosity (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * There are no citations to original research.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * E. Source spot-check:
 * "It's how the songs hit you, how you interpret them, how they make you feel—that's rock ... I'm a balladeer, but I just realized that rock suits me. I never imagined I'd be a rock singer." - good!
 * This was preceded by a series of shows in Temecula, Los Angeles, and Rohnert Park, California from February 9–18, 2024. - good!
 * GA Fallarme served as the visual designer, with Dominique Gallardo as the lighting director. - cites from Facebook, but I think this is acceptable given prior reasoning.
 * Valenciano's objective was "to make everyone feel like Regine was in her prime, just by the stage design", drawing comparison to Velasquez's concert residency, Solo, which he described as "more minimalist". - perfect!
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Seems pretty in line with other articles on concert tours, so I'd say it works!
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Fairly self contained, there is quite a lot of detail but I don't think much of it is unnecessary.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Generally yes, I think the way that the article is written is a bit puffy but not enough for it to be relevant to good article status. (maybe for featured article status?)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Super happy with the improvements that have been made to this article, I think it can now be considered a good article!
 * thanks for the remaining comments. I have actioned each item, and provided my response on the 2B. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Super happy with the improvements that have been made to this article, I think it can now be considered a good article!
 * thanks for the remaining comments. I have actioned each item, and provided my response on the 2B. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)