Talk:The Big Steppers Tour/GA2

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

Nominator:

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

I'll take this review; it will be used for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 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:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

General comments

 * 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. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, you made a few improvements but issues still remain. Do you intend to return to this? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The nominator appears to have gone inactive, and as a week has passed, I will fail this nomination. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)