Talk:The Doo-Wops & Hooligans Tour/GA2

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Opening Kingsif (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the changes since April, I note that this nomination was started only a day after the quick fail of the last GAN, and that even with work done afterwards, not all of the notes seem to have been addressed.

Style

 * Is 'Synopsis' is a typical header for a tour article?
 * Could be broken up to, e.g. 'special effects', 'performance', 'fashion'
 * And the performance section should be as much of a running narrative (Mars does this then this then this) as it currently is
 * The lead is far too long, considering the article length
 * Some confusion in the lead Others criticized the show's volume because it hid Mars' falsetto vocal nuances and the number of covers he performed. - this is saying that the show's volume hid the number of covers, which doesn't seem right; I think some punctuation is missing
 * As well as the various issues mentioned below with the Sound equipment section, it is written in a poor style that reads as a really long run-on and has lots of jargon with description or explanation. This section is poor and, given its limited usefulness and relevance, may improve the article if cut entirely.
 * Still some non-encyclopedic language, e.g. Then Mars sang a rock cover ("Then" can almost always be replaced with a more accurate phrase, here being one of those times); Travie McCoy and Mars' "Billionaire" when the crowd often sang along ("when the crowd often sang along" also implies running narrative and in general can be phrased better, i.e., '..."Billionaire", a song that the crowd was noted to join in with at many performances')
 * Mars performed "Our First Time", the next track on the setlist, in a sensual way described as "fatal" to female fans - "described as "fatal" to female fans" seems inappropriate for a performance description, leave it to the response
 * General grammar errors and missing punctuation throughout - (another) copyedit recommended
 * The island feeling continued - this 'island feeling' has never been mentioned before, and is a phrase that should be directly quoted
 * Mars asked men to treat "their ladies" with more affection is this appropriate and/or relevant in general? I think not.
 * praised the show, saying Mars and Monáe displayed "talent" - talent doesn't need quotation marks, and is also a weak justification for 'praise'. These singers... have talent, is that all he had to say? In terms of structuring the review section, that is a weak place to start, certainly
 * Phrasing and fluidity needs improvement in the review section - as well as structure (put similar ideas together)
 * Based on the single reviewer that mentions the loudness hiding vocal nuance, is this relevant enough for the lead (and shouldn't say "Others", plural, if kept)
 * Needs work

Coverage

 * Too much detail in the second paragraph of the lead - the lead is too heavy and other places could be trimmed, too
 * At the end of the first background paragraph, the setlist is discussed - this isn't background.
 * The Sound equipment section is entirely focused on the Hooligans in Wondaland tour, which is arguably a different thing, but certainly isn't the entire or even a main part of the tour. It's also about 1/8th of the entire prose, which seems UNDUE
 * Half of this section is just listing personnel and their role, not actual sound equipment
 * A lot of the review outlets have cities in their names, would it be appropriate to mention which performances they were reviewing?
 * Needs attention

Illustration

 * Three images in the body of this length of article is probably unnecessary, three of the same concert? Definitely gratuitous.
 * Why does the accolades table not seem to have a bottom line? Also, with the single nomination, is this actually necessary?
 * Are the set lists and notes really so long they need hiding? Especially with the tables below being so much longer
 * Why is there a compilation of show numbers in the infobox? Just give the total number and expand on different continents in the body text
 * Needs work

Neutrality

 * Though really on the edge of the 'neutrality' crit, I feel this may the appropriate place to say that this article reads as really sexist, unduly highlighting and focusing on comments about women and girls in the audience. It's not going to be close to passing until that's sorted out.
 * positive-to-mixed reviews - is it not usually mixed-to-positive?
 * Further on this, the reviews quoted from are weighted to the positive, with the entire first paragraph being entirely positive (including some relatively banal, seeming forced)
 * The only real negative review, also from the most reputable and large scale outlet, is left till last.
 * Wikivoice is used in a few places (e.g. Mars' infectious energy led the crowd to sing along with him) where it is outright praising Mars. This article seems to contain clear POV promoting Mars
 * Fail

Stability

 * History looks fine
 * Pass

Verifiability

 * The source for Kenji Chan as lead guitar is from Kenji Chan's tumblr blog... WP:SPS
 * Other sources seem fine
 * I'm presuming all the management and production personnel that aren't cited inline come under the three sources at the top of the section?
 * There's only one citation in the Sound equipment section, at the end - is that right?
 * Some sourcing issues with This strategy meant lower earnings in the short term but allowed Mars to build a fan base by performing shows at smaller, more intimate venues. This enabled him to launch his follow-up tour, The Moonshine Jungle Tour, in which he performed as a solo act in arenas around the world - Forbes' tone for the short-term lower earnings and whether it enabled the next tour is one of maybe and could have, not a certainty. It also does not connect the fans and smaller venues to this tour. I also don't know why there are three sources attached when only one of them ("From Cereal To Super Bowl: The Evolution of Bruno Mars") has this info.
 * Fail

Copyright

 * Check looks alright
 * Fair use concert poster in infobox, other images free and licensed
 * Pass

Overall

 * Symbol oppose vote.svg As with the conclusion of the other GAR (which suggested "renominate eventually", not 'the next day'), there are too many issues to resolve in the span of a review. This article should see significant improvement before being nominated again. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything you pointed out I could have easily fixed in a week or less. Like I said to the preivous reviewer, I disagreed with his review. I'm going to adress what you pointed out and nominate it again. Doesn't matter one, 2 or three days, that's not a valid reason to fail an article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)