Talk:The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour/GA2

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Overview
Prose: See below Resolved

Sourcing: See below Resolved

Coverage: See below Resolved

Neutrality: See below Resolved

Stability: No issues

GA Result: On hold for seven days Passed

Details

 * Lead
 * "Announced in February 2013 with initial dates in Europe and North America, the tour comprised six legs and 132 shows commencing in Belgrade, Serbia on April 15, 2013 and concluding in Lisbon, Portugal on March 27, 2014"..... quite a mouthful, let's keep it simple with something like "The tour contained six legs and 132 shows. It began in Belgrade, Serbia on April 15, 2013, and concluded in Lisbon, Portugal on March 27, 2014."
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "later in 2014 when her self-titled fifth studio album was released the show was revamped and many new songs from that album were performed"..... this phrasing suggests that the Beyoncé album was released in 2014", so let's try "after the release of her self-titled fifth studio album, the 2014 shows were changed to incorporate tracks from the album"
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Background
 * I tweaked with the dates a bit, and some bits really only needed one ref
 * "The tour and its name, The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour, which is a reference to Beyoncé's marriage with Shawn 'Jay-Z' Carter, were announced following her performance at the Super Bowl XLVII halftime show on February 3"..... I'd go with something like "Beyoncé's announced the tour and its name during the Super Bowl XLVII halftime show on February 3. The tour's title refers to her marriage with Shawn 'Jay-Z' Carter."
 * ✅ although it was announced after, not during the performance Lolcakes25 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wise fix SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Beyoncé, a successful and influential female, agreed"..... "successful and influential" in this instance seem POV, so I'd remove that bit
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove "magazine" from "During an interview with Vogue magazine"
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Development
 * "The singer's aristocratic look in the video received comparisons with Marie Antoinette, Queen Elizabeth I, and Lady Gaga" → "Critics compared her aristocratic look in the video to Marie Antoinette, Queen Elizabeth I, and Lady Gaga"
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "The ban was due to the unflattering pictures"..... how about more detail?
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant detail on what the "unflattering pictures" consisted of SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source stated 'showing her "jubilant exertions"..' during the halftime performance so I added that. I don't think going into extensive detail on the pictures is extremely necessary Lolcakes25 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Better now SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "it was announced by Beyoncé's publicist"..... give the publicist's name if known
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Commercial performance
 * "The tour is Beyoncé's highest grossing to date, and one of the highest grossing tours of all time" needs to be sourced
 * ✅ – Removed the "one of the highest grossing tours of all time" part as there is not an explicit source that states this (despite it being #20 in the linked wiki page). Added source which stated one of the highest grossing tours of the decade and Wiki linked as such Lolcakes25 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Set list
 * The "notes" aren't really needed, and the second note is tagged as needing a citation, may as well scrap it all
 * ❌ – removed the citation needed bullet point, however this is notable information including the first performance of brand new songs and never performed songs before, as well as guest performers Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, at least it is all cited SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Without any supporting citations within article body, this bit is essentially WP:OR
 * ✅ – removed. Lolcakes25 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Shows
 * The "additional notes" really seem trivial, especially the one about a fan's actions during "Irreplaceable", scrap them
 * ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * References
 * I removed some dead refs, but still have concerns:
 * Metro is not a reliable source - ✅ Removed
 * New York Post is not very reliable - ❌ It is only used in critical commentary.
 * I realize that, but it's not exactly a trustable source SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed
 * I'm skeptical about Life & Style - ✅ Removed
 * For "a source confirmed to Us Weekly", try to find a ref that more explicitly states the name of who said tickets were sold at low prices - The ones I found here and here both state Us Weekly as a source. Should I remove it?
 * Sorry, I meant find a more specific name than an anonymous "source". SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've checked and a name simply isn't given, I can either remove it completely or just reword it to "US Weekly reported..." etc. depending on what is best for GA? Lolcakes25 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Best to remove. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC) – ✅ Removed Lolcakes25 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since most refs don't use publishers, may as well remove all publishers for consistency sake - ✅ Removed
 * Try to replace New York Daily News - ❌ It is used in Diamonds (Rihanna song), an FA.
 * My main concern is how, as Forbes describes it, they're known for engaging in "tabloid wars" with New York Post, though I will grant that New York Daily News is definitely much more reliable than New York Post
 * I can definitely find other sources and replace it, but I think that since we are discussing about a GA it can be kept. It is also used in various FAs. My love is love (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Other sources would be better. I know that some editors wouldn't approve of it in FAC and get really nitpicky. It's certainly better than things like Perez Hilton or Daily Mail, but isn't like The Washington Post or CBS News either. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Replaced My love is love (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I feel about Birmingham Mail - ❌
 * Any particular reason? It doesn't seem very credible..... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC) - ✅ Replaced
 * Feeling doubtful about Evening Standard - ✅ Removed
 * How exactly is "Fashion Bomb Daily" a professional source? - ✅ Removed
 * OK! magazine is not reliable – I can't confidently say which is reliable enough to include, which would be the best out of this, this, this or this, if any? Lolcakes25 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm..... probably "Styleblazer" or "Enstarz" out of those links. If you do find one better than any of those, by all means feel free to add it. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC) – ✅ – replaced OK! with Enstarz Lolcakes25 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sun is not reliable – ✅ – Source was used 4 times; two times had another reference to back up, the other two times solely relying on The Sun removed. Lolcakes25 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Idolator should not be italicized – ✅ Lolcakes25 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

OK you two have done splendid work, just have one last thing- remove/replace Manchester Evening News with a better source. I'll pass the GAN as soon as that's taken care of. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Replaced My love is love (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, GA! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)