Talk:The Sun Comes Out World Tour/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hmlarson (talk · contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have begun the review and will be posting feedback below. As issues are addressed, please add a note to the relevant item below. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

General

 * Overall, this article is very well-written and thorough. I have just a few suggestions below based on my initial review.
 * Thanks! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead

 * Please remove both commas surrounding "on 3 May 2010"
 * --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikify city names, Pop Festival
 * I have wikilinked the cities, but Pop Festival doesn't seem to have any particular article on Wikipedia. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Background

 * Wikify any initial uses of city names
 * ✅ --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Concert synopsis

 * Can a more reliable source be used for these?
 * "Isabel Betancourt from TheCelebrityCafe.com felt that the "acoustic" segment of the concert show had a "more Spanish, romantic feel".[24]"
 * "The alternative rock song "Sale el Sol" was sung with the motive to be "offered to her audience as uplifting words to remember during difficult times", according to Isabel Betancourt from TheCelebrityCafe.com.[24] "
 * I have made some tweaks. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical response

 * Please modify first sentence to: "The tour received numerous positive reviews from critics."
 * ✅ --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Commercial reception

 * Please remove first sentence unless there is an official benchmark for what a commercial success is. Clearly ranking #4 is hard to beat, but I think the first sentence is not necessary. Hmlarson (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, I think it's best we state only facts. Hence --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Review checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Excellent, well-written article. I have a few suggestions listed above; but overall, very well done.
 * Thank you! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well done; few adjustments noted in feedback.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Verified and good use of images and captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have addressed the comments! Thank you for the review and taking it out of the backlog! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! I've checked the edits and all looks good. Hmlarson (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the comments! Thank you for the review and taking it out of the backlog! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! I've checked the edits and all looks good. Hmlarson (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)