Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blond Ambition World Tour/archive1

Blond Ambition World Tour

 * Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Madonna's third concert tour, the Blond Ambition World Tour of 1990. A highly influential and emblematic tour, it has left its mark on the work of multiple modern-day artists. I believe it deserves to be recognized as one of Wikipedia's featured articles. Christian (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "Development" and "Legacy" sections are longer than optimum readability. Maybe split into subsections? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass
 * File:J P G på ArtDes 2013 6 (cropped2).jpg the corsets would be copyrighted, no?
 * File:BAT Rome Flaminio.jpg appears to be copyvio based on this website, claiming copyright on it:
 * Other images look OK for licensing
 * I have nominated the stage picture for Speedydelete (as much as it pains me). Do you suggest I also remove the corsets one ? --Christian (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it shows a copyrighted underlying work as its main element. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All set ! How does it look now? --Christian (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review: Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review

 * I would consider archived URLs for websites important for an FA.
 * Are you doing sentence case or title case? No all-caps either (fn 21, etc.). (be consistent)
 * Some works are linked on every occurrence in citations while others only the first time? (be consistent)
 * Fn 9 is missing page number, publication-place, agency, and via=Google News Archive
 * Same as above for fn 12
 * NYTimes, LATimes url-access=limited
 * Fn 44 missing page number
 * Fn 49 url didn't work for me
 * fn 50 page number and publisher (latter should be agency in italics, I believe) are incorrect, missing place, needs publication-place and via
 * fn 51 author-link is possible; check for others
 * fn 52 link didn't work for me
 * fn 53 missing agency, page number, possibly via (I don't think via is required for books from Google Books, maybe other people could comment for newspapers/clarify)
 * fn 54 missing agency (current work should be agency), place,, the work, page number
 * fn 59, 60 urls didn't work for me
 * fn 61 says the source was the evening version of the newspaper; change work to The Baltimore Evening Sun
 * fn 62 url=access=limited; the title has a typo, also missing the place
 * fn 68 missing agency, place, publication-place, page number
 * fn 72 missing place, via
 * fn 73 missing place, publication-place, agency, page number
 * fn 78 missing place, via
 * fn 79 missing place, via
 * fn 87 format parameter being used for date?
 * Fn 93 agency=The Canadian Press, it is not the Toronto Sun's work.
 * fn 98 missing place
 * Fn 114, uDiscoverMusic, is owned by Universal Music Group, which owns Interscope Records, who Madonna was signed to in 2017 when the article was published. Despite any potential author credentials, I don't think this can be used as there is a clear conflict of interest (it is also used for a quote box).
 * fn 119 url didn't work for me
 * Are there no secondary sources for the tour dates?
 * fn 133, 135 missing via
 * fn 136 HighBeam is via, not the publisher
 * fn 137 url didn't work for me

Why do you consider these sources "high-quality"?
 * http://harada-sound.com/sound/handbook/rfmics.html
 * https://www.idolator.com/7908725/madonna-uploads-live-performance-of-vogue-from-blond-ambition-tour
 * Thakur 2012

There is a bit of work to do... also this is not a requirement but seeing nothing from ProQuest or Newspapers.com has been consulted, are you still confident the article is "well-researched" per the criteria? There may be more from the time period in those databases that could enhance the article. I haven't done any spot checks yet. Heartfox (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * fn 132 is dead
 * currently the tour dates refs only link to the dates and cities, but not the venues or opening act.
 * fn 73 cites "low ticket sales and a threatened general strike by labour unions", yet only the strike is given in the text... Also how do we know the second performance was to be on July 10?
 * I could not find a June 22 date in fn 136–138
 * the set list refs both show "Live to Tell" and "Oh Father" separately, but they are combined in the article?
 * in the references at the end of Gnowjewski she cites at least two Wikipedia articles (from 2005–2006 at that...) and some Madonna fan sites (among some good stuff, but is something citing a 2005 Wikipedia article high-quality?).
 * "complete control over virtually every aspect of the tour" — the quote ends at "aspect" in the book.
 * fn 9 says the video debuted on March 3 on MTV, but in the article it is the day after February 12?

do you think I should continue? This is the first source review I have ever done. Maybe a peer review where others could help out more casually? I'm not opposed to continuing the review I'm just wondering what the best path forward is. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Recusing to comment here. I think that this is sufficiently far from what one would expect of sourcing for a FAC that the best thing would be for the nominator to work on it off-FAC with a view to resubmitting once it has attracted rather more attention at PR, and possibly a mentor., does anyone spring to mind? , can I suggest that you withdraw this nomination, work through the sources, now that Heartfox has done sterling work in flagging up some of their weaknesses and hopefully given you a clearer idea of what is expected at FAC. It would be helpful if you could attract more detailed advice on the rest of the article via PR - Sandy may be able to help there - and follow the advice at the head of the FAC page "Editors considering their first nomination ... are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." If not, it is possible that my fellow coordinators will consider that it falls under "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Big thanks to Heartfox for getting right on the source review, and thanks Gog the Mild for the ping. Chrishm21, there is a lot to be worked on here. I agree the article isn't FAC-ready yet, and the nomination would be best withdrawn. I want to reassure you that you are likely to find the work towards bringing this article to standard to be more relaxing and productive at this stage if you list it at WP:PR and add it to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to attract more reviewers. Finding mentors is harder and harder, as so many reviewers are stretched too thin, and no one mentor in particular comes to mind. But at peer review, there is less pressure, so if you are prepared to be patient, quite a few reviewers will pop in over time and lend a hand, and you end up with, effectively, a team of mentors. When a nomination is difficult, people can be reluctant to engage at FAC because they are then obligated to come back quickly to review and re-review and re-review to strike done commentary and not hold up the FAC. Because that pressure does not exist at PR, and people can offer as much or as little as they have time for, you are likely to attract more reviewers there, and maybe even a mentor. Besides the citation errors and sourcing problems, I would examine also the amount of quoting. My best advice is to clean up as much of the sourcing as you can, and then open a peer review. Hope to see you at PR! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- I would go with the above advice and take to PR after addressing the points raised by Heartfox, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)