Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zoo TV Tour/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:13, 1 May 2011.

Zoo TV Tour

 * Nominator(s): Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe the article, after much work by the WikiProject U2, meets the Featured Article criteria. The article is about one of the most well-covered and documented tours in popular music. The tour represents part of U2's reinvention in the 1990s, something I consider an extremely interesting subject, and the article focuses on the band during one of their peaks in commercial popularity. I believe the article is comprehensive, well organized, and well written in covering such a detailed topic. It would make a suitable companion to the Achtung Baby article that reached FA status last year. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Source comments - preliminary, I'll likely add more later
 * Newspaper and magazine citations that don't include weblinks should include page numbers
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers/magazines
 * Ref 24 and similar: what type of source is this?
 * Ref 60: page(s)?
 * What makes this a reliable source? This? This?
 * Retrieval dates are not required for courtesy links to print-based sources, but if you want to include them you must be consistent in doing so
 * In general, reference formatting needs to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Page numbers aren't available for every magazine/newspaper article. Many of the articles were obtained from a U2 fan site that reprints the articles without page numbers. Aside from their availability from this fan site (which may or not pose copyright issues if cited in the article), I'm willing to bet many of the publications have been out of print for so long that no archival system would have the articles or their page numbers referenced.
 * Isn't the policy that a publisher should be provided for lesser-known publications? That was my impression. Are there any newspapers/magazines you would consider lesser-known that need the publishers added?
 * Ref 24 and similar references are short documentaries that appear as bonus features on the Zoo TV: Live from Sydney DVD (see that entry in the Bibliography)
 * Ref 60 - there's no specific page that needs to be cited, the reference is merely to the book as a whole to point out it exists as a record of BP Fallon's time on Zoo TV.
 * U2Wanderer and Men-Access have been removed. Our project has always thought U2Gigs to be reliable - U2 themselves ascertained the validity of the website by citing it in the liner notes of the Dutch version of their 2009 album No Line on the Horizon.
 * Retrieval dates should have been added to every reference with a external link.
 * That's it for now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

More sourcing stuff:
 * Why no page numbers for Fallon?
 * Most of the articles without page numbers are from the 1990s and early 2000s, so I'm reasonably sure that page numbers are obtainable. For example, page number for Dalton 2004 is 52.
 * Be consistent in how you notate multiple authors and how you punctuate editors
 * I'm not American, so to me a lot of these publications are "lesser-known". Keep in mind you've got an international audience here. That being said, I would prefer that formatting be consistent rather than giving every possible piece of information.
 * Is there a way to make the DVD references clearer?
 * Do you have a wiki discussion link for U2Gigs? FAC or RSN would be best, although in-project discussion might work
 * Volume/issue number for ref 137 and similar? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My responses to the above:
 * As I mentioned above, the Fallon reference is not to any part of his book, but rather to the book as a whole, just to indicate that the book exists as a record of Fallon's time on the Zoo TV Tour.
 * Where'd you get the page number for the Dalton reference? I've tried to get all the page numbers possible, and have been limited by the fact that I don't have access to any archival systems that would have this information. I'll have to ask fellow members of the U2 WikiProject if they can assist. If the page numbers cannot be obtained, would it be acceptable to remove them from all the references for the sake of consistency?
 * Consistent author/editor formatting should be addressed now.
 * I've added publishers where applicable - please let me know if this is satisfactory.
 * I've added "(DVD documentary)" in between the name of the documentary and the name of the DVD.
 * A past discussion from the 1st FAC to No Line on the Horizon might help explain why we believe U2Gigs to be reliable.
 * I don't have a volume/issue number for that article, and anything else that is missing an issue/volume number is something I could not obtain without access to some archival database. As I mentioned, I'm asking that other members of the U2 WikiProject that may be able to access a database to assist.
 * That's it for now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just Googled the reference to get the page number; you can try that for a few of them, see how far you can get. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what keywords you used to search to get the page number for Dalton, as I was unable to do it. In any case, I got some information back from fellow U2 WikiProject members that I've added to the article. For a few articles, the archived versions provided the start page and the amount of pages in the article, but that doesn't get me to the range, as magazines frequently complete their stories later in the publications or can have advertisements interrupting the article. In those situations, is it OK, if I just indicate the page numbers as, for example, "40+", to indicate the article starts on page 40 and features multiple pages after that? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that might work if you really can't find the correct page ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added all page number information that was available from the archives that Dream out loud could access. Some of the archived articles didn't have any information about pages, unfortunately, while most other articles/publications were not available in said archive. I don't know that we'll get page numbers for everything, which leads me to think it might be better for consistency if we remove them altogether. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Further sources comment: I have been asked to look at the sources to see if any further work is necessary on this aspect. The sources and citations generally look in good order, and I think that Nikkimaria's main concerns have been addressed. Just a couple of points:
 * Page numbers: I think the concern is where page numbers are not shown for journal or newspaper articles where there is no online link, not otherwise. For example, ref 25 is to a Melody Maker article from 1998. There is no online link; presumably you have read this article in hard copy form and should therefore have its page number. Likewise ref 26 (Hot Press) and a few others such as 163.
 * Fallon: I understand that it is the existence rather than the content of this book that is being cited, but that is not immediately obvious. To get round this I reccommend replacing the short citation "Fallon 2004" with the full bibliographical entry. Incidentally, it is usual to give an author's initials as "B.P." rather than "BP".

Other than on these minor issues, I believe that sources criteria are satisfied. This article has been on the FAC page for a month now and has attracted two supports, no opposes at present. The nominator has it seems made every effort to respond to reviewers' concerns. I would request that the delegates give me a couple of days – no more – before closure, for a detailed reading so that I can make a declaration one way or the other. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I've made a little headway with your concerns. The Fallon reference has been changed as you suggested - I've kept his first name BP, since that is how I've always seen it written (particularly checking Google) and that's how his Wikipedia article is formatted. Some of the articles have paid-for versions of the articles online (e.g. Hot Press, Details) so I've linked to them, making them web citations essentially. Some of the articles I couldn't find print information for have been removed, as they were backup citations used to reinforce a point but where other sources were available. There is still some a handful of works that I can't locate page numbers for because the only versions I have available to me are the texts archived on a U2 fan site, and there are copyvio concerns with linking to these archives (e.g. Propaganda, Q). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * General Comment. While the article is quite good and very detailed, I'm unsure if the subject matter lends itself to FAC's 'completeness' idea without getting pretty far off the topic of the tour and into the bands development before (during the recording of Auchtung, Baby) and after/unrelated cotemporanious time.  If others feel the article meets the technical criteria, I certainly do not oppose FA. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked back and every paragraph in the "Conception" section is about the artistic gestation of the tour. Yes, this happened during some of the same times that the album was being recorded, but they were two different if parallel artistic processes.  As for the "Impact and legacy" section, I think it's important to indicate  the personal effect that this massive undertaking had on the band, and also the artistic echoes from the tour that persisted for a number of years.  (However I do think the paragraph about the PopMart Tour could be removed ... other later U2 tours were compared to Zoo TV as well, and every U2 member probably has a different favorite one; I'm not sure why PopMart gets special attention here.)   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support. I think this is a decent article as it stands, but given that Zoo TV is one of the most creative/written about/'important' concert tours of all time, some things should be addressed before it achieves FA status:
 * Some lesser-known links need to be repeated later in the article when they occur again, per WP:REPEATLINK. No one should have to hunt several sections backwards in the article to find the link for Mark Pellington, David Wojnarowicz, or Steel Wheels Tour, for example.  On the other hand, common (in this context) names such as Bono and the Edge only need to be linked once.
 * The presence of several Zoo TV characters (such as MacPhisto) and scenes in the 1995 "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" video needs to be restored to the article. Per Cogan pp 192–193, this was a key, lasting indication that crystallized the importance of Zoo TV.
 * U2's Vertigo Tour homage to (or reprise of) Zoo TV needs to be restored to the Legacy section, where it was for a long time. Again, this aptly illustrates the lasting effect of Zoo TV's imaging of some of the Achtung Baby songs.
 * The episode where a fan climbed onstage in order to philosophically question MacPhisto and Bono announced to the audience that the situation was straight out of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters needs to be restored to the article. As sourced by Scharen p. 197, this illustrates some of the literary themes running through the tour.  The episode was previous removed by an editor who said "What are the Screwtape Letters?", but in fact this work is not obscure and a theatrical adaptation just had a nine-month run on Broadway.
 * One of the things lost in the article is the distinction of what Bono and the group members were saying at the time of the tour about their fame and adopted personas and so forth versus what they have said in retrospect. Bono's Zoo Radio reference to himself as "licensed to be an egomaniac" should be restored to the article as well as his USA Today interview quote as the tour began that unlike the U2 of the 1980s, he had no intention of resisting the overload of fame on the Zoo TV Tour: "Oh, but it's fun to be carried away by the hype. Where would you be without the hype?... You can't pretend all the promotion and all the fanfare is not happening."  In other words, it's important to convey that in the publicity accompanying the tour, in addition to the show itself, the band were explicitly reversing their audiences' previous conceptions of them.
 * I think Bono's on-stage statement about U2's debt to Lou Reed (something like "Every U2 song is a rip-off of Lou Reed") needs to be restored to the article. The point is that the inclusion of "Satellite of Love" was more meaningful to the band than just a clever allusion to the TV theme.
 * I think the importance of the tour's presentation to "One"'s increasing popularity at the time needs to be brought out better, although I don't have a ready-made source or text for this.
 * The statement "During the first week of the tour, media outlets reported that the words shown included "Bomb Japan Now", which the band denied.[68]" is kind of unsatisfying and jarring to the flow of that paragraph. Was it there or not?  If no one knows for sure, so be it, but maybe the sentence should be in parentheses.
 * This is an unattributed quote: "... while others misinterpreted the tour's mocking excess, thinking "that U2 had 'lost it' and that Bono had become an egomaniac" ". The article used to say that this was VH1's Legends series' assessment of fan reaction.  Why was the attribution removed?
 * The last sentence in the lead, "Critics have called it one of the most memorable tours in rock history.", is too limiting. It's not just critics who think this.  The topic sentence in the Legacy section is better: "The Zoo TV Tour is regarded as one of the most memorable tours in rock history."  I think one or two of the quotes that follow that should be duplicated into the lead as well, to give substance to the statement.
 * I'd give some thought to bolding "Outside Broadcast", "Zooropa", and "Zoomerang/New Zooland" in the lead, as alternate names for the tour (see the prominence of the name in the infobox poster, for example) and I think some of them are redirect targets.

There are some other aspects of the article that I wish were a little different, but the ones above are the most important. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your concerns:
 * Underlinking for some subjects fixed.
 * "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me" video concern resolved.
 * The Zoo TV reprise on the Vertigo Tour was something that was in the article for a while, but I could never find any reference that explicitly mentioned the segment of the shows as being a homage to Zoo TV. I don't know that it is essential, though, because many of the songs from the Zoo TV era have maintained similar live presentations throughout their live history and not just on the Vertigo Tour.
 * I've mentioned the Screwtape Letters comparison Bono makes in the "MacPhisto" section, although with a bit of different wording and using Flanagan as the reference.
 * "egomaniac" quote added to "The Fly" section, "hype" quote added to the "Fan reaction" section.
 * Lou Reed details added.
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at for the supposed relationship between "One" and Zoo TV - until a reference is found for what you're saying, I can't see it being added.
 * "Bomb Japan Now" statement clarified.
 * VH1 Legends quote attributed.
 * "most memorable" statement in lead fixed.
 * Leg names bolded.
 * Let me know if there is anything that didn't address your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for these additions. I've made a few changes related to them in the article as you have seen.  Will see what I can come up regarding for the Vertigo Tour reprise and "One".  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI I've scanned in four more of my photos from the Veterans Stadium show. File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium Preshow.jpg shows the stage before the show, although I kind of like the atmospherics of the Lisbon one you put in better.  File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic c.jpg (not sure which song) and File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic d.jpg ("One" I think) are from early in the show and File:Zoo TV Tour 1992-09-03 Veterans Stadium pic f.jpg ("Streets") is from late in the show.  I added one of them to the article but see what you think about which ones if any should be used.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "One", it was released as a single at the same time the tour began, and I believe the tour helped "One" shift from being perceived as an attractive but somewhat bitter, melanchony ballad to also being seen as an anthem and taking on the additional meanings and connotations it has today (the ONE campaign, etc). If you look at early videos from the tour or at the photo I put up, you can see a few fans with lighters on during the song; if you look at the Sydney video near the end of the tour, they are everywhere (and now mobile phones in tours hence). Part of this evolution was just the growing impact of the song, but I think part was also the effectiveness of the tour's visual/emotional/musical/communal presentation of the song (the words, the video, the stills, the association with David Wojnarowicz who died during the tour, the popular "Hear Us Coming" coda emerging midway through the tour, etc). "One" is one of the most popular songs ever and I think this article should try to say a little more about its role during the tour.  Unfortunately I haven't found much in the way of sources yet to support these points ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I still haven't found what I'm looking for, so to speak (fan sites talk about "Hear Us Coming" a lot, but professional writers seem oblivious to it), so my "One" comment is best put aside for another time. I see you're agreeable to a couple of the photos, and all my other concerns have been resolved, so I am now supporting this article for FA status.  If ever a concert tour merited an FA-level treatment, it is Zoo TV.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your efforts (and the photos, too!). It is great to see you contributing again after the disagreements we had a while back. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments Why the references in the lead? Review for overlinking: arenas, stadiums, radio shows, mass media, cable television, crank calls, pop culture, highways throughout the article. The Leg 4 table: overlinking of band names.—indopug (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * References in the lead were removed (they had been there for potentially contentious statements). Everything you mentioned for overlinking, aside from crank calls (which I thought was a relevant link to have and might not be familiar to all) was removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:U2ZooTVTour.jpg is missing copyright information
 * US does not have freedom of panorama for 3D works, so the painted cars are not correctly licensed and may have to be removed
 * File:U2_at_Cardiff_Arms_Park.jpg is missing copyright information, and a ticket is not a poster. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The ticket and poster images have had the copyright/free-use rationales tweaked, so please check again if you will. As for the image of the Trabants from the Rock and Roll HOF, I didn't think there was an issue with this, as it passed review during the 2nd Achtung Baby FAC. The US view on freedom of panorama excludes artwork in public places, but the Trabants served a functional purpose on the tour, as they were part of the stage's lighting system, so that elevates them above mere art. Also, can the painters really claim that by painting the cars, they have manipulated them enough to own copyrights over the cars' depictions, when without the paint jobs, the cars are likely fair game for being photographed? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. Copyright may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed the image of the Trabant taken in the US. In its place, I'm now using the Trabant image that was taken in Germany, where there is freedom of panorama. Can you please recheck the other 2 images you mentioned, as well as the others yet to be reviewed? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 12:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:U2_at_Cardiff_Arms_Park.jpg is still missing copyright information; other images now seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please check the ticket image again, I've expanded the "source" section of the non-free rationale. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better to identify the "publisher" in this case, but what you've done is acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know who the publisher is - I would assume that to be Four5One Creative, since they have handled almost all aspects of the group's graphic design, but I can't be certain about this particular work. Are all the free works not alreadt mentioned acceptable? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, other images now seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I reviewed this article for GA and found it a very satisfying read. I since went into retirement on wikipedia, but promised I would contribute to the FA review when it got nominated. The prose has been tightened since I last read the article, especially in the lead, and more pics and refs have been added. Well done.  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  10:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider providing unit conversions. For example, '100-foot' needs a metric value. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the example you're providing was the only sentence that was missing unit conversions (excluding monetary values). I've fixed it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

General comments: I have read through the article, and feel that it is close to meeting the FA criteria. I would however welcome responses to the following (and to a couple of sources issues noted above):-
 * Lead
 * Bolding should not be used for emphasis beyond the opening sentence
 * "Differing from..." would read better as "In contrast with..." In general, sentences should not begin with "...ing" forms.
 * The plural of "persona" is "personae". See section heading also.
 * Direct quotations in the lead need citation.
 * Background
 * "the target of derision" → "a target for derision"
 * Reference to "The project" is inspecific
 * Concept
 * Who is "Rene Castro"?
 * Stage design
 * The link on Philips is not helpful if it doesn't explain what a "Vidiwall" is.
 * "worth US$3.5 million" - do you mean "costing" rather than "worth"?
 * Is there a link to explain "short tons"? To what does the "t" in "(1,089 t)" refer?
 * Planning etc
 * What is "scalping" in this context?
 * Second paragraph: A para break is required at "In Europe..." to reflect a change of continent
 * "By the time Outside Broadcast began, Achtung Baby had sold four million copies in the US". This seems like an odd intrusion in the text at this point.
 * Show overwiew
 * It should be made explicit that Leni Riefenstahl's works are films
 * Sarajevo satellite link-ups
 * "U2 stopped the broadcasts in August 1993 after learning that the Siege of Sarajevo was being reported on the front of many British newspapers". Why the capitals, unless "Siege of Sarajevo" is placed in quotes? Apart from that, the logic of the sentence rather escapes me.
 * "During a transmission from the band's concert at Wembley Stadium, three women in Sarajevo told Bono..." How did they communicate with him?
 * Bono's stage personas (personae)
 * "alter ego" is not hyphenated
 * Recording and release of Zooropa
 * Just a comment: I'm a bit surprised by the references to "EP" and "LP" in 1993; I thought we were well into the CD age by then.
 * "an even greater departure in style from their earlier recordings..." requires a comparison - even greater departure than...?
 * Critical response
 * What does "setlist" mean?
 * The string of citations after "Many critics described the tour as 'post-modern'" is unnecessary. A couple, or perhaps three, examples will suffice, and they should be bundled into a single reference.
 * Commercial performance
 * The statistical information is a bit haphazard and irregular, e.g. exact ticket sales for the opening leg but thereafter, broad rounded figures. No revenue figures for non-American legs. No real information about the overall profitability of the tour beyond generalisations. Don't album sales etc count towards the tour's revenues?
 * Impact and legacy
 * I found the first paragraph a bit odd. This business relating to the Pixies (who have not been mentioned prior to this) seems very much a side issue relevant to the tour as a whole, and I am a bit surprised to see it heading up the Legacy section.
 * The linked reference to "that film" is a bit awkward; rephrasing might bring greater clarity.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead section issues should all be addressed. Was the direct quote attribution you were referring to the Q magazine quote?
 * Yes. The Doyle quote should be cited, or paraphrased Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Concept" and "Stage design" issues all addressed.
 * "Planning" issues should mostly be addressed - I've kept the note about album sales but moved them further down in the paragraph. It is there to indicate that Achtung Baby sold a million copies between the start of their American legs of the tour (3 million in sales at start of 1st US leg, 4 million in sales at start of 2nd US leg).
 * Fair enough Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Show overview" issue should be addressed.
 * "Sarajevo" section - I had capitalized Siege of Sarajevo because that is how it appeared in the lead sentence of its article. I've decapitalized it now. As for the logic of the sentence of their stopping the transmissions, that is what the group believed, so I'm inclined to retain the sentence as is. I also don't think the sentence about the 3 women communicating to Bono through the Sarajevo transmission needs to be changed - I've reread the sentence and I think it's clear from that sentence, as well as the previous statements in the section, that the Bill Carter had Bosnians appear on video through satellite transmission to speak at the U2 concerts.
 * The Bill Carter linkups are mentioned some way previously, and I think the "three women" sentence would be clearer if it read: "...three women in Sarajevo told Bono via the sattelite link..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bono's stage personae" issue should be addressed
 * There's still a "personas" in the first line of the "stage personae" section.
 * Should be fixed now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Zooropa" section - the "greater departure" sentence has been clarified. The LP and EP descriptions, as far as I know, are not referring to the physical format of the release, but rather the length, even if they traditionally have been associated with the vinyl record.
 * "Critical response" - setlist has been wikilinked. As for the references for post-modern, 2 of them have been removed. As it stands, there are 3 separate references, but I think that's the way to go, since the first 2 are re-uses of those references from earlier.
 * "Commercial performance" - I realize that these facts seem random, but to be honest, these are the only ones relating to the tour's commercial performance that I've ever seen. I've never seen official figures on the entire tour's profitability been released. The only monetary figures I've seen were for the 1992 US legs, when they were the top-touring act in the country. I also don't think I've ever seen album sales taken into account for a tour's profitability - most figures for a tour are gross ticket sales, as you can't really compare different tours' profitability if you take album sales into account, since you need to ask the question, "which of an artists' releases would you include in profitability figures?" and every group has different release strategies while touring.
 * Well OK, but could "70-plus" be made exact? I have copyedited around the paragraph to try to give it a bit more cohesion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually altered what the ref said about the quantity of shows - it says "73 shows", but in reality, U2 played 79 North American shows that year, counting 5 Canadian shows, 4 Mexican shows, and a public rehearsal before the official leg-opener. Perhaps the 73 figure includes the Mexican shows, but not the Canadian ones or the public rehearsal. I was unsure how to word the sentence to account for this, so I decided to make the figure less precise. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Impact and legacy" - I've simplified the Batman Forever wikilink and moved the Pixies paragraph further down. I'll see if there's somewhere else in the article I can mention the Pixies.
 * That's it for now. I'll respond to the source issues later. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 21:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick follow up: I've seen unverified global gross figures of anywhere between $151-200 million, but officially, these figures haven't been released by a reliable source, as Amusement Business did not collect/report international numbers prior to 1995, just North America. There's an ad in Billboard that U2/Paul McGuinness had printed that says $200 million. There's a U2 book I don't own that says $155 million. I'm inclined not to put either figure in the article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that if the sources cannot be considered reliable, the information shouldn't be used. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: There are a few minor outstanding issues per above, but in general I am satisfied with your responses to my concerns. I find the article generally impressive and worthy of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article uses dd/mm/yyyy format while the retrieval dates for sources uses yyyy/mm/dd. — GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, the yyyy-mm-dd format is used within references not just for retrieval dates, but for the publication dates, as well. Second, can you please show me a Wikipedia policy that states the prose and references need consistent date formats? As far as I know, it's entirely acceptable for the prose to follow one consistent date format and for references to follow another. If you see Template:Cite, it says to use a consistent style within references, but nothing about the entire article, and it also says the yyyy-mm-dd format is fine. Yet, if you look at Manual of Style (dates and numbers), that date format is not recommended for prose. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "If you see Template:Cite, it says to use a consistent style within references, but nothing about the entire article ... " See WP:STRONGNAT, which states; "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation." — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and since U2 is from Europe, the 1 Jan 2000 date format is used in prose. As far as I can tell though, there isn't a need to apply that same chosen format from the prose to the references. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Comment  - reading through now and copyediting as I go (will explain in edit summaries). Please revert if I inadevertently guff the meaning. Queries below..(NB:Personal interest - I was at the Sydney concert :)) .Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * lede looks ok, I am wondering whether some adjectives can be pruned - e.g. " Although the tour provoked a wide range of reactions from music critics" (is "wide" necessary?)


 *  The band's apparent embracing of such technology - why not just "embrace"? sounds more natural to me.


 *  Fan reactions were not easily gauged by the group... - hmm, you can't gauge beforehand. I think the verb "predict" is better, or something like "The group and the music industry were unsure how fans would receive the tour beforehand"?


 *  Clayton quit drinking and sought sobriety - tautological, can just say "Clayton quit drinking altogether"

Otherwise good effort. Can't see any other issues prose and comprehensiveness-wise. Looking forward to supporting once minor quibbles addressed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All these issues should be addressed. I've done additional tweaking to the lead, so if you could weigh in on those changes, as well, I'd appreciate it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Is there a simpler word than "unequivocal" for the opening?
 * Oceania ... it's Australasia unless Pacific Islands and Papua NG were involved. The infobox links "America" to "AmericaS", which is north and south America. But it was North America only, it seems from the table below. Is there a need to link any of those geographical items in the infobox? And in the table, Japan is listed as part of Oceania.
 * "inside of / outside of"—please remove the redundant word. Tony   (talk)  09:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All these issues should be addressed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "she felt that". I think that should be 'she [thought/wrote/said] that''.
 * It says "1,200 short tons (1,089 tonnes) of equipment, 3 miles (4.8 km)". Precision is part art and part science, in this case I'd suggest matching significant figures to make it '1,200 short tons (1,100 t) of equipment, 3 miles (5 km)'.
 * It says "one million watts" with a link to watt. The article already has lots of links, I think the link to watt is probably unnecessary.
 * It says "he played records from inside of a Trabant". The term 'records' appears to suggest that he actually played vinyl discs, if that's the intended meaning then it's remarkable. If he simply played music using other media, perhaps it needs rewording. I think it should be 'inside a Trabant' rather than 'inside of a Trabant'.
 * These issues should mostly be addressed. I see your point about significant figures, but I thought it was more important for encyclopedic purposes to give the exact measurements (or at least what the Convert gives), rather than approximations. Is there a policy on what kind of precision we should follow in articles? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.