Wikipedia:Peer review/Super Bowl XLVI halftime show/archive1

Super Bowl XLVI halftime show
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe as an article on one of the most watched events of out modern time, the Super Bowl halftime show. This article has all of the contents pertaining to every aspect of this show, hence looking for input from my fellow editors in order to better it and eventually take it through FAC.

Thanks, — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment/Suggestion: I have two current requests already, including one Madonna song, but you might consider requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I almost always request one before submitting an article for Good or Featured status, and they usually do a great job. I'd submit a request myself, but there is a limit of two per editor. Thanks for your work on this article and good luck at FAC! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Another Believer. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 11:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ This article has received a thorough copy edit. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't close this PR since Moisejp is taking a look into it. — I B  [ Poke  ] 14:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still work is being done in it. — I B  [ Poke  ] 10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments by Tomica


 * Infobox
 * Nothing to complain looks perfect!


 * Lead
 * There are a lot of short sentences, try to combine some of them.
 * The Super Bowl XLVI halftime show, on February 5, 2012 ---> this is kinda vague... maybe add held ?
 * including customized costumes ---> this reads weird and it's kind of repetitive
 * The show was a success, setting a Super Bowl halftime-show record of 114 million viewers ---> Maybe add then-record?


 * Synopsis
 * No complaints on first read. — Tom (T2ME) 21:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * just pinging you for your remainder comments :) — I B  [ Poke  ] 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments by Moisejp


 * Lead:
 * I found it confusing that no mention is made of "Open Your Heart" / "Express Yourself" in the lead even if these were not full performances. It says she performed "four songs" which is not entirely true, considering she performed portions of these.


 * Hi Moise, I believe it was ignored since it was kind of like an interlude, and Madonna performed 4 full songs you can say. I can include it though. — I B  [ Poke  ] 10:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support the addition of a brief point about this in the lead. I don't think it would feel like unnecessary detail, and it could add clarity in case anyone gets confused. You could mention "Open Your Heart" and "Express Yourself" explicitly by name (that might be the easiest and safest), or if you find the right balance of vagueness without being too vague, maybe you could even just specify that there were the four "full" performances as well as a short medley of other, unspecified songs. Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

More comments to come soon! Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * The flow of verb tenses here seem kind of awkward: "Jacques Methe, Cirque du Soleil executive producer for special events, said that it was "contributing to the creative process that will lead to the creation of this very special moment ... For us, it's an interesting opportunity. It's not something that we do very often, working with other stars"." The sentence starts in the past, and my first inclination was to change "that will lead" to "that [would] lead". But then it goes into the present tense ("it's an... it's not..."), which would still disrupt the flow. Perhaps consider using my "would" idea and then paraphrasing the next part into an indirect quote, something like "He added that working on the Super Bowl XLVI halftime show was an appealing prospect, as the Cirque du Soleil did not regularly have the chance to work with celebrities." Moisejp (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rehearsals
 * "This is a Midwesterner girls dream to be performing at the Super Bowl half-time show." I realize this is a direct quote from the source, but I think you need to account for the grammar mistake, either by using "[girl's]" or "(sic)", or paraphrasing, or even removing the quote altogether would be a possibility. Moisejp (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Stage setup
 * "The challenge may come from working outside in the elements. It could be 50 degrees when we rehearse and 50 below on game day, we're working under the pretext that we can be doing this in snow or rain ... In a normal indoor environment we have seven minutes to install the stage and get it camera ready. That can be stretched to nine minutes. It's the same time frame for this." Not sure about the relevance or usefulness of this within the article. The first part sounds like it is hypothetical, about what could happen (no evidence any of this did happen on the day). The second half doesn't seem to add too much that's not already in the article. If you do decide to keep this quote, consider introducing it with "So-and-so said:"
 * "Although Cook learned during the game that the New England Patriots were scheduled to exit on the route used by volunteers carrying the stage equipment, he resolved the issue by talking with the team." It's not clear what resolution was reached by talking with the team. Did the team end up leaving by a different exit? Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Critical response
 * There are so many people cited in this section, and it gets kind of long and repetitive. You've got so many quotes to choose from, and you could easily trim out some of the less revealing ones—like ones that don't clearly reveal whether the reviewer liked the performance, or what they liked about it. For example "According to Jocelyn Vena of MTV News, Madonna ensured that the show would be talked about regardless of its quality." It's not necessarily a terrible citation, and if you didn't have such a wealth of other ones to choose from, it would be fine to use. But with so many other good citations, it just kinds of dilutes the sum of the parts. Likewise, "Miriam Coleman of Rolling Stone called the show a "serious spectacle"...": this is also not necessarily a horrible citation, but again, if you compare it with some of the others, it is not as revealing or as useful to convey to the reader the overall critical opinion of the performance; trimming it would add to the readability and effectiveness of the section. You could look to see whether there are another two or so citations that it would be useful to remove. Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "although it was "revolutionary" after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction": I can't imagine what could possibly be "revolutionary" when compared with a wardrobe malfunction. Maybe if the reader reads the source it becomes clear (I didn't), but it would be better if you chose wording that lets the reader grasp the basic meaning without having to look at the source. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Commercial impact:
 * "According to Billboard, the day after the show its ratings and economic impact were discussed." I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be an introduction to the next paragraph or just one-off information. If it's just one-off, it seems kind of weak. But even if it is supposed to introduce the following paragraph, it seems unclear and unnecessary. Possibly consider just removing the sentence? Moisejp (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Madonna's back catalog of albums also had increased sales due to discounting and publicity generated by the single and her performance." So this means the increase in sales was from publicity from the performance and single's release, as well as from retailers discounting the price of the albums? If so, maybe consider wording the sentence similar to what I just did, with the publicity part first (since that is what the whole paragraph is about), and then spell out the second part slightly more so that it is clearer. In the source, is there any explanation about why stores were discounting the prices? Presumably to cash in on the performance, I imagine, but readers might wonder. If there is more info about in the source, it could be clearer to provide it. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I.B., I think that's all of my comments. Best of luck with your drive to FA, and let me know if you need any more help with anything. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you a lot Moisejp, I will now look through your comments. — I B  [ Poke  ] 11:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)