Wikipedia:Peer review/Tommy Tour/archive1

Tommy Tour
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if this article is ready to be a Good Article. '''NOTE: Tommy Tour is the result of a merge between The Who Tour 1969 and The Who Tour 1970. My work on The Who Tour 1969 is featured on Tommy Tour. I suggest looking at the page's view history.''' Thanks. Chrisnait (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment – I haven't looked through the recent discussions, but noticed a couple of things:
 * Live releases include songs listed by release date, then the album. Since many are from Thirty Years and The Kids, it may be easier to list the albums first (by date of release) and then show the songs & venues/dates. This would also make the single performance albums/DVDs (Leeds, IOW, Kilburn, etc.) more noticeable.
 * Fixed. Chrisnait (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are five long (25–30+ entries) separate lists under "Typical set lists". Rather than being "typical", it seems like an attempt to list every song and variation they played. This overloads the article and for the average reader one or two lists of core songs should be sufficient, with key differences summarized in the text. Hardcore fans will seek out websites or books for all the gritty details.
 * I removed the list of miscellaneous songs from each set list section. The Who Concert File includes set lists of specific concerts during the tour, but not a set list or two that is representative of the entire tour. Chrisnait (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think it's far too much. Can't you choose one and summarize the differences for the rest? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Separate tables for each leg may have been used to avoid headers in the middle of tables (as per MOS). However, some are quite short, resulting in nine separate tables, which gives the article a busy look. It's not clear why it is necessary to emphasize one leg from the next – shouldn't the dates and locations be sufficient to differentiate them? If necessary, maybe add a leg column. For space, city and country could be condensed into one location column (the abbreviation "U.S." is acceptable in WP articles, and works better in tables, IMO) with something like "May–June 1969  North American leg" using rowspan. Otherwise, is it really that important?
 * I combined three tables to create a larger table. Chrisnait (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I think there are still too many. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Some sequential entries with the same city/venue use rowspan and others don't. It is better to be consistent.
 * Can you please explain a little bit better on what you mean? Chrisnait (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a sort problem with the North American leg (9 May – 19 June 1969) table, which should be fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find a way to fix the sort problem with the first table. Chrisnait (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The tables don't follow MOS:DTAB for.
 * You said at WikiProject Concerts that tables should use the  scope of headers. I used   because I got annoyed that the rows were so wide when I was using the latter for the tables. Chrisnait (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I ran a test with ! scope="row"s and it didn't appear to affect the widths. If they do, the widths can be adjusted.
 * For each column, I tried doing, but it made the table take up a lot of space. Chrisnait (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

–Ojorojo (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Check for overlinks, such as well-known cities and counries. Others, including the ultimate reviewer, might have other comments, but these are the main issues I see. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's looking better; for help with the tables, maybe try Help talk:Table. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Chrisnait (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)