Talk:Glass Spider Tour/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 87fan, I've been letting this one sit since I didn't want you to have two reviews from me in a row... but now it's the oldest article on GAN!?! Where's the love for Bowie? (Actually, the tour/artist queue seems to be the slowest on all of GAN for whatever reason, regardless of the artist.)

Anyway, I'll be glad to take it so you don't have to wait any longer. Comments to follow in the next 2-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good to see you again. Yeah I don't know why it took so long to get the review process started but I definitely appreciate your help. 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this looks good on first pass. The tone is dispassionate and neutral, the prose is strong, and the statements are largely well-sourced. I've played with formatting a bit; as always, feel free to revert anything with which you disagree. Initial action points:

  • "He said, "It's not just about a rock singer, it's about rock music," -- is the "he" here Bowie or the aforementioned critic?
    • Bowie said it, updated.
  • "60 feet high, 64 feet wide" -- not a GA requirement, but it'd be nice to add the metric conversion as well
    • Done.
  • [1] seems unlikely to be a reliable source as a wordpress site--can another source for this be found? (It also doesn't describe the remark as "infamous"
    • Agreed, I pulled this statement as I've never seen a reference to it anywhere else.
  • The tour was among the highest-grossing tours of the decade. -- this will need citation
    • Not sure how to cite this - we know what it was estimated to gross and we know there's a Wikipedia list that it fits into, but there's no other source that says independently that it was among the highest grossing tours of the decade. I added that wikilink because I thought it was interesting context but if there's no good way to include it I'm happy to pull it. Let me know.
  • How about moving the wikilink to "see also"? The Wikipedia list isn't reliable enough source to include in the article body, but we could always just direct readers to that article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - and I also cleaned up the 'references' section because we actually had two! 87Fan (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Press tour" -- this is irregularly capitalized in the article--once as "press tour", once "Press Tour", once "Press tour"--these should be made consistent.
    • I've settled on 'press tour' (all lower case) because I don't think it qualifies as a true proper noun.
  • " rendered the intended meaning of the show largely nonsensical," -- this goes into analysis, and should be attributed to an author in-text for neutrality reasons
    • I was trying to paraphrase, the source said that the video releases "obliterated" the show's meaning. I feel like the paraphrasing is good but am happy to change it (to an exact quote) if you feel strongly that it should be changed.
      • No, doesn't need to be changed to an exact quote; I just mean that you should say, "According to author X, the video rendered the show's meaning..." or some such. That way it's the author holding the view instead of Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok I changed it to "A critic said..." so it's clear it's their opinion and not ours. 87Fan (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed an external youtube link per WP:YOUTUBE where it isn't clear that the link poster has permission to post it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GhtMsuZSWA
    • That's reasonable. I know youtube is a questionable source and I tried to be judicious. I looked on Pepsi's web site but there's no reference to the commercial, unfortunately. As it is, I'm ok with it being pulled.
  • "Stephen Nichols (aka "Skeeter Rabbit"), one of the dancers from the Glass Spider Tour, died of unknown causes in 2006.[61]" -- I'd suggest cutting this as unnecessary detail. Nichols hasn't shown up in the article until now, so he's not a major figure for the tour, and this is hugely distant in time from the tour.
    • Agree. I knew this was questionable when I added it. I've removed it.
  • " In late 2013, original tour musicians Erdal Kizilcay and Richard Cottle reformed in London along with new band mates to create the "Glass Spider Band". The band's stated intention was to engender a critical reappraisal of the tour, both as a forerunner for the stadium rock shows of other artists that followed, and as a theatrical and innovative artistic production of quality." -- this is sort of interesting, but also seems tangential, and lacks secondary source. I would suggest cutting this unless it's mentioned in secondary sources about the tour. -- 14:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't find references outside of the one already used. I've removed it and will keep an eye out; if it hits the newswire in the future I can re-add it with additional sources.

Source review[edit]

Looking at the sources, I see a number of problems here. The biggest issue is that Wikipedia policy forbids linking to material that is likely to be a copyright violation. Material that Bowie fansites are reposting from newspapers, magazines, etc., without a note about reprint permission, can be presumed to be copyright violation; ditto any excerpts from news programs posted without explicit permission. Much of the following needs to be delinked, but that doesn't mean the sources need to be removed per se--but they will need to be identified in a way that someone can find them without going to the copyvio. Is that possible? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes this is possible. I'll make notes below where I find issues.
  • I've referred to the original news report (as best I can). There's a lot of good information in this news report that I haven't seen anywhere else, so I'd hate to lose this one.
  • Yes it is. What I can do for sources from this site is just refer to the original magazines that they refer to. My intention was to make it easy for people to read the reviews themselves but I totally understand the point. The references to articles on algonet have been removed.
  • Both web version of David Bowie: The "Glass Spider" Weaves His Musical Magic around the World appear to be copyright violations and should be delinked. Also, no reason to cite this twice.
  • Both are removed and I've referred to the original source instead.
  • Done. I've replaced both with references to the original works (but without links to recordings of those reports)
  • Done!
  • Short answer is no. I've pulled the reference & associated statements.
  • Done, removed.
  • Done, now just refer to the original source.
  • To Bowie fans it's a bible :) But encyclopedically, I'm sure it doesn't meet Wikipedia's bar. References & statements pulled.
  • Pulled as per feedback above
  • Pulled and now I just refer to the original publication
  • " SEARCH OREGONIAN ARCHIVES Paid archives from 1987 to present, 14 August 1987, retrieved 9 October 2013" -- is not enough information for others to find the cited material--can you give an article title?
  • Old newspaper articles are mostly accessible only through paid services, which is what I had used, but for simplicity I've changed this just to refer to the original paper instead.
  • Yep, pulled.

I'm putting this on hold to give you a chance to address the above. Because of the source issues above, I'm leaning toward not listing this one for now so it can be straightened out at more leisure, but I know you've had a long wait for this review. If you feel like the above is fixable, I'll be glad to keep going--let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely fixable! :) Thank you for your work here. I hope to have all this stuff addressed in the next 24 hours. 87Fan (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that went faster than I thought. In most cases I was able to refer to the original source and remove the (copyvio) middleman. In a few cases there were no alternatives and I pulled the statement & ref completely. With the exception of one question above, I think I've addressed your feedback. let me know and thank you again! 87Fan (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you did take care of that fast--I was concerned I was giving you an all-day job. But it makes sense that the obscurer references were supporting the obscurer material and were therefore expendable. Let me take a final look at this and go through the checklist... -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed your concerns above (the list of highest-grossing tours and the statement about the video release). I noticed while fixing the list of tours that we had two references sections: one contained notes & citations and the other was the list of books that have been referenced. I combined all 3 of these categories into subcategories under a single References section. Let me know if my changes aren't up to GA snuff. And again, thank you. I appreciate working with you as your feedback is actionable and excellent. 87Fan (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Spotchecks and copyvio detector find no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Statement about highest grossing tour needs citation; see suggestion above
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. At one point an author's view is endorsed in Wikipedia's voice--see suggestion above
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. GA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glass_Spider_Tour/GA1&oldid=967076304"