Talk:Back to Basics: Live and Down Under/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 05:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @HĐ: As a huge fan of Christina Aguilera, I will definitely have to review this. Will have my comments up by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• The image in the infobox needs an alt.

•  Done

• Do you have any information on genre/length off bonus content (is the length already in the infobox the entire DVD or just the concert), or the director? If so, put it in the infobox to better represent all the information about the DVD.

• I think the infobox is quite comprehensive at this point

• Thank you for adding the directors. I was only wondering about the absence of the information that listed above. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Change “fourth video release” to “fourth video album” or “live long-form video” (as done on the page for Harajuku Lovers Live) to be more specific

•  Done

• Change “It was premiered” to “it premiered”

•  Done

• Remove the reference to 10 pm in the lead as it is too specific for this section (which is reserved as a general overview of the article), but keep it in the “Background” section

•  Done

• Change “released for purchase” to “released on DVD”

•  Done

• Change “included materials” to “included material”

•  Done

• I would reword the last sentence of the lead’s first paragraph to the following as it reads somewhat awkwardly: (It was released in conjunction with the promotion for her fifth studio album Back to Basics (2006). The DVD included material from recordings from two of Aguilera’s concerts during her Back to Basics Tour in 2007. The performances recorded in July 17 and 18, 2007 in Adelaide, Australia. Behind-the-scenes footage is included with video from the concerts.)  Done
• Unlink studio album as it is somewhat unnecessary.  Done
• I would change territories to countries as the word territories can be read somewhat ambiguously.  Done
• Change “In the United States, the video” to “In the United States, the DVD”  Done

Background and release

• Change “In order to support” to “To support”  Done
• What exactly about Aguilera’s vocals was praised and what exactly about the setlist was criticized? You are being very vague with this sentence so be more specific on exactly what these critics are pointing out.  Done
• Identify the specific dates that the show was filmed for DVD.  Done
• Again, change “the video” to “the DVD”. You are talking about a DVD not a video. Make sure to fix this for the entire article where necessary.  Done
• Rephrase the first sentence of the second paragraph to the following: (On January 26, 2008, Back to Basics: Live and Down Under premiered on VH1 at 10PM.) Keep the link to VH1.  Done
• Remove “first” in front of “released officially” as it is not necessary.  Done
• Change “A day later” to “The next day”  Done
• For the sentence about the Germany release, just refer to it as the DVD or it. I would use the full title in the first sentence of the second paragraph as I suggested in a previous comment instead. Dropping the full title in the middle of a paragraph is just odd and breaks the flow of the ideas/sentences. Same goes for the sentence about the Australia release.  Done
• Restructure the last sentence of the final paragraph as it is somewhat repetitive. You already mentioned in the first paragraph that the DVD is about the Adelaide shows so instead focus on how the DVD features the show’s “old-school style materials”.  Done
• Are you going to discuss anything else about the content of the DVD? You reference behind-the-scenes footage in the lead, but you do not reference it anywhere else in the article. I think adding more about the content of the DVD and possibly a little bit more about the tour and the set list would be helpful as your article is not fully representing the subject. I would suggest looking at the page for Harajuku Lovers Live to see what I mean as that is a really good model to follow).

• The content is exactly the same as Back to Basics Tour's shows, which are already mentioned in the article

• Okay, my original concern was that the article was not fully representing the subject, but for the purpose of the article, it is fine as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• An image from the DVD (preferably one of Christina singing/performing on stage) would help this article a lot.

• As it is non-free and the article is quite short, I don't think it's a good idea.

• Thank you for adding the image. I meant more so putting an image of her performing on the tour. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• While I appreciate that you added the image, it needs an alt. and should be put as "upright". Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Critical response

• For the PopMatters sentence, I would say “gave the DVD a seven out of ten…”. “Damn good” is very vague and seems odd for a rating even if it is quoted from the review.  Done
• Remove the CD Universe review. It is not appropriate for this article and is not reliable/credible.  Done

Commercial performance

• Change the first sentence to the following: (The DVD was released on February 25, 2008 in Australia. It debuted and peaked at number 2 on the ARIA Music DVD Chart, where it stayed for two weeks.)

• Uhm, it was not released on Feb 28 in Australia

• Sorry I misread this sentence. My fault. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Changed “reached it peak” to “reached its peak”  Done
• Change “on week” to “one week”  Done
• Change “In the following week, it fell to number 3” to “It fell to number 3 the following week.”  Done

Tracklisting

• Include a list of the bonus content here (Again like the page for Harajuku Lovers Live does)

• Thank you for adding this part. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would include a “total length” at the bottom of the track list

Personnel

• Is there a reason why the personnel/credits are not included here?

• Thank you for adding this, but I would move this section to directly after the "Tracklisting section" and before the sections about the charts and certifications. Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Charts

• Put the charts in alphabetical order

Certifications

• Great job here!

Release history

• Again, great job with this section

References

• Great research here. I appreciate how you archived a lot of the links.

  Thanks!

Final comments

• @HĐ: This article can definitely be improved to the level of a GA, but I have to honestly tell you that it will take a lot of work as it currently has many grammatical and spelling errors, awkward sentence constructions, and is not broad enough in its coverage. I have noticed there was not much revision between the first GAN and now so please make sure to address all the comments I have made. Feel free to comment or ask questions about my review. I said this multiple times in my comments, but I would highly encourage you to look at the article for Harajuku Lovers Live or any other GA on a concert DVD to get a better understanding on how to present the information and to have a guide for the improvement for this page.

• Thank you so much for your review! I am working on it. Simon (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @HĐ: Thank you for starting to address my comments; I hope my review is helpful in some way. Once you are finished with my comments, I will pass the article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I think everything is addressed now. Again, thank you so much for reviewing this article! Simon (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• @HĐ: Thank you for your quick responses and for creating such a great article and informative read. I have added a couple additional comments about the placement of the "Personnel" section and some aspects of the image. Once those are addressed in some way, then I will pass this article as a GA. Again, I am glad that I could help in anyway as I am impressed with the work put into this page. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I think they are all done now. Image is solved. Personnel section has been addressed. Simon (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @HĐ: Thank you for your quick responses and I apologize for any mistakes or confusions that I had in the review. Great job with this article! ✓ Pass Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: