Talk:I Am Tour (Leona Lewis)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peter SamFan (talk · contribs) 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am Peter SamFan, and I am going to review this article. Peter Sam Fan 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead

In my opinion, there are too many "it"s in the first paragraph. Change some of them to "the show" or something like that. Also, in the sentence "Lewis' vocals, stage presence and interaction with the crowds with lauded by the critics in attendance" change the second "with" to "was." Note: The lead appears to be unreferenced. Please add citations or I will have to fail this. Peter Sam Fan 19:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I changed one of the the "it"'s but there was only three uses anyway. The lead is an overview of the main body. Music articles never have citations in the lead.  — Calvin999 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Calvin999: Oh. Peter Sam Fan 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Main Body

It looks okay. There are no clean-up tags, but it needs more citations. I would change the section heading called "Critic's Reviews" to "Critical Reception". Peter Sam Fan 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't need more citations. There is a citation for each review.

Overall Assessment

It looks fine. I will put it on hold for seven days. Please do the things I have said within the next week, or else I will fail the nomination. There appear to be problems with OR. (Also, I may ask for a second opinion.) Peter Sam Fan 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Where is there original research??  — Calvin999 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I may be biased, which is likely, but wherever I see no citations I immediately assume original research. Peter Sam Fan 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I get that but when the subject of the citation doesn't change, it's not completely necessary to use it at the end of each sentence pertaining to the source. As long as there is consistency in doing so, it's fine.  — Calvin999 07:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Final review:

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

---

I would check the sources one more time, and then it would be a pass.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   y

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   y

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   y

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   y

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):

   y

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   y

Thanks  — Calvin999 07:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)