Talk:Lady Gaga Presents the Monster Ball Tour: At Madison Square Garden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gloss (talk · contribs) 07:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this! Gloss • talk 07:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments

Very well written article, here are some improvement suggestions.

Lead

• "is a 2011 concert special documenting the February 21 and 22, 2011 shows.." -- perhaps "is a 2011 concert special which documents the February 21 and 22, 2011 shows.." would sound better?
• "Filmed at Madison Square Garden in Gaga's hometown of New York City, the two-hour special was directed by the singer's choreographer Laurieann Gibson and produced by HBO, with the first broadcast on the channel on May 7, 2011, a day after Gaga's last date of The Monster Ball Tour." -- split into two sentences

Body

• "The Monster Ball Tour commenced four days after the release of The Fame Monster in November 2009." -- change to "The tour commenced..." just because there's no need to repeat the name of the tour over and over again in the same paragraph
• "The tour received general critical acclaim, with critics praising Gaga's singing abilities, the theatricality of the show, and her sense of style and fashion" - this is followed by five sources. all that are really needed are two (maybe three) that best source this statement. "[8][9][10][11][12]" is distracting and disrupts the flow of reading.
• "US$227.4 million" - I don't think there's a need to put "US" here - this is the english wikipedia, after all.
• The images at the top of the "Background" and "Release and reception" are aligned to the left side of the page. Perhaps the two images atop of the "Release and reception" section can be pushed to the right to balance the page out a little bit better?
• Add a wikilink to Billboard the first time it's mentioned in "Release and reception"
• "raises more questions about Stefani Germanotta [Gaga's birth name]" - these brackets should be parenthesis, I believe.
• Madonna only needs to be linked once, the first time she is mentioned in the "Release and reception" section - past the first mention, more wikilinks are WP:OVERLINKing her name
• ""prattle", "drivel", and "condescending"" - there are wikilinks to the last two words but no link to prattle - one would help as admittedly, I don't even know what the word means!
• In the "Development" section - source 34 is inserted in multiple spots around the second paragraph. It's fine to only have this source included one time, at the end of all of the information it covers (which looks like it could be placed near the end of the paragraph).

• Same for reference 30 in the following paragraph. Only need to put it in there once, at the end of everything it covers.

• "According to Jeffrey Kauffman of Blu-ray.com the audio tracks were commendable for their crisp sound." - a comma after "Blu-ray.com" would improve readability here

Sources

• This boston herald article isn't coming up for me. Half of the page loads but then the bottom says "The article you requested has been archived."

Good luck! Gloss • talk 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gloss, I have finished the review comments incorporation to the best of my abilities. Please check and get back. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll give the article another full read through later on, but in the edit summary you said you took care of everything except the sourcing problem with the BH article. Just wondering if there was a reason for that. Gloss • talk 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the edit summary was misleading, meant to write that I have actually removed that BH reference. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, okay! Gloss • talk 17:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just took another look and the reference is still there. Gloss • talk 18:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that the source passes WP:RS and according to the guideline, "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." In this case the archived copy I added needs a subscription, however it passes the RS criterias and is acceptable. If you are still unsure about it, I welcome you to the Reliable sources noticeboard, where an user with access will give you the detail if the text is supported by this source or not. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's good enough for me! Gloss • talk 06:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no further issues here, so I'll go ahead and pass the article. Congrats and good work. Gloss • talk 06:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gloss. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)