Talk:Texas Flood Tour

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas Flood World Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

Style	doesn't meet	Needs formatting, and a copyedit, at least
Verifiability	doesn't meet	Controversial statements need sources; main sources are inaccessible
Coverage	doesn't meet	Missing some necessary info, includes unnecessary info
Neutral	doesn't meet	This article might as well propose to the band
Stability	meets	Barely meets; there were lots of correction edits for months after nom
Illustration	doesn't meet	Some images need to be removed, perhaps some other added
Copyright	meets	Report flags not even paraphrasing of any source

Comparisons

• Compared to GAs of other concert tours, the article layout is quite different, including individual subsections for each leg, and not having things consistent in other concert tour articles: the 'Development', 'Concert synopsis', 'Set list' sections.

Style

• The lead really belongs as the 'Background' section. But then it wouldn't have a lead. Fails 1b "coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections" and "the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic"
• Some confusing statements that need clarification (e.g. "Aware of the future opportunities that might accumulate from their performance and the first unsigned act on the festival", "However, there is no evidence to suggest that Hammond became less involved in the making of the band's subsequent studio albums; it seems that he trusted Vaughan's abilities as an artist", etc.) and just bad prose (e.g. "In the case of Vaughan this would be ongoing through subsequent tours in the ensuing seven years"). Fails GA criteria 1a "the prose is clear and concise"
• General grammar and punctuation errors (e.g. "They then returned to North America, where during a leg that lasted more than three months Vaughan and Double Trouble opened for..."); fails GA criteria 1a "the spelling and grammar are correct"
• As with Comparisons above (and Coverage below), it is not sectioned well. Fails GA criteria 1b "coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections"
• There are some complex sentences that aren't punctuated well and aren't clear (e.g. "In a memorandum to the executives at the southwest branch of Epic, written before the tour, marketing vice president Jack Chase agreed to break Vaughan and Double Trouble out of Texas, who after a branch meeting had said: "The prize is having Stevie Ray Vaughn [sic] on our label and in your bags to promote and sell".") - Fails 1a "the prose is clear and concise"
• Needs better use of wikilinks to improve clarification (see quotation above, "Epic" is not a wikiword) Fails GA criteria 1 "appropriate use of wikilinks"
• Has a very formal yet band-supportive tone, sounding more like a professional biography or review than an encyclopedia article - this is throughout, with extra special mention of the ridiculous-sounding "Marketing assistance also came from agents Rick Alter and Alex Hodges, whose philosophies and techniques in the major markets would propel the band to perform what eventually became arena tours. These excursions would enable them to receive monetary bonuses that were dependent on specific ticket sale plateaus.", which is basically a jargon-filled advertisement or a success summary from a business meeting written down. Fails 1b "it complies with the manual of style"
• Needs a look at by a copyeditor, has been requested at Guild of Copy Editors.
  • Will postpone criteria 1a for grammar and prose until copyedit comes back, but the article still fails 1b, and so currently fails style.

Verifiability

• There appears to be original research with strong opinions (also see the Neutrality section below) in the lead, failing GA criteria 2c "it contains no original research"
  • Also mentioned in Neutrality below, some very biased statements which have no referencing, which also fails 2b "inline citations [from] reliable sources [for] statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged"
• A lot of the referenced sources aren't available to read. Given the very formal tone, and the complete lack of any kind of paraphrasing from available sources in the copyvio report, I'm a little suspicious that there might be some copying from these sources. Besides that, it means I can't check that everything is, in fact, verifiable.
  • One of the books (Hopkins, Craig (2010). Stevie Ray Vaughan – Day by Day, Night After Night: His Early Years, 1954–1982. Milwaukee: Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-1-4234-8598-8.), also, has a non-valid ISBN. Not verifiable in the slightest.
  • Meets 2a "it contains a list of all references (sources of information)"
  • Fails 2b "all inline citations are from reliable sources" - the sources seem reliable, but the majority of references are to sources which can't be reached, therefore it can't be ascertained if they are reliable or if the cited content is correct
  • The copyvio report (see Copyright below) gives no signs of plagiarism, but since most of the sources are offline and unavailable, it can't be known to what extent there is or isn't copyright violation. Tentatively meets 2d "it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism."

Coverage

• Per the Comparisons section above, there are elements included in articles for other concert tours which this article is lacking - failing GA criteria 3a "it addresses the main aspects of the topic".
• The 'Background' section has no relation to the article; it gives a history of how the band was formed. This should go on the Stevie Ray Vaughan article (a lot of it already is), or make an article for the band. It fails GA criteria 3b "broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions"

Neutrality

• The lead has such statements: "Their sensational talent", "Throughout the tour, the group's career status escalated as their performances continuously amazed and stunned their audiences.", "The commercial success of the tour, though significant, did not alter the band's modesty, and they continued in this career mindset." which are biased and should be rewritten. None of these opinions are referenced, either. Because of this, it fails both GA criteria 2c "it contains no original research" and 4 "it represents viewpoints fairly"
• Whilst some parts of it aren't emphatically biased towards the band, there are lines throughout which are definitely phrased in their favour, giving the view that their success is positive, that they are great, etc. Fails 4 "without editorial bias"
  • Also weirdly biased to Q102-FM. Did this little radio station have so much influence? Also, of course, this part persists in painting the band as amazing, making it sound bad that they "had only been receiving negative reactions" until "nevertheless [Q102-FM]'s persever[ed] to air Texas Flood for an additional two weeks". Fails 4 ("it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias") severely
  • Similarly, don't say that Vaughan getting laryngitis was "discouraging", just say that it happened. Yeah, neutrality fails.
• Again, subjective phrases needing references or to be removed as unnecessary and non-encyclopedic (e.g. "the band delighted in making promotional appearances"). Fails 1b "words to watch"

Stability

• Mostly one editor, and no conflicts or warring with others when they do contribute. Since December 2018 the content hasn't changed a lot.
• However, it was GA nominated on 7 March 2018, and the day after there was a large edit. The edit history since its nomination suggests that it really wasn't GA worthy at the time, edits including the page being moved to the correct name 10 days later... Not very stable at all at the time of or since nomination.
  • I must weigh-up whether this doesn't count, i.e. is simply "constructive article improvement and routine editing" (GA criteria 5: "constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here.") Of course, I think necessary corrections, adding references for existing information and, most importantly, moving to the correct name all after nomination is not routine. At the present, there has been three weeks of no editing; but remember that this review could have been started three weeks after nomination, when you were still, effectively, writing it. It can pass stability today, but you should make sure the article can be a Good Article at the time of nomination.

Illustration

• The infobox image is Fair Use. Meets 6a "valid fair use rationale"
• Another image, "File:SRV Beacon Theatre 1983.gif", used in the North America section, is stated as Fair Use but isn't necessary for illustration. It should probably be removed, are there no photographs of the concert that are released without copyright? Fails 6a "valid fair use rationale"
• The "Preparations" section could use an image from some of the 1983 Texas concerts, which have free images at Commons available (e.g. "File:Stevie Ray Vaughan Live 1983.jpg") Since these images need to be added, perhaps further fails 6a for not completely using suitable illustration
• The image of the Montreux Casino, where the band performed in a completely separate event should, like the unrelated section it's in, be removed, fails 6b "relevant to the topic"

Copyright

• Report. Three sources throw-up direct quotation: 1. short marked quotations to give overview of opinions on tour, 2. the article name is in the reference section, 3. "to be one of the" appears in an unrelated place in article. No copyvio apparent, not even close paraphrasing or anything to have any worry about.
• However, the article has a lot of copied text from the Stevie Ray Vaughan article (report), which has a decent suspicion of copyvio itself. Most of this isn't actual quotations but the phrases aren't very long, so it's not a massive issue - but it does also add to the above-mentioned Coverage problem where a lot of the content does not belong here.

Kingsif (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall

I'm not going to initially fail this, though it does hit some of the immediate failure qualifications (1 & 3, "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" and "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid"). It's going on hold pending a copyedit and responses from the article creator. It's not good article standard - it was even further away when it was nominated - and doesn't seem to adequately cover its subject. I'd like to know if the article creator would be willing to put in the work, since they've done so much already. I'm also confused if it was, in fact, a world tour, since the article states the band were opening acts for other artists for some of this "tour"? Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

After one week of no response, I shall fail this. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)