Wikipedia:Peer review/The Who by Numbers Tour/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what I could do to improve this article to GA.

Thanks, Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 14:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of quick observations:

Should Wales be linked? I removed links from United States and Canada. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most readers of an English-language encyclopedia should know, but it's maybe OK to link. "West Germany" should probably be just "Germany" – I think WP generally uses the current name, except when necessary to put it into a historical context (see WP:MPN). Also, BritEng usually prefers "UK" and "US" (without the periods). —Ojorojo (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About West Germany, Blond Ambition World Tour uses it instead of Germany. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, however many do not, including Cry of Love Tour and Tommy Tour. It's a minor point, but the music sources I use are mostly published post re-unification (1990) and use "Germany" for events that occurred in West Germany (also consistent with "Use modern names"). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How does the article look now? Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tables have a much cleaner look and meet the various guidelines, etc. Good luck with the GAN. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is unavailable for cells is usually indicated by "N/A", rather than " – ". If you want to use a dash, it should be explained as at the bottom (see for example The Cry of Love Tour#Concerts).

Using Template:n/a adds unnecessary highlighting to cells (just because the info is unavailable does not make it more important than cells with info). Try adding {{Abbr|N/A|Not available}} for the first occurrence and N/A afterwards. Also, now that it is more obvious, using rowspan= (like for Support act) would be better than repeating N/A over & over. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a test to show what you are trying to explain please? Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider only:

Rather than repeat the year for every entry, it could be added to the top of the "Date" column (see Blond Ambition World Tour#Tour dates).

Since there are eight separate tables, an additional column for "Leg" may be used instead to give a better appearance. If not, maybe combine the section subheaders with the table headers to give a less cluttered look (see Blond Ambition).

Could you please explain more? Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than eight separate tables with separate "leg" headings, use one table with the current leg headings added to an additional "Legs" column (using rowspan). See the examples at MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table: "good example 1" is like your current format (two tables, one for each country represented) vs. "good example 2" (one table with an added "Representing" column). Alternatively, the Blond Ambition example combines the subheadings and table headings into one short heading for each. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very short sections are discouraged (MOS:OVERSECTION). The "Personnel" could be worked into "History" (or "Background") or "Set list". Also, it's conspicuous by lack of refs.

Some of the the wording could be tightened up. Look for repetition, such as "Starting ... began", "not performed since playing", "During the tour ... at the concerts", "The band followed ... starting on", etc. Sometimes reading it out loud will give you an idea about how well it flows.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]