Wikipedia:Peer review/Madonna: Truth or Dare/archive1

Madonna: Truth or Dare[edit]

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 it is my intention to nominate it fo GA; but since it's my first time doing an article on my own, I would very much like to hear the input of other, more experienced users.

Thanks, Christian (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

The word "American" should not be linked in the lead. Done
For the first sentence of the lead's first paragraph, I am uncertain about the placement of the "directed by Alek Keshishian" part because it could be read that he was directing the tour instead. I would move this to earlier in the sentence to have something like "is a 1991 American documentary film by director Alek Keshishian about the life of ... " to avoid any potential misreadings. Done
I have two comments for this part "Keshishian was so impressed with the life backstage that he persuaded the singer to do an actual film focusing on that". I am assuming you mean "her life backstage"? I am a little confused by "the life backstage" part. I would also avoid using phrases like "the singer" per this essay. Done

There are still several instances of "the singer" used throughout the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources mentions it as such, word by word, "he was impressed with the life backstage..."

Thank you for the explanation. I am concerned though that the current sentence "impressed with the life backstage" is so close to the source "impressed with the life backstage". It is pretty much the same except for adding Keshishian's name and the word "so". Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part "Madonna herself funded the project and served as its executive producer.", I do not think "herself" is necessary. Done
I do not believe Cinéma vérité needs to be capitalized for this part "in order to emulate Cinéma vérité,". Done
For the "In popular culture" section, I would break off the sentences about the French & Saunders and The RuPaul Show into a separate paragraph.

It's a very small section, and there are only three parodies, so I believe we can leave all three in one big paragraph.

I personally disagree since I found it odd that so much of the paragraph is devoted to one of the three parodies so I thought making it two paragraphs would help with the structure. However, it is your choice on this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a comment for this part "with some critics comparing it to the documentary". I have seen some reviewers discourage this type of sentence structure, i.e. with x verb-ing. I do not have a particularly strong opinion either way on the matter, but I just wanted to let you know. Done
I am uncertain about the references in the lead and the infobox since that information should also be included and sourced in the article itself. However, since I have only done some work on film articles, I am not sure what the common practice is so I would recommended looking over good and featured film articles to see how this is handled.

Will be looking into this

For this part "is the thought of returning to North America and performing the show as it is meant to be.", the word "North America" should not be linked. Done
I am uncertain about the word "scrap" in this sentence "her and the dancers scrap their tour costumes for warmer attire" as it seems too informal for an encyclopedia. Done
The word Synopsis is misspelled in the section title. Done
What is the purpose of the citations in the synopsis?

To highlight specific parts of the film

I am still confused by this though. Usually, the synopsis section uses the film as the primary source for this information, and all of the aspects from this section that are sourced are clearly shown in the movie. I do not understand the value of these sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add ALT text to the images.
Warren Beatty's full name should be included in this sentence "As the tour continues, Madonna's throat problems worsen while Beatty becomes more fed up with the cameras." as this is the first time he is mentioned in the article. The link from the "Background and production" section should be moved up to this part for the same reason. Done

What do you mean with "The link from the "Background and production" section should be moved up to this part for the same reason", can you please elaborate?

I was referencing the Warren Beatty link which was used in the "Background and production" section rather than the "Synopsis" section where he is first mentioned. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Items should not be linked multiple times in the article, like "Like a Prayer", "Madonna", "Blond Ambition World Tour", etc.

Like a Prayer (song and album) is only linked once, all the other times it's mentioned, it's not linked. Same for Blond Ambition. Is this what you mean?

The Blond Ambition World Tour is linked in the "Synopsis" and "Tour" sections. Dick Tracy (1990 film) is linked twice in the "Tour" section. Thank you for the clarification on the other parts. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this part "Due to her throat problems she cancels some of her shows", there should be a comma after "problems". Done
For this part "Madonna is dared to perform Fellatio on a glass bottle", the word "fellatio" should not be capitalized. Done
After Sandra Bernhard is first introduced, she is referenced by just her first name ("Madonna tells Sandra") and her full name ("Though she is happier now than she was on her last tour, Sandra Bernhard"). It should be consistent with one way or the other. It would be better to either just reference her by her first or last name consistently after first introducing her to the reader. Done
I have a comment for this part "The Blond Ambition World Tour was Madonna's third concert tour.". Since the word "tour" is used earlier in the article, the link for concert tour should moved up to the first time tour is used. Done
I am confused by this part "the Dick Tracy inspired album I'm Breathless", since it is a soundtrack album and explicitly connected with the film. I would remove the "inspired" part and say it was a soundtrack album. Done
In this sentence "The concert was divided into five segments: Metropolis, inspired by the 1927 German expressionist film of same name", the film is linked twice. Done
For this part "Religious by religious themes;", I would unlink the word "religious". Done
Are the parts about how the concert was divided into five segments necessary for this article and improving a reader's understanding of this movie? I am not saying it is wrong, but I was just curious about it.

Helpful to understand background of the tour.

Just curious. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful and encourage other editors to review this as well. Unfortunately, I am unable to do a full review for this article, but these are things I noticed from reading through the first sections. My biggest concern is that multiple items are linked multiple times in the article when they should only be linked once when they are first mentioned. Have a great new year! Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review @Aoba47:! I've made some of the corrections you pointed out, but still have questions regarding others; I hope you can clarify. Thanks again!!!--Christian (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I have left responses to your questions. Apologies for being unable to do a full review of the article, but you have put in a lot of great work into it. I remember first seeing this film about two years ago so it was nice to read about it. Madonna certainly has had an interesting career. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has now been settled @Aoba47:! Would love to hear your verdict whether or not it's ready for GA (Nomination)--Christian (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ready for a GAN to me. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a few additional notes:

Reference titles should not be in all caps, like References 65 and 81, per WP:SHOUTING. Done
According to this book, the television show Blossom did a parody of the movie. According to the List of Blossom episodes article, it seems to be referencing the episode "Rockumentary". Seems like something worthy of further investigation.

Really interesting find! Thank you for this! I have added it to the "Pop Culture" section!

Random question, but is there any information on how this turned from an HBO special to a Miramax theatrical release?

No, unfortunately. All sources mention it as such (i.e Madonna wanted to do an HBO special on the tour), nor could I found one that mentions how/why Miramax was chosen as distributor.

That makes sense, but I just wanted to confirm that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if this sentence "Madonna became interested in working with Keshishian after watching his Harvard senior project and approached him to do an HBO special on the tour." can be condensed as it is somewhat wordy. Maybe something like "Madonna approached Keshishian to do an HBO special on her tour after watching his Harvard senior project.". It is entirely up to you though. Done
This book draws a connection between this film and White Diamond: A Personal Portrait of Kylie Minogue so that may be worth further investigation. Done

Again, thank you for the interesting find!!"

It may also be worth looking into whether or not critics have compared Gaga: Five Foot Two to this. I would not be surprised if critics made comparisons given the comparisons already made between Gaga and Madonna. Done

That should be it from me. I think this should be ready for a GAN as a good reviewer should be able to do a more thorough review to catch anything else (or anyone else who participates in this peer review). Good luck with this. It would be awesome to see this become a GA in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much for the comments and the feedback, it has been really useful!!! So you think it's now ready for GAN?--Christian (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ready for a GAN to me. Good luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to close this peer review if you are putting this up for a GAN. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done!! --Christian (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]