The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 18 March 2021 [1].
This article is about Madonna's third concert tour, the Blond Ambition World Tour of 1990. A highly influential and emblematic tour, it has left its mark on the work of multiple modern-day artists. I believe it deserves to be recognized as one of Wikipedia's featured articles. Christian ( talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
( t · c) buidhe 18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility review: Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/ MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Why do you consider these sources "high-quality"?
There is a bit of work to do... also this is not a requirement but seeing nothing from ProQuest or Newspapers.com has been consulted, are you still confident the article is "well-researched" per the criteria? There may be more from the time period in those databases that could enhance the article. I haven't done any spot checks yet. Heartfox ( talk) 03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: do you think I should continue? This is the first source review I have ever done. Maybe a peer review where others could help out more casually? I'm not opposed to continuing the review I'm just wondering what the best path forward is. Thanks, Heartfox ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Big thanks to Heartfox for getting right on the source review, and thanks Gog the Mild for the ping. Chrishm21, there is a lot to be worked on here. I agree the article isn't FAC-ready yet, and the nomination would be best withdrawn. I want to reassure you that you are likely to find the work towards bringing this article to standard to be more relaxing and productive at this stage if you list it at WP:PR and add it to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to attract more reviewers. Finding mentors is harder and harder, as so many reviewers are stretched too thin, and no one mentor in particular comes to mind. But at peer review, there is less pressure, so if you are prepared to be patient, quite a few reviewers will pop in over time and lend a hand, and you end up with, effectively, a team of mentors. When a nomination is difficult, people can be reluctant to engage at FAC because they are then obligated to come back quickly to review and re-review and re-review to strike done commentary and not hold up the FAC. Because that pressure does not exist at PR, and people can offer as much or as little as they have time for, you are likely to attract more reviewers there, and maybe even a mentor. Besides the citation errors and sourcing problems, I would examine also the amount of quoting. My best advice is to clean up as much of the sourcing as you can, and then open a peer review. Hope to see you at PR! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Coord note -- I would go with the above advice and take to PR after addressing the points raised by Heartfox, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 18 March 2021 [1].
This article is about Madonna's third concert tour, the Blond Ambition World Tour of 1990. A highly influential and emblematic tour, it has left its mark on the work of multiple modern-day artists. I believe it deserves to be recognized as one of Wikipedia's featured articles. Christian ( talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
( t · c) buidhe 18:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility review: Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/ MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox ( talk) 01:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Why do you consider these sources "high-quality"?
There is a bit of work to do... also this is not a requirement but seeing nothing from ProQuest or Newspapers.com has been consulted, are you still confident the article is "well-researched" per the criteria? There may be more from the time period in those databases that could enhance the article. I haven't done any spot checks yet. Heartfox ( talk) 03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: do you think I should continue? This is the first source review I have ever done. Maybe a peer review where others could help out more casually? I'm not opposed to continuing the review I'm just wondering what the best path forward is. Thanks, Heartfox ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Big thanks to Heartfox for getting right on the source review, and thanks Gog the Mild for the ping. Chrishm21, there is a lot to be worked on here. I agree the article isn't FAC-ready yet, and the nomination would be best withdrawn. I want to reassure you that you are likely to find the work towards bringing this article to standard to be more relaxing and productive at this stage if you list it at WP:PR and add it to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to attract more reviewers. Finding mentors is harder and harder, as so many reviewers are stretched too thin, and no one mentor in particular comes to mind. But at peer review, there is less pressure, so if you are prepared to be patient, quite a few reviewers will pop in over time and lend a hand, and you end up with, effectively, a team of mentors. When a nomination is difficult, people can be reluctant to engage at FAC because they are then obligated to come back quickly to review and re-review and re-review to strike done commentary and not hold up the FAC. Because that pressure does not exist at PR, and people can offer as much or as little as they have time for, you are likely to attract more reviewers there, and maybe even a mentor. Besides the citation errors and sourcing problems, I would examine also the amount of quoting. My best advice is to clean up as much of the sourcing as you can, and then open a peer review. Hope to see you at PR! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Coord note -- I would go with the above advice and take to PR after addressing the points raised by Heartfox, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)