# Talk:Bang and Whimper 2017 – The Farewell Tour

This article should be titled "Bang and Whimper 2017 – The Farewell Tour" per MOS:DASH. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

HIM - Right Here in My Eyes (1).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bang and Whimper 2017 – The Farewell Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I've started copyediting the article. If you disagree with any changes I have made, please feel free to let me know here. A few preliminary, but significant, comments:

What makes Setlist.fm a reliable source? It's a user-generated database of information, which are rarely if ever deemed acceptable as sources on Wikipedia.
You didn't list the author of any source, even though many of these sources had named authors. For example, Visa Högmander is the name of the MTV article.
I'll be watching this page and the article. —BLZ · talk 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I added authors to the sources. As for Setlist.fm, there really isn't any other source for setlist information, other than full shows found on YouTube. The site is user-generated yes, but it is widely used in other Wiki articles and is, from my experience at least, very reliable. Maybe because the site is only about setlists and statistical information, it isn't a big target for vandalism or false facts. And really the only way to get information regarding setlists from shows across the world, is for it to be user-generated, because no one can be at every show writing down what songs were played. That's my two cents.--SilverBullitt (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@SilverBullitt: Apologies for the delay. I have a pretty open mind about sources, but setlist.fm is, categorically, not a reliable source that can be acceptably used on Wikipedia. I've checked through GA-Class concert articles on tours. The majority provide reliable secondary sources for any set lists (a handful cite acceptable primary sources, like a set list from a DVD). A few set list sections were uncited, which I've since removed, and only one cited setlist.fm, which I've also removed.
I would consider full shows on YouTube to be acceptable sources for set lists, if (and only if) the video is an "official" upload (the band or the festival/venue/other permitted source uploaded it themselves through an official account). It's simply not true that sites like setlist.fm are the only possible sources for set lists, since journalists covering concerts routinely include set lists—I would double-check all of the reviews you've cited. You may have to cut back on the textual analysis that relies on setlist.fm unless you can provide alternative, acceptable sources for that information. I know it may be frustrating, but it's better to omit information than to cite a source forbidden by Wikipedia policy. —BLZ · talk 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Okay, I've removed all the setlist.fm sources. I found some concert reviews from various music magazine, which include setlists, so I hope those will do.--SilverBullitt (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@SilverBullitt: Those sources are a lot better. All the replacement sources look good. Thank you for taking the time to find them.
I've gone through and corrected several errors or formatting issues in the sources. Some sourcing issues I've noticed that need to be corrected:

Several sources were missing dates that the source URL provided. Please double-check any and all sources that do not already provide dates.
The dates are formatted inconsistently. Some citations use "YYYY-MM-DD", while others use "Month DD, YYYY". You have to choose one. Incidentally, the latter style would be incorrect because it's the American style and only used for American topics; it would have to be "DD Month YYYY".
*There are a lot of inconsistencies regarding the labels "website" and "publisher", sometimes for different articles published by the same source. Here's how it should work: The "website" is the name of the publication, and will appear in italics. The "publisher" is the name of the company that published the work, or for any situation where the source is not a publication but rather an entity like a band. Social media companies (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) are neither publications nor publishers, they are just the hosts for content posted by others. When you want to indicate that content is hosted on one of those sites, use the "via" parameter of the citation templates (also, there is a separate citation template just for tweets). Please correct these. For example, Ilta-Sanomat is indicated as a "website" in some citations but a "publisher" in others, but it is a "website" for purposes of the citation template. 

Several sources written in Finnish do not indicate that the source language is Finnish. Please make sure that every citation to a Finnish source indicates that its language is Finnish.
The "Tour dates" section is unsourced. You can include a sentence at the top like "Tour date information adapted from [name(s) of source(s)]", then include the sources as footnotes.
The "Personnel" section is unsourced. I imagine it would be quite easy to source this section, and it would be good to have one for the record.
Some other issues:

The structure of the "Reception" section is very confusing. It began with a sentence about critical reception, then moved to a section about commercial performance, then straight back to critical reception; I've since rearranged it so that the commercial performance info is in its own paragraph. Even with that sentence moved out, the critical reception paragraph is very long and could be broken up.
Contributing to the length and confusion, you return to sources that have already been mentioned; for example, "Soundi echoed this", after you'd already covered Soundi's review in an earlier sentence. Not only is this confusing in terms of writing structure, it's not even accurate: the review in Soundi couldn't have "echoed" a statement from the Loudwire review because the Loudwire review was published afterward. I recommend the following:
Rearrange the sentences about each review so that each review is given in sequence, one at a time. I recommend presenting the reviews in chronological order by the date of publication, but there could be other reasonable ways to sequence them.
State simply the key points you want to draw from each review.
If there are common points of agreement, indicate those points (in summary style) in the introductory sentence about the overall reception. This may allow you to cut out some redundant text and focus more on the individual highlights of each review.
For the record, the above recommendations only apply to the first paragraph of the tour's reception, not the second paragraph about the lukewarm or negative reviews. I think that second paragraph is structured quite well.
Finally, you should include the names of authors, not just the names of publications, when you attribute critical reviews in-text. There are a few reasons this should be done. First, the views published in an interview do not necessarily reflect the stances of the publications as institutions, only the author's views. Think about phrasing like "Ilta-Sanomat felt similarly"; did the newspaper feel something, or did its writer Pasi Kostiainen feel it? That should be written "Pasi Kostiainen of Ilta-Sanomat felt similarly". Additionally, it helps distinguish different reviews: Ilta-Sanomat published two distinct reviews of HIM shows, but if someone is reading the section aloud or listening to someone else reading it aloud, that would not be clear.
You write "Ticket sales for the tour's final five dates also caused some controversy" and then describe the anti-scalping measures taken by the band. But you don't actually say why there was controversy. Reading between the lines, I can imagine why those measures might be controversial—it makes it harder to resell tickets, even for common fans who are not scalpers (though it certainly makes things harder for scalpers, too, which may not be a good thing depending on who you ask). But there is no explicit statement of the problem, nor attribution of who found the ticketing measures controversial.
I'm not sure there's a strong reason to include the "External links" section. The only link is the band's official website, which is not specific to this tour that is the article's subject matter. —BLZ · talk 22:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Okay, I'll start work on these issues as soon as I can. I'll let you know when I'm finished.--SilverBullitt (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Brandt Luke Zorn: Alright, I think I fixed all the issues you mentioned. Let me know if there are still some problems or issues I missed.--SilverBullitt (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilverBullitt: Good work on those corrections. I've made a few small formatting corrections (dates, a missing author, Metal Hammer being a website rather than a publisher) but otherwise the references now look consistent and well-formatted. The reorganization and rewriting of the "Reception" section looks very good. I'm going to do one last sweep of the article now to formally check it against the GA criteria. —BLZ · talk 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Really good work in this regard. I think sourcing concerns were probably the most demanding aspect of my review, but you rose to the challenge.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The reception section is very measured.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The promotional poster is covered by a fair use rationale. Really nice work on the photo you contributed to the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
In my judgment, this now meets all the GA criteria. Great work! Thank you for your patience—I know this review has dragged out with lots of delays. You've put in the hard work and this is a fine article on a band's final tour. I'm going to pass it now.