Talk:The Sweet Escape Tour

message: Why don't you make this in prose? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable events

message: Sorry but I'm failing this. 1/2 the article is the list of the shows played, 1/4 is the track listing and a list of notable events which reads like trivia and the last 1/4 is reception. Plus there are also problems with the writing->
*The tour was Stefani's second solo tour and was a follow up to her previous 2005 tour, The Harajuku Lovers Tour. The tour went worldwide as compared to her previous tour which was constricted only to North America and had more than double the number of shows. The tour was Stefani's last solo effort as she rejoined her band No Doubt after the tour was over.
: Now there are only 4 tour instead of 8. :)
* 30th October - WP:DATE states do not use dates with "th"
:
* Don't link 2007 by itself.
:
I suggest you try featured list again. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting very confusing. Is this a list or an article. I am very confused. At the FLC, it was opposed as they found it was more of an article. By the way thank you for the review. I will surely work on them and try for GA soon. Indianescence (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it should be more of an article, but is formatted a lot like a list. It shouldn't be - see Across the Great Divide tour (nowhere near complete, but the basis is there) for what you might want to look for in terms of the prose needed. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Metal Head, i have even looked into the issues you raised during the FLC and have worked on them too. As far as i see, the article has satified all the objections. Therefore, i am re-nominating it. Indianescence (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRIVIA said, Convert bullet points to prose. This is what i have done with the notable events section to meet the requirements and to go according to WP:TRIVIAIndianescence (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it still fails criterion 3. There is virtually no discussion of the background to the tour. The "Introduction" section should be expanded to discuss reasons for the tour taking place, where it went, what they did - basically an overview of the whole thing. I don't think a set list is necessary - if you want to keep it, move it down in favour of prose. The notable events section would be better suited as a controversy section, and could be further expanded - this should also be a subsection of the history section. Finally, the critique section could be expanded to the point where there's one paragraph for each review. This will take more than a day - please be patient, and put some more work into the article before re-nominating. You can leave a note on my talk page if you want a re-review some time in the future. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I have already mentioned it above, but i would like to mention it again. I have renominated the article because:
*All the objections and mistakes pointed out in both, its previous GA nomination and FLC have been considered and i feel i have worked on them as required.
*The article has been declared as an article by one more editor, therefeore i have nominated it for "Good Article".
*The article now goes according to WP:TRIVIA and i have also expanded the Introduction section.  Indianescence (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it still fails criterion 3. There is virtually no discussion of the background to the tour. The "Introduction" section should be expanded to discuss reasons for the tour taking place, where it went, what they did - basically an overview of the whole thing. I don't think a set list is necessary - if you want to keep it, move it down in favour of prose. The notable events section would be better suited as a controversy section, and could be further expanded - this should also be a subsection of the history section. Finally, the critique section could be expanded to the point where there's one paragraph for each review. This will take more than a day - please be patient, and put some more work into the article before re-nominating. You can leave a note on my talk page if you want a re-review some time in the future. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Renomination

message: Someone's added a "DVD" section on the main page. While I could see it being a good idea, it needs revision. I'm not sure exactly what would be appropriate in it, however, and was wondering if someone would mind taking it up. I took out the parts that I couldn't see being appropriate at all, but the information I left I still don't see as necessary. Any comments/ideas on this? DreamHaze (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Section