Talk:The Miseducation Tour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:The Miseducation Tour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bronx Langford (talk · contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 20:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Bronx Langford! I'll be your reviewer for the GA nomination of The Miseducation Tour. I'll go through the whole article and report back my criteria. - RTSthestardust (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations @Bronx Langford! You have passed your GA nomination of The Miseducation Tour. Going through it, this is one of the best articles nominated for GA I have looked through. Keep up the good work! - RTSthestardust (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

GA Criteria Table

More information Rate, Attribute ...
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Checked through the article and there were no issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Looks very well done. No issues here.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No issues here; well-organized with notes, citations, and bibliography
2c. it contains no original research. No issues here.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Highest copyvio is 33.8% from Okayplayer, but violation is unlikely as they are coded green.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The tour's background, development, synopsis, reception, legacy, set list, and tour dates are all covered
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Very solid structure, as there's no detail that highly distracts from its purpose
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No issues here.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Nominator nearly takes over the whole authorship. No edits occurred in the past two months, making this article very stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. There are three images; the first is a non-free poster and the other two free-use images have verified licenses.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All images are relevant for use in the article and both the free use images have good descriptions.
7. Overall assessment.
Close

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI