Talk:Gerry Ryan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Luminum (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 28, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail - See notes below

2. Factually accurate?: Fail - Many statements attributed to Ryan himself and need to be verified. Need better application of reliable third party sourced; see notes below.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail - Article appears to cover all of Ryan's career, exploits, and some personal life, but also delves into seemingly unimportant anecdotes and media instances without being tied back to larger relevancy to the subject.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail - Peacock terms are frequent as are Ryan's own statements, without verification by another source.

5. Article stability? Pass - Article does not look to be changing too much in the near future.

6. Images?: Pass - All images are appropriate and appropriately licensed.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

Notes and suggestions

Below are notes and suggestions I made as I went through the article. They outline why the article was failed. They may be helpful to someone looking to improve it.

My general observations are that the statements in this article are spotty in their verifiability and if legit sources exist, they should be entered, otherwise the statements must be removed.

The writing also needs work, as well as determining what is notable and what is not. It's filled with anecdotes that do not seem meaningful or that are meant to impress a specific point about Ryan. Other writing issues include minor errors with grammar and syntax, copy editing, and sentence structure.

A lot of this should be copy edited to the Wiki style guide, such a times and "recent events".

Much of the content is based (apparently) off of Ryan's own statements, such as critical response, which lends some issues of neutral POV and objectiveness. There are frequent peacock terms that need to be corrected or properly sourced (or both).

Lead

• The opening paragraph/lead section shouldn't have references in it. These statements should already be sourced in the main article. These can be removed, provided that the statement exists in the main body, where it should be properly sourced.
• The third sentence lacks a period.
• Is the quote about God being bollox notable? If it's just making a point about how he got in trouble often, then I would remove it and place where appropriate in the main body.
• I'm not sure if the PR quote is appropriate, since it talks about what he could have done. Is there something more behind this, or can you find a more concrete statement of notability? If not, I would remove this.
• Unless a cause of death is known by now, just that he died should be enough.

Early life

• The section seems a bit scattered. The brothers are mentioned after childhood friends. Perhaps grouping family together first will make it more cohesive.
• Statements in quotes like "slightly eccentric" or "flamboyant" really need to be directly sourced, since they point out that the description is from someone else.

Early career/Lambo

• The writing here is a little choppy and the material is a bit odd, mostly because the larger part of this seems to be based all around "Ryan said". While his own material is valid, it would feel like a stronger account of his history if the statements and sources are written from a third party source perspective. Can you find sources that corroborate his accounts and descriptions, and if you have them, rewrite some of this to fit a more objective tone. Currently, it talks about how he viewed his friends, but that's less important than depicting that he joined this lineup, became successful, bonded with his fellow lineup members, and toured around with them, becoming quite popular.

• The Lambo incident, if just a hoax and lacking a significant impact, can probably be removed. It's two sentences for its own section. If the hoax was a big thing in Ryan's career, then finding more sources about it, describing why the idea came up when it was announced, what impact it had, and then breaking the news of the hoax and any reactions/fallout would make for a stronger section.

The Gerry Ryan Show

• Copy edit time slots to Wikipedia style. Ex. "09:00 - 12:00" should be changed to "9am to 12pm on weekday mornings".
• If you're discussing the format of his 3-hour program, it should be rewritten to convey this idea. Currently it reads as though his initial approach to the show was to read the day's news stories. It doesn't convey the sense that it was a format and writes about it as if it's a one-time event.
• Statements need to be clearly sourced.
• This section should be rewritten to emphasize the points that it's trying to make. When the rape victim called, what is meant by "the defining moment?" Is that when the show shifted its focus or format? What is meant by "the question being less important than the story"? Did he often make light of stories by shock-jocking a lot of random questions?
• Peacock terms like "something of a national institution" need to be rewritten more objectively (was it the beginning of its fame and respectability or not?) and needs to be sourced and verified.
• Again, some of the wording here is clumsy like "Despite repeated reshuffles which have seen all other presenters shifted around, RTÉ have never moved The Ryan Show from its traditional slot." which could be rewritten as "Although RTE would reshuffle its lineup of presenters, The Ryan Show was never moved from its traditional time slot."
• These anecdotes such as his wife calling are poorly written and also lack a greater meaning. The section should discuss why the show was notable such as the 2004 uproar and probably would benefit from some examples of critical response to the show.
• Things about the show after his death should be put in the section discussing his legacy or impact.

Television

• Where does this fit chronologically in his career? 1994 or much earlier? The entire section lacks the description to tell readers when these shows began, which shows the section is talking about, and critical response. When did he begin "Ryantown"? Was he the presenter? What was "Ryantown" anyway? Terms like "recent" need to be replaced with actual dates. 60 years from now, they won't be "recent" work.
• Rejected his proposal for what? For Ryan to co-host? Statements like these need to be contextualized so they are clear to the reader.
• Other statements need to be weeded out, such as the discussion about investing in Riverdance. It doesn't have to do with his television career, just his investment decisions.
• More peacock terms sans source (ex. "immortal words")
• If there were only rumors of him doing something and they never manifested as legitimate, then they should be removed, unless those rumors were the subject of substantial media coverage.
• Again, I'm seeing problems with the overuse of Ryan's own commentary. For this article to be encyclopedic, it needs to discuss Ryan from a viewpoint other than his own.

Autobiography

• This section has been started well. It needs more fleshing out with critical reception.

Earnings

• This should be dissolved back into his career. His significant earnings are career milestones and can be written as such as they happened in his career. If he was one of the highest paid of his field, this would also be a good thing to mention in the lead.
• Likewise, controlling the anecdotes used is appearing to be more and more relevant. Quotes should also be used sparingly if the subject can be explained in a comparable manner.

Personal life

• When did he marry his wife? The section talks about his divorce and their children without first mentioning their marriage and each child's birth. You don't need that level of detail per se, but describe events in his personal life in chronological order.
• The statement is repeated after a series of details about his personal life. Rewriting those as a more comprehensive narrative is necessary. When did they meet? What happened in the interim, when did they marry. And also, again, statements such as the constant foreclosure notices need to be sourced.
• When did he begin the new relationship?

Health

• If none of these health issues relate in a more substantial way, such as to his death, then they can probably just be placed under his personal life. A separate section isn't necessary.

Death

• Unless the thread was reported upon by reliable media, mention of it should be removed. Sources should only be those coming from reliable third party sources.
• Not every tweet from a colleague needs to be mentioned, only those (if any) that help describe the matters relating to his death.
• Like a lot of this article, this section should also be rewritten. To get a sense of the form, you may want to look at other GA'd articles on recently deceased celebrities.
• This section should also be divided into a "Death" and "Legacy" section, if you're going to fill it with later tributes to him, commentaries, etc.