Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive4

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2021 [1].

The Masked Singer (American TV series) edit

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular TV shows in the United States right now, The Masked Singer. It is a really interesting read and I think very helpful to anyone wanting to learn more about the show. The core of the article was written in April/May last year, with edits and additions since then. In its current state, I believe it is one of the best television articles on Wikipedia and worthy of FA status. I look forward to responding to any comments you may have :)

This is my fourth nomination for the article. The first two did not attract enough reviews and I withdrew the third unceremoniously after a source review by Ealdgyth in which I felt dismayed. I don't want to dwell on that, but aside from AwardsWatch and The Playlist, none of the sources she inquired about remain in the article. Those two are niche awards/"For Your Consideration"-focused outlets and are interviews with the costume designer in which she discusses the costumes. I don't think it is unreasonable to include them as 100% of topic's coverage is not going to come traditional outlets. It is a miracle there is this much coverage about a reality show to begin with. Heartfox (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • SatDis and Aoba47: do you feel your comments from the last FAC were addressed? (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buidhe, what do you mean? Heartfox (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just pinging participants on the last fac to see if they have input here. Aoba supported last time so I bet they will support again. (t · c) buidhe 23:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the ping. I was actually going to leave up a placeholder earlier today, but got distracted. I would like to re-read the article again to make sure I did not miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Card Carrying Parrot edit

Although I will (likely) support this FA, I would like to ask that you decrease the amount of unnecessary words (eg. that, an example in the article would be "request that the host"). Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Card Carrying Parrot: Thank you very much for your comments. I have reduced the sentence and cut words from the rest of the article. If you note anything else in particular please let me know. Heartfox (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I cannot remember if I asked this before so apologies in advance if I did in a previous review. Do you think there are enough awards and nominations to create a separate list for them? Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is my only comment. Everything else looks good and I will be more than happy to reaffirm my support for the FAC. I will wait for you to answer the above question though before I do so. While I would imagine that the awards and nominations would likely be spin-off as a separate list one day, I am unsure if it would be appropriate to do it now (as I am not aware of the exact threshold if any in terms of number of awards and nominations). Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comment. I would imagine it will eventually be split. I'm not aware of any specific threshold for awards and nominations tables but it doesn't seem overly long to me at the moment from a visual standpoint. The article is currently at 43kb and 6,900 words, which doesn't really warrant splitting per WP:SIZESPLIT. I would also want to go through a talk page discussion with other editors before doing so. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I agree that it is not overly long at the moment and a talk page discussion would be the better format to discuss this kind of thing as it would be better to get a larger consensus. I only wanted to ask you as it was something that I had thought about while reading the article so I was curious about your perspective. I think there are specific thresholds for those kinds of standalone lists, but it has been a while since I have worked on lists so I could very well be misremembering it. Either way, I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it and I am glad you are sticking to it! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake edit

Rather than having a ref in the infobox to verify the directors, shouldn't the roles of them both be written out in the body with the ref but keep the credits in the infobox too? Also, remove or replace Hollywood Life because that is definitely an unreliable source and cite publications as work/publisher depending on whether or not they are italicised accurately. --K. Peake 20:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed Hollywood Life.
  • I've added a sentence with Brad Duns in the "Performances" section and removed the ref from the infobox.

Thanks for your comments, Kyle Peake. I hope I have addressed them correctly. Could you provide a little more clarity as to your comment about citing/italicizing publications? Regards, Heartfox (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my first two issues and regarding the publications comment, check their articles to see if they should be italicised in citations, i.e. MTV should not be for instance; therefore cite as publisher. --K. Peake 07:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: I've converted some of the work parameters to publisher, but MOS:ITALICWEBSITE says "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". As MTV News is a news site with original content, I believe it should be italicized in citations. Heartfox (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the explanation and partial implementation... I now support this candidacy! --K. Peake 09:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If it's okay with you, I removed the collapse template as there isn't much to collapse. Heartfox (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS edit

Here's something to work with that doesn't involve prose. My only qualm with the image use (aside from not finding the logo in the currently used URL) is that it feels monotonous to have them all aligned towards the right. Moving some of them to the left would help provide diversity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No more image concerns from me. Now moving onto the text..... SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS edit

  • It looks the first paragraph of "Format" is missing sources (with only its opening sentence having a citation)
    • I will review the sources again and add them tomorrow.
  • Four digits are preferred for years as more complete and professional looking than two digits
    • I believe I converted everything.
  • I would expand on "Critical response" by adding Rotten Tomatoes scores for subsequent seasons
    • Regrettably there are no scores for subsequent seasons as there were not enough reviews and there is no overall score.
  • If an award organization doesn't warrant its own article, then it shouldn't be listed in the accolades table per WP:INDISCRIMINATE

These are admittedly pretty broad comments. Nevertheless, addressing them will improve the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I've hopefully addressed your comments except the first, which I will get to tomorrow. They have improved the article. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the additional references. In the meantime, does Metacritic perhaps have individual assessments of the seasons? It might be your next best option without separate RT ratings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic only has 10 reviews, and all of them are for the first season. There's no season-specific assessments. For a lot of reality shows, the vast majority of reviews are for the first episode/season and then nothing afterward. For context, the article currently uses about 24 reviews published at the time of the first season, 9 from the second, 9 for the third, 0 for the fourth, and 2 for the fifth. Heartfox (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I recommend replacing some season 1 commentary with reviews for the fourth and fifth seasons so it feels more balanced. The fact that you don't currently have any reception listed at all for season 4 is a glaring issue. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any I'm aware of. All of the ones in the article for those seasons are those that were published/relevant. There is not an equal number of reviews that were published during the broadcast of each season. Heartfox (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a shame. However, if that's as balanced/comprehensive as you can get with reviews without bloating, then I'll support the nomination since everything else I brought up was resolved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNUGGUMS, I haven't added the refs for the format paragraph yet :P But yes, it is kind of unfortunate how there are little reviews for subsequent seasons. I would consider it as comprehensive/balanced as possible based on the scope covered (multiple angles of the show like the format, panelists, etc. not just one thing), as well as the numerous foreign sources, which can help provide a different perspective (which they do in fact; many of them felt the show's celebrities were higher-status than American publications did, for example). There are a few reviews that are excluded from the article, either because nothing the author wrote really fit in with the major themes or they just blabbered on and didn't really make their opinion clear. But I would say the reviews in the article are 90% of what's been published. Heartfox (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Flimsy pieces like what you've described with blabbering are certainly not worth adding. I don't blame you for such exclusions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vaticidalprophet edit

Placeholder. Initial thoughts from a quick skim: nothing obviously terrible, but some things I'll have questions about. I recognize that this is a reality TV article, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. Vaticidalprophet 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and reliability edit
  • Is cite 268 (the tweet) necessary, considering a marginally better source exists to support the same rather minor information? If it's being used to support the date, is there an independent source that does so, as there was for the immediately preceding half-sentence? If not, what's the encyclopedic relevance? (I'm unconvinced about the sentence broadly; if we cut this half, considering the two halves are pretty tied, we shouldn't have either.)
    • Combined the sentence and removed the date information. There's no secondary source for the Zoom part.
  • There's a fair bit of primary, press release, and usually-marginal sourcing. As I mentioned, I understand this is a matter of what sourcing is available and won't harp on it. There are, however, some points where I'm concerned near-refbombing is used to 'prove' the encyclopedic relevance of fairly marginal information. Use of multiple cites on the ends of a single sentence or sentence fragment is routine. For example, I'm not sure what the relevance of middle school competitions is, nor that of Reddit.
    • Removed the first paragraph in the "cultural impact" section. Removed/replaced press releases with information already cited in secondary sources. Tried to cut down on as much three footnotes in a row as possible.
  • Relatedly, sometimes these citations seem entirely superfluous. For instance, with though those of "vocal legend[s]" such as LaBelle (placed 8th out of 16),[88] Dionne Warwick (14th out of 18),[183] and Chaka Khan (16th out of 18)[184] have been criticized for being premature.[185][186][187], I don't see the need for citing to the show itself the individuals involved when the refs in question discuss the phenomenon.
    • Removed the elimination order refs.

Vaticidalprophet 13:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: thanks for your comments and time reviewing the article. I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Vaticidalprophet:, how are the sources looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog -- just taking a look back over some things now. Have been spread between a few obligations, but nonetheless getting to everything. Vaticidalprophet 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting edit

Seems fine, but nitpicking these things (as opposed to checking the reliability and verifiability) isn't a huge interest of mine, and so people more inclined to it may want to take a quick skim for anything glaring. All sources have sufficient information for verification. Vaticidalprophet 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks edit
  1. 40: I'm not getting "the same" here. If anything, there's the implication they prefer somewhat niche names, rather than just treating them and major celebrities identically. The source also delves into the specific process of picking celebrities of different niches, which is absent from the article and could do with a mention.
Changed sentence to "In addition to "super big names", they prefer lesser-known celebrities because it is harder to guess them."
I think the sentence "Wade said producers' goal is to cast celebrities of varying ages, genders, and backgrounds to appeal to as broad an audience as possible" already applies to the process of picking celebrities of different niches.
  1. 41: Both uses verified.
  2. 51: Verified, but seems you could possibly add the additional detail that the locations are removed from one another (either in a different building or a different lot).
I believe the sentence "Each participant is escorted to and from their trailers outside of the set" in the previous paragraph explains this.
  1. 78: Verified, but took a while because it took me several reads to figure out what some may be unperformed if a contestant is eliminated meant.
Changed to "some will not be performed if a contestant is eliminated".
  1. 185: Verified.
  2. 201: Verified and, I suspect, direly underused. The article trends towards a pretty positive take on the reception; this is a cuttingly negative piece, and also brings up something I found a glaring oversight/"did no one ever talk about this?", which was that one of the host's biggest claim to fame is her vaccines-cause-autism obsession -- it struck me as pretty weird that some minor (indeed perhaps best unmentioned) controversy about statements that might kind of have been anti-Semitic and were quickly apologised for made it to the article as a controversy, but that, working from what the article represents, no RS has ever discussed McCarthy. Broadly speaking, much of the critical response section is more positive than what the actual sources in this section represent.

I'm leaving it there for now with a real note about 201 and about that section in general. As you note, the reception of this show is very mixed. I get the impression that the positive reviews are being overstated a bit, the mixed ones mostly leaned towards their positivity, and the negative ones downplayed. There's probably some use to tweaking that section for NPOV. Vaticidalprophet 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone this section so many times; stuff that happened to be negative isn't present anymore. I'll add stuff back in a few days, but it's only going to be a couple sentences as that's all there is. Heartfox (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Heartfox, has this been done? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I was procrastinating and then I’ve been dealing with some vaccine side-effects for the past couple days so I haven’t been able to do any significant editing. I plan to do it by Tuesday evening. Heartfox (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Little seems to have happened to this article over the past ten days. Is this likely to change in the near future? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would, for what it's worth, rather pass the source review how it is than see the article withdrawn on it. Vaticidalprophet 21:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence about McCarthy's vaccine views as the last sentence of the section, citing The A.V. Club and Vulture. The section is based on themes, so if there was one negative review of an aspect, and five reviews on a different aspect, but both aspects are discussed in the same article, I am going to exclude those that aren't also given by other sources, per WP:UNDUE. As there are at least two sources about it, it appears McCarthy's vaccine views and her relationship on the show was overlooked, so it is now included. @Vaticidalprophet: I appreciate your time with the source review and I apologize for the delay. If there's anything in particular you feel is missing please let me know. Heartfox (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass the source review, with no worries on the delay. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Masked_Singer_(American_TV_series)/archive4&oldid=1035396149"