Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:49, 12 February 2018

The View (talk show) is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by DantODB at 06:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

The View (talk show) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 26, 2017). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Television Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Creativity97 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Review

• The lead section is not long enough, and does not cover or explain briefly and poignantly all the points the article covers.
• The "Format" section is severely lacking in several areas: several sentences and claims require in-line citations and verification to prove that they are true. Considering the series has been on the air for two decades, this section is lacking in information and in sources and as a result is very underdeveloped.
• Keep things in historical perspective. On October 30, 2014, --> In October 2014,
• For a subsection that is supposed to cover 17 seasons, 2 paragraphs also seems severely lacking and underdeveloped in content and verifiable sources.
• Too many grammar issues in the season 18 subsection. Keep things in historical perspective. Needs a copyedit, as "in summer 2014" is extremely badly written and grammatically incorrect.
• Seasons 19–20 subsection is also way too brief; lacking, underdeveloped, and in need of more sources.
• The co-host section and its subsection seems fine in terms of content but needs a huge general copyedit for the same reasons listed above, and also to eliminate unnecessary repeated information, which I'm seeing a lot of.
• The notable episodes section needs a ton of work. General copyedit to start (there are several sentences that are just on their own as if they are all separate paragraphs - extremely messy), but then more content with verifiable sources is going to need to be added to make it seem more noteworthy of having its own section.
• Reception section seems fine in terms of content, but it also seems like the bare minimum in terms of research was done here. I guarantee that you can find so much more quotes from critics and other information for this section over the past 20 years. Also needs a general copyedit.
• The rest of the article does not require any changes or further work in my opinion.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The majority of the article has far too many grammatical concerns. Needs copyediting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Several parts of the article need more verifiable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Definitely needs a lot more work in terms of coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Fail. A lot more work needs to be done on this article before it can be passed for GA. Keep working on it with my comments and nominate it again when more work has been put into it.

Requested move 26 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. The original proposal is the only one I can find consensus for. -- Tavix 19:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The View (U.S. TV series) → The View (talk show) – This is a talk show. Netoholic did this move, but it was then reverted a few days later. GeoffreyT2000 00:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Per WP:CONCISE, a disambiguation that is only two words is better and still gets across the same info._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (re above, WP:CONCISE is not really about shrinking 10-character dabs down to 9-character dabs, see examples on guideline). The proposed move is contrary to normal titling of (TV series) as the default for all series whatever format, including talk shows. Even if The View (Irish TV series) was not also in part a talk show we wouldn't distinguish by (talk show), but in this case the Irish show also was in part a talk show " There was a varied panel of contributors who offer their opinions" ... i.e. talked in a panel talk show format; so the entire rationale for this move just evaporated. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You could not be more wrong when you say "titling of (TV series) as the default for all series whatever format" – that is absolutely incorrect. The default naming is actually "TV program". Generally only TV programs with continuing storylines (e.g. scripted fictional TV program) get the "TV series" disambiguation term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this precedent is clearly established per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)#Non-series television. This is a talk show, it uses (talk show). This has been part of the WP:NCTV for years and years. I don't have specific knowledge about The View (Irish TV series), but it looks like that needs to be renamed as a separate matter (if that one qualifies as a talk show also, then The View (U.S. TV series) would become The View (U.S. talk show) ). -- Netoholic @ 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC) -- added. Also support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC move to The View. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I think it's likely that The View (Irish TV series) is also a talk show - the article says it consists of a presenter and various contributors discussing arts topics. Therefore this should be moved to The View (U.S. talk show), and the other one should be The View (Irish talk show).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I don't get that The View (Irish TV series) is a "talk show". But it is also clearly not a "TV series", as it is simply a TV program (it even says so in the lede) devoted to the "arts". Thus, it should either be moved to The View (TV programme), or to The View (Irish TV programme) if it is felt that the talk show and the TV program need additional (national) disambiguation from each other (which, in this case, I don't feel that they do, though I would advise employing hatnotes at both articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

    @IJBall: from talk show article we learn that A talk show or chat show is a television programming or radio programming genre in which one person (or group of people) discusses various topics put forth by a talk show host. The Irish show is clearly that. So the title The View (talk show) is not possible because of WP:NCTV and WP:PARTIALDAB. To be honest with you though, looking at this again, I might have been over hasty in rejecting the outright primary topic though. Moving to The View might be an option, it does get a lot more page views than anything else.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Move to The View, and move the dab page to The View (disambiguation). This show is far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it receives 91% of all article traffic, is the best known of all topics internationally, and the one with by far the most influence and long-term significance.--Cúchullain /c 14:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  I would oppose this. The show is not known internationally, and is not primary over all the other topics combined. The Scottish band are significant as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's objectively known internationally, as it airs or has aired in multiple countries, but that has no bearing on whether something's the primary topic. This gets over 90% of the traffic and neither the band nor the rest of the topics combined challenge it in terms of notability. When the vast majority of our readers are looking for the same thing, we shouldn't be throwing roadblocks in their way.--Cúchullain /c 13:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the page view stats... I'll mark this as my second choice, as I still prefer using the "talk show" disambiguator. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per In ictu oculi. The proposed move would cause loss of analogous disambiguation via each series' national identity, thus putting into question the reason for use of "Irish" within one series' qualifier and omitting such identity in the other qualifier. Also, Cúchullain's point regarding positioning of the U.S. series as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is well argued and should be taken into consideration. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support moving to The View or as originally proposed. It's not a series. And the U.S. show is far better-known and more significant than the other topics - the Irish program and British band seem to be not exactly cultural icons in their own countries much less globally. —innotata 10:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support "Talk show" is more accurate than "series." Rockypedia (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support – "talk show" is absolutely the correct disambig. term as per WP:NCTV. There have been repeated discussions about this at NCTV, and the strong consensus is that "TV series" should only be used for those TV programs that have continuing storylines (which is primarily scripted fictional TV series, and some reality TV series). This program doesn't qualify: it's a talk show, not a "TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The View (U.S. TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120101351/http://theview.abc.go.com/blog/guys-guests-shake-things-she-said-he-said-style-month to http://theview.abc.go.com/blog/guys-guests-shake-things-she-said-he-said-style-month

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The View (talk show)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I will give this review a go, haven't seen the show but the article looks promising at first glance. I'll try and get to it shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Review 1

It looks like some effort has been put into responding to the issues of the previous (failed) GA review, which is a good start. However, I am not ready to pass the article as GA just yet.

• I think the lead still needs some work. This is a reasonably big and detailed article, and the lead should give a full and complete summary. You probably need at least three articles paragraphs worth of content there, and should aim for around a sentence per section of the body at least as a a good guide.
• The format section doesn't really give a clear explanation of what the show is actually about. I am none the wiser having read it. The big quote is especially confusing, as you say it explains the premise but after reading it I don't think it actually does. Have a go trying to make the whole section clearer.
• You start mentioning people in the format and production sections without having first introduced them in the body. Assume that your reader has not read the lead of infobox, and make sure they know who you are referring to as you first use names.
• The last line in the co-host section, listing all the guest co-hosts for this year, is unsourced.
• Make sure you aren't overlinking people's names. In the body, the people should only be linked for their first introduction and then also in tables.
• The reception section could use some work. For such a long-running show, there should be a much more comprehensive critical response section, and it would be great to get some analysis content for the ratings section that can give an overview of the viewership (i.e. whether it has gone up or down at certain times, when the peaks have been).
• I would seriously consider splitting the awards table off to its own article, given how big it is. There are plenty of articles like that out there that can be used as templates. If you do this, you should replace the table here with a short summary/overview with a link pointing to the separate article.
• The entire international broadcast section is unsourced, and is probably a violation of MOS:TVINTL anyway.
• Make sure all the references have been filled out properly, and in particular there should be archives for all web sources.
• One more image in the article probably wouldn't go amiss, but that isn't a major.

I'll put the article on hold while you give this stuff a go. Let me know if there are any issues / when you are ready for me to take another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Review 2

I am going to give this another look over now, per the message left for me at my talk page with this diff. I would also like to note that there has been significant edit warring regarding this page, with more details (including some input from myself) found at the talk page of Noodlefish96. Admin intervention has appeared to have solved the issue for now, so I am willing to overlook the problem for the remainder of the review as long as I do not receive any evidence of further stability issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like, for the most part, you have tried to address my concerns, and overall the article is looking better. I still have some concerns though, which need to be addressed if you want me to promote the article. The review can stay on hold until they are. There is a single sentence paragraph in the notable episodes section, which we generally try to avoid. You also still have an issue with not introducing people—literally the first line of the article's body references a person without telling us who they are. This is important since readers need to know who you are talking about. And most importantly, the references need to be sorted out as I said before. This is major, and I won't promote the article until it is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 I did all of the suggestions above, and I think the article's ready for review! Thanks! DantODB (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That is looking pretty good now. Just sort out the introduction problem, and I'll be happy to give the review a pass. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 May I ask what adjustments you would suggest I make in regards to introductions? Because I put job titles before every name (e.g. Broadcast journalist Barbara Walters). DantODB (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about introductions in the body, not the lead. Since the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, the body should be able to stand on its own. In the very first sentence of the body, you mention "Walters", with no explanation who that is. Likewise, in the following quote you give the last names of the other initial hosts but not who they are with wikilinks. Just make sure that anyone who has not read the lead and instead starts the article with the format section is able to know who is who. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I think I fixed it. DantODB (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I think that covers the issues I had. This is a good article, so I am happy to pass this review. Well done. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97 Thank you very much! DantODB (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

A consensus should be reached before major edits like the ones that are being made are done. Please share your opinions, thanks. Noodlefish96 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees currently on hold
• Good article nominees on review
• Former good article nominees
• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles