Talk:2010 Tonight Show conflict/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by RunningTiger123 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: RunningTiger123 (talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hi LuK3, this article caught my interest and I've decided to give it a go. It'll take some time to get through everything, but I should be able to finish it over the weekend. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

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):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  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 non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Quick checks:

  • Copyvio check shows no major issues; closest matches are attributed quotes.
  • Images seem reasonable; the two non-free images (lead image and Kimmel) have solid rationales, and all images include proper alt text and captions.
  • The article is stable.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • "not participate in the destruction of The Tonight Show" – this quote is never used in the body, and is therefore unattributed.
  • on appearing on television – awkward repetition, maybe try against appearing on television?

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Background

edit
  • Note: From here on out, I'll assume Carter's citations are accurate.
  • Ref. 3 is okay, but not great. It would be better for a source to directly state NBC was a leader, rather than infer it from charts.
    • I changed the image caption. I think the chart is fairly straightforward in stating NBC/The Tonight Show were number 1 in viewership for most of the 90s and 2000s. If that still is insufficient please let me know and I'll find another reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • which began in 1993. – should be a comma at the end
  • can competecould compete
  • (for Leno's entire run) – this might be confusing, since it's not immediately clear if this means 2009 or 2014. I'd suggest rewording or just removing it.
    • I specified it was Leno's first stint as host.
  • Ref. 13 does not make it clear if Michaels suggested O'Brien for the role.
  • Ref. 14 never mentions a week-to-week contract.
    • There seems to be inconsistencies between the Bill Carter book and other references. Most online sources stated NBC put O'Brien on a 13-week (3 month) contract so I changed it to that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • 1:30 am.,1:30 am,

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Early history

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ratings

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Conflict

edit

Reaction and media coverage

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Settlement

edit

Sorry for the delay, I'll try to get the rest of the review knocked out ASAP.

(talk) 00:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Impact

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aftermath

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the lengthy review and the delay – overall, it's a really strong article. Once the above comments are resolved, I'll be happy to support promotion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the thorough review RunningTiger123. I believe I addressed all of the issues raised above. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
There are a few spots where I replied to your fixes across all sections that still need to be addressed (mostly grammar); otherwise, everything else looks good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing those out, I believe it should be good now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looks good! Passing shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply