Talk:Love Island (American TV series) season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 13:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, some problems I encountered.

• Link [22] is dead and CTV page doesn't mention Love Island.
• Minor problem but: What does the official logo for this show looks like?
• Link [36] shows (Account Suspended).
• Link [39] is Not Available from my location.
• Link [40] is taking a lot of time to load..
• Twitter isn't a reliable site, but as it is an official account, it's alright.
• On episodes, it doesn't have references about what happened, feel free to link the official video in there.

Please note that this is my second article to review, if you are not pleased with the review you could always submit back.

@Jayab314:, Greetings I'm pinging you as you made the article grow and you seem to care about this article, you can solve some problems from here. Editoneer (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Editoneer and Jayab314: I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes but I saw this show up on my watchlist and wanted to help. I fixed reference 22 by adding an archive link. CTV updates their show pages when a new season is about to start and they refreshed their Love Island page in preparation for season 2. I also found an archive for reference 36. I checked reference 39 where I'm based in the United States and it works for me and the content of the reference matches the article with no copyvio issues. I found an archive via the Wayback Machine and added it to the reference so that may or may not work for you Editoneer. For reference 40 I replaced the Yahoo link with a direct link from People since the Yahoo link was an aggregate from People and it is the same exact content so it should load quicker. For the episodes I used the cite episode template for the episode summaries and included a link to each episode to the CBS All Access version. The links will most likely be geo-blocked outside the United States and for those inside the United States require a paid subscription to CBS All Access. Great job on the article Jayab314! Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, gentleman you saved an article to be denied if it wasn't answered to within 7 days. I can confirm that CBS is blocking access because I'm not in America but I can't deny that due to WP:Verifiability guide. Editoneer (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Review reopened

Editoneer, the review does not appear to have been conducted by going over each of the GA criteria and making sure the article adhered to them; the few comments are mostly about references rather than the actual contents. I have accordingly reversed the approval and reopened the review so that the article can get the attention it needs and deserves.

The GA criteria include the following: 1. Well-written: this comes in two parts, the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

One thing I noticed was that the article couldn't decide whether it was about an American television program or an English one. The lead section refers to "presenter" and "narrator", both English terms, while the body of the article uses "host", the American term. I'd like to suggest that despite its origins in the UK, the article consistently stay with American terminology and wording/spelling. It should choose one or the other for clarity (a GA criterion). If American, use "while" rather than "whilst".

In addition, the lead section has some information that isn't in the body, and also uses some in-program wording that isn't understandable to a broad audience (i.e., "envelope ceremony"). It also has a high concentration of inline source citations, which is typically not needed here provided the sourcing is in the body of the article (the exception is information that could be contentious and quotes). More important, it's supposed to summarize the article yet doesn't have basic information about the show: that it's a show where people are isolated in a villa on a tropical island and are voted off. "Matthew Hoffman narrated it" does not explain to me what his function is. Is he a co-host? Seen on screen? Just doing voice-overs? Mind, this detail should actually be in the Production section, but Hoffman isn't mentioned there at all; he should be in the body of the article if he's important enough to be mentioned in the lead.

There are a number of places where the prose is unclear or lacking conciseness. There are also a fair number of grammatical issues and typos, all of which should have been identified in the original review, and all of which require fixing if the article is to attain GA status. A few examples:

Format section:

• "or dumped," This should probably be written or "dumped",—the quotes are for the term "dumped", right? Remember, Wikipedia uses logical quotations, so quote marks should typically not include following commas, and not periods unless you're dealing with a full quoted sentence.

Islanders section:

• The initial Islanders who entered the villa on Day 1 were revealed on June 30, 2019. There's a tense problem here, in that the revelation took place before the initial Islanders entered the villa: the revelation was June 30, and the first batch of Islanders entered the villa on July 7. Please recast the sentence, and you ought to specify here that Day 1 was July 7, 2019, since it has yet to be mentioned in the article text. (The infobox does not count in this regard.) One thing you should probably clarify somewhere is how the Days are counted: if filming ran from July 7, 2019, to August 7, 2019, and Day 1 to Day 31, what's up with the 32 days of filming?

@BlueMoonset: Counting July 7 as the first day of filming, August 7 would be the thirty-second day of filming. Jayab314 16:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Production section:

• On February 22, 2006, it was announced that an American version of Celebrity Love Island was in development at My Network TV but never materialized. They announced that it was in development and that it never materialized? The sources, since they're dated February 22, 2006, will only have covered the announcement. The failure to materialize happened later, and the sentence needs to be recast to reflect this.
• later joined the series as additional executive producers in addition to the original three. Using "additional…in addition" is repetitive and not GA quality. Simplest fix would be dropping "in addition to the original three", or you could replace "in addition to" with "beyond" if you think it isn't sufficiently clear that all three original EPs stayed on.
• and aired every weeknight until August 7, 2019 over which twenty-two episodes aired. Again repetitive, this time with "aired"; this should be written more simply and directly. The following sentence switches from past to present with "is simulcast" and really shouldn't.
• Each person picks an envelope and announced what was inside. Tense change needs fixing, and I'd suggest a word more specific than "person", perhaps "winner" or "member of the winning couple".
• Love Island is filmed in a custom built villa on the islands of Fiji. "custom built" should be hyphenated, as it modifies "villa", and the villa has to be on a specific island, not on "the islands of Fiji". If no one knows which one, then "one of the islands of Fiji" can be used.

Episodes section:

• Episode 1: Then, they moved to the pool where they picked the couples. The uses of "they" lack clarity. Indeed, this entire description lacks clarity: how many women and how many men at each stage is important. If all 11 starters were known beforehand due to the June 30 announcement, then start with five of the six women entering, specify that the five men were there, and then Kyra as the sixth.
• Episode 5: The guys pranked the girls with a fake text from Love Island. This left Mallory and a few other girls mad a Weston for pranking them. If all the guys did it, why were the girls "mad a Weston" (typo) rather than all the guys? Please clarify.

There's more like that throughout.

2. Verifiable: I haven't checked this. Some work has been done on the sourcing, but there was no mention of checking to ensure it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism, which is a crucial part of reviewing.

3. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic: there are some holes in the coverage: Production seems quite light, including development, any decisions on differences between the UK original in terms of location, organization of island site, etc., selection of contestants, and a great deal more. The article seems to be assuming basic knowledge of Love Island and shouldn't. The second part of broadness, it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, is one another reviewer should judge, though the Villa section may go into too much detail; Furniture throughout the villa has over three-hundred feet of custom-made fabrics. seems to me to be excessive.

4. Neutral: I'm not familiar enough with the show and its characterization to tell whether the episode descriptions and summary of the critical reception are properly representative, but nothing stands out as problematic during a quick skim.

5. Stable: the article has been.

6. Illustrated: the two non-free images appear to be okay, though it would be better if a patroller/administrator could verify that the villa photo rationale passed muster.

That's it for now. I'd like to suggest that once the nominator goes through and addresses these issues and others like them, that the article be submitted to the Guild of Copy Editors, which has a very short backlog and a month long drive ongoing, so the text can be improved to GA-level prose; it isn't yet there at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems, that I'm way too familiar with the show that interfered with this review and most of the terms like "narrating" (which in this context means a voice-over) made me think it is obvious as a narrator is a story-teller and other terms of the show. Thank you for standing up and telling us this. I will try to be more careful next time. Editoneer (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've made most of the fixes you suggested, but I'm a little confused on what to change in the lead. Can you give specific examples as to what should be changed? Jayab314 20:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Alright, I think I've made all the changes that were requested. If there's anything more I need to change, please tell me. I submitted the article to the Guild of Copy Editors about an hour ago. Jayab314 17:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Jayab314, thanks for taking care of the GOCE nomination and the prose changes. While that's good progress, you still have not done anything to address my points in the Broadness section, which are critical to a GA nomination: the article needs to be sufficiently broad in its coverage in terms of production, development, and so on, and it really isn't. I've never seen the show, so I don't know the basic physical set up: do all of the contestants sleep in the same room (the Villa section talks about a communal bedroom and a [singular] bathroom) and have to share a single bathroom? Is there a men's bedroom and a women's bedroom? Do the couples share a bed? (The episode 6 description would seem to indicate this, as the phrase "sleep with the girl's partner" is used, though confusingly this is expressed as "went on a date" in the following episode.) I think there needs to be expansion of the Format section to address these basics; remember, you have to make the basic setup understandable to someone who has never seen the show before. I also didn't see any cleaning up of the Villa section in terms of eliminating unnecessary detail about some of the design elements. Mentioning all of the designers seems like product placement: not germane to the article, but free advertising for them.

I also think you need to go through the episode descriptions to do some clean-up, which I've attempted for 5 and 6. I'm not quite sure why the game in episode 6 is not separated like most of the other ones are, but some consistency would be nice. Since the prizes won tend not to be mentioned, the detail in episode 5 that the Islanders didn't know the prize going in seems unnecessary since the prizes aren't generally mentioned (and this one isn't). The prizes don't seem to help that much, since Alana won unanimously in episode 7 yet was dumped later in the same episode. One important thing is to be very sure your antecedents are clear whenever you use "they" (the opening of episode 12 is but one example where clarity is lacking). There are a surprising number of sentences that don't meet the clear and concise criteria: examples can be found in episode 17's first paragraph and episode's 12 second paragraph.

Doing all of this before the copyedit will help, since it's better when they're working with a clearer article. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the feedback. As for the coverage problem, I have seen the show multiple times and am familiar with the format so I wouldn't know what to add that's not already there. If you don't mind, can you provide some topics or issues you might come across as confusing since you've never seen the show before. That would be much appreciated! Jayab314 21:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The copyedit has been completed and I think I've done everything you asked for. Jayab314 15:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

Hi, since I've had something of an invitation to look at this, I'll add some comments below.

• Missing words in the format section:
  • The Islanders are from the outside world is presumably that they are kept apart from outside? (Never seen it)
  • allowing them access all of their options should have a 'to' somewhere but, also, sounds like an ATM with 'access all your options'. A more human phrasing would be nice.
• This: While they are in the villa, Islanders have their own telephone, with which they can receive texts informing them of the latest challenges, dumpings, and re-couplings. Islanders and couples receive games and challenges that are designed to test their physical and mental abilities, and compatibility. Winners of games and challenges receive special prizes to aid them. Is almost word-for-word repetition of the above paragraph. It's different enough to indicate it was written without knowing of the other instance, but similar enough to raise concerns that both are copied text with minor paraphrasing edits.
• The format isn't necessarily covered by WP:PLOT and needs some citations, especially for the more suggestive/analytical parts, like "must be in a relationship with another Islander for either love, friendship, or money" (italics mine)
• I don't really see the value in having the non-free final couples photo, unless there's anything particularly significant about these couples above the rest of them in how they got to the final. If any of these people become notable, there will surely be some free photos taken in the future that could be added to show that they were in it. But at the moment they're just random pretty people. I don't think what they look like is super relevant to the show? And even if it were, the non-free low quality means they aren't recognizable in the group photo, anyway.
• The phrasing of Matthew Hoffman, who leveled sarcastic comments at the contestants, was the narrator of the series. suggests that Hoffman was sarcastic to the contestants before becoming narrator, and indeed vaguely implies this is why he was hired. I don't think this is accurate, and it would be better phrased as "Matthew Hoffman was selected as the narrator for the series; his narrative style involves leveling sarcastic comments at the contestants in voice overs" or something
• twenty-two is above 20 and therefore warrants being a numerical - to solve the issue with 60 next to it, just move the episode length to later in the sentence
• Each member of the winning couple 'each member' only to be used when more than two, just say both
  • Of course, this Prize section is the same text as in the Format section, and can be dumped - move the bit about sharing the money to the Islanders section
• Filming goes above Broadcast - TV and film MOS likes these parts in the order of when they happened.
• 32 days, as a numerical
• Non-free image of the villa is too dark and gives few details at low-quality - the description is more illustrative, and the image not needed
• In Eric Thurm of The A.V. Club called the series "pure chaotic evil" and said, "Love Island is..., both 'The A.V. Club' and 'Love Island' should be in italics
  • This quotation also needs a ref at the end
  • Ditto for the next line, with 'Vulture' and 'Love Island' again
• The sentence Ben Travers of IndieWire wrote, "The original batch of Islanders is extremely bland". isn't really incorporated well into the paragraph, and the quotation is too short to warrant the 'wrote'. It might not even warrant the quote - "Ben Travers of IndieWire opined that the contestants were bland" or, being merged to the sentence before, with an "and" before Ben
• "less-than-ideal viewing figures" is used twice, not too close together, but it's also specific enough to feel repepitive when read. At least one of the instances can just say 'bad'.

Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: I completed all the comments except for the ones pertaining to the photos. Should I just delete both photos? Jayab314 23:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Jayab314: Re. the photos: do you agree with my comments? If you think there's reason to include them, it's better to discuss that. Re. everything else: thanks for working, and so quick, I'll definitely look through it soon. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Jayab, given the work done and the quality, I'll pass this, but encourage discussion on the value of the non-free images. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Alright, thank you! Jayab314 00:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)