Talk:The Matty Johns Show/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded my initial review. There are several issues with the article that would need to be fixed, but I do believe it could be done if the editors want to work on it. I will hold this article for up to a week to allow time for improvements. Aaron north (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Y everything looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The lead does not mention any information from the reception section.
• First paragraph under history, is it common to just say someone "played professional rubgy league"? I assume there is more than one rugby league. Should it be "played in the National Rugby League"?
  • Since he played at world level in addition to the NRL, I think it's better to say 'rugby league' generally than NRL. There are plenty of amateur rugby league competitions. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also under history, what film did he appear in? If it is relevant to mention that he appeared in a film (probably, since he is now a tv show host), then it is relevant enough to mention the film.
• regarding the "sex scandal", we dont have to go into graphic detail which would give this episode undo weight, but we probably need a little bit more information here. Just simply saying someone was in "a sex scandal" would cause the reader's mind to run wild!
• There is some editorializing in ("With his media career apparently in tatters, and suffering personal disgrace, he "disconnected" for a month.") Even if that came directly from a source, we should state the facts of what happened and/or provide quotes from what people wrote or said.
• The sentence ("However, Johns turned these offers down.") Can probably just be incorporated into the previous sentence somehow rather than standing alone. The last sentence in that section ("He instead joined forces with Australian media stalwart John Singleton, who is a rugby league fan and former part owner of the Brisbane Broncos.") Should probably be incorporated somehow in the beginning of the John Singleton paragraph. The bolded words are also a cliche that should be dropped.
• cliche in the sentence ending with (" ... that Fenech declined the offer to switch camps.")
• Are the "competition with the Nine Network" and "Second series" sections needed? Obviously competition is important for any television show, but the content within that section (the network bidding for the NRL, the award show invitations) doesn't strike me as highly relevant for the article. As for the second series section, it should be presumed that a show will continue on until it is cancelled.
• You have a "citation needed" flag under Format. However, that fact is not the sort of thing that requires an inline citation, so you can either cite it, or remove the flag.
• Under reception, the magnitude of detail given to the first episode is probably too much. The sheer length of the positive reviews makes this feel a bit like a fanpage than an encyclopedic entry. That section should probably be considerably condensed and the "second show" should probably be eliminated with maybe a mention about the noteworthy improvement in the ratings the following week at the end of "first show". One possible solution could be to mention that the reviews were mostly positive, with one example given (the daily telegraph review and survey?), then mention that a few reviews were negative (give a negative review), ending with the ratings in the last paragraph. You will still want to keep the citations to the positive reviews to prove that they were mostly positive.
• If it is possible to expand on "subsequent episodes" (maybe call it rest of the season instead?), it would be helpful. Specifically, it may be interesting to mention how much the ratings for "the footy show" declined due to competition. For that matter, if these two shows are such rivals, just how big are the average ratings for each of these shows?
• This is a peacock phrase: ("They first achieved prominence with a classical version of the song "Telephone" by Lady GaGa, released on YouTube.") This should probably be re-worded into neutral language, "prominence" sounds a bit strong for a youtube video.
• Do we need all those details about Masterchef? It may have been somewhat relevant in the first season so the ratings impact should be briefly mentioned, but I would presume it wouldn't have much of an impact going forward. (eventually if this show went 3, 4, 5, etc seasons you'd probably drop any mention about masterchef, which is why I'm wondering about going into a lot of details about it now)
• I've been reading criticism from rival networks in your sources that, in their opinion at least, the number of viewers for the matty johns show is low. Their bias and desire to see a rival show fail is obvious, but not mentioned at all in the article. The article gives the impression that everyone agrees the ratings are great.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Under guests, the section is fairly short. That in itself is not necessarily a problem, and we would not want to turn this section into a big list of trivia, but were there any highly notable guests or great interviews on the show? (for an example of what I'm talking about in an American TV show, any comprehensive article on "the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" has to mention the unexpectedly serious/funny interview with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was a far more important guest than who usually appears on that show.) If there has not yet been anything like that on the matty johns show, thats fine.