Wikipedia:Peer review/The Matty Johns Show/archive1

The Matty Johns Show edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a new pair of eyes to look over this article, on which I and others have done extensive work. Please comment on the use of references, the use of images, whether we need another screenshot, and whether there is any substance missing from the article that should be there.

Thanks, Richard Cavell (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak comments

Ok, I've had a read through the article, which was interesting and on a topic I know nothing about! I'll make comments section-by-section.

Infobox

I would not link English language per WP:OVERLINK. The film infobox instructions specifies that you shouldn't link the English language. I just checked the TV infobox. They don't say you shouldn't, only that you should link to English language rather than to English. On balance, without a good reason to link it, I would leave it unlinked. Readers will not need to click through to that article.

Lead

Ok. References. Too many. I have a feeling you are aware of this but yeah, definitely too many. You don't really need references in the lead at all, unless there is anything particularly controversial or likely to be challenged. Per WP:LEAD, everything in the lead will be mentioned again or expanded on later on, with necessary references. (Infobox also shouldn't need references that are repeated later on). Don't take this as gospel, because some editors like to use refs in the lead, but I (and other editors) like to keep them to a minimum in the lead, to make it easier to read. Bear in mind that the casual Wikipedia reader will likely not make it past the table of contents and will not really care about references. They may however be put off by seeing 11 citations in the first sentence, four of which are repeated, for a straightforward, uncontroversial statement that is presumably easily verifiable (ie. that it is Australian, it is about rugby league etc.)
Following on from refs in the lead, you really do not need seven citations in a row like that. Multiple references in one place are only necessary if they are backing up something that is seriously controversial, something that really needs to be cited to multiple sources. For simple statements and facts, if your source is reliable, then one is enough. The fact that you've used several different sources is good, but pick one for one fact, one for another, don't layer them all together. By the way, this advice is coming from someone with a tendency to overcite, so I can understand the compulsion to make sure that everything is verifiable, by adding as many sources as possible! Just try to step back and look at it as a reader. Does it look nice and easy to read with all those little numbers?
Now, per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a nice summary of the article. It's not an introduction, as such, although the beginning of the lead acts as one. It needs to cover the main points of the article. The other sections are not really summarised by the lead.
Equally, the lead should not introduce new material that is not covered/expanded on later on. At the moment, there's a lot of info in the lead not mentioned later on.
A structural / MoS point to bear in mind is that the lead should be no more than four paragraphs. This doesn't mean that your lead should be shorter than it is, but the paragraphs you have are quite short and "choppy". They could be combined into larger ones. I'd not worry about that until you have sorted the other lead issues though.
Be careful of overlinking. Only link to other articles for words that need further explanation not appropriate in the article, or for articles that will help the reader to understand the context of this article. Try and put yourself in the reader's shoes and think, if I was reading this, would I want to click through to that article? An example is television show. I think your readers will know what one is, and I doubt that many would be interested in clicking through.
What exactly do you mean by family friendly? Is it aimed at the whole family? Or
In the first sentence, you have "...based on the NRL rugby league competition." - as a casual reader (not a fan of the show) I have no idea what the NRL is. From the words that follow, I gather that it's to do with rugby league, but I think it'd be better to spell the word out. Then, you would need to lose the following "rugby league" to avoid repetition. It would be like this: Australian television show based on the National Rugby League competition.
"...but is also broadcast in other states." - is it broadcast in all Australian states? If so, you could say that ("nationwide" or something). If not, it would be helpful to name which states it is broadcast in, although this need not be so detailed in the lead, you could cover it further down.
"Chloe Maxwell also appears as a presenter." - I can't quite put my finger on it, but this sentence sounds a little awkward to me. Maybe it's the appears. It's not clear to me whether she's presenting the show every week, or just sometimes, and what part she plays in the show.
I think it would be helpful to spell out Australian Football League as well; not all of your readers will know what that means.
"ratings juggernaut" - sounds a little informal, not quite encyclopedic in tone
It might be worth, further down in the article, explaining a bit more about how the show is family-friendly and how that contrasts with other similar shows. Are sports shows in Australia generally known for not being family friendly?
"It has been suggested that the earlier timeslot ..." - try to avoid unattributed comments like this. Who has suggested?
"The house band is ASTON, a group of six early-twenties music student..." - something doesn't sound quite right, I don't think "early-twenties" should be used as an adjective
"Their debut album will be published by Warner Music in 2010" - is there a more specific date available for this? It already is 2010. it might make readers think it's out of date or that it hasn't been updated.

History

Ok, so bearing in mind my earlier comments about the lead section, this first "proper" section of the article should start at the beginning, not follow on logically from the lead. Introduce Johns with his first name as well as surname and don't assume that we already know what you're talking about.
"Johns featured on The Footy Show..." - what exactly do you mean by "featured on"? Was he a regular? Did he present? Was he a guest once? It might be better to explain here what The Footy Show is, too.
"...before being sacked over a 2002 NRL group sex scandal." - this is amply sourced (of course!) but I'm still left thinking, "WTF?" It needs a slight explanation. Don't go into too much detail, presumably readers can click on his article to get the full story, but it's a bit vague as to his part in the scandal or why he was sacked exactly. Also, can you think of a non-colloquial way to say "sacked"? Also, "poached" may be a little informal.
Might be helpful to say which network sacked him (when you mention the incident, not further down when you're comparing the viewer numbers of the two shows.)
For this section, is there any information available about the development of the show? Who created it or was involved in making it?
"TV screens" should probably be "television screens"
program or programme? You have both, this should be consistent through the article.

Segments

This section is a little disjointed, it could do with a bit more explanatory prose about the structure of the show, instead of just listing the segments. You also need some more citations, otherwise details about the segments looks like original research.
"a segment in which Matty and Shane" - call them by their surnames
"They are usually joined by guests." - what kind of guests? Rugby league players? Other sportspeople? Celebrities? Pundits?
"The segment is a continuation of a segment originated..." - try to avoid that repetition of "segment"
"It is similar to Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" - is that sourced somewhere or just your observation? If so (no matter how true) it's original research.
"Jason Stevens sometimes interviews touring celebrities." - who's Jason Stevens? (I'd rather know without clicking through to his article. this sentence is floating a bit on its own.

Characters

Try not to have such shot paragraphs, made up of one or two sentences.
"...in a style that has drawn comparisons with comic Paul Hogan" - shouldn't this be "comparisons to"?
"Don Kirk is an obvious parody of Australian gardening expert Don Burke." - I presume this fact is sourced, "obvious" is unnecessary
Who's Alby Mangels?
This section could do with citations towards the end

General

I don't think you need any more screenshots. There might even be an issue with using the one you have as it appears to be mainly decorative. It might not be a problem at GA, but at WP:FAC, this will cause a problem. Non-free images used in articles tend to be supported by some kind of critical commentary in the text. You might be better using free images of the hosts.
You have links to two disambiguation pages: The Footy Show and The Sunday Mail
Is there any information on how the show has been received?
Have a look at Category:FA-Class television articles and Category:GA-Class television articles to compare to other TV show articles. I couldn't find a good equivalent as most of those are for fiction tv shows, but you can get a general idea.

Hope these suggestions help. There are quite a lot, but hopefully it'll give you something to work with. I probably won't notice if you comment here, so if you want to ask me anything or want me to comment further, please let me know at my talkpage, good luck with further developing the article.--Beloved Freak 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A second look from Belovedfreak

Reception

Ok, starting with this new section you added; it looks good. As well as stating that "Initial reviews of the show were positive", I would summarise a few of the reviews, saying "Reviewer X praised the show and said that it ..., while Reviewer Y of A Newspaper said that ... Review Z of Another Newspaper was less impressed and thought that the show was "the biggest mistake of Johns' career"" (ok, I'm sure that's not true, but you get the picture!) Also, as well as reviews for the initial programme, try and get some as the series progressed, if available. Look at the reception section for Glee (TV series). It's not directly comparable because it's a different kind of show, but it's one that's recent. Of course, Glee is huge, and I don't expect there to be anywhere near as much coverage for this show, but it gives you an idea of what to aim for. Looking at this review [1], it might be worth mentioning the fan response to the show mentioned in the review. I wouldn't state it as fact though, say that an AAP reporter said so. Also in this section, where you have the sentence beginning "It has been suggested that the earlier timeslot gives..." it's better to attribute that to someone; say who suggested it.

History

It's nice to see some background of Johns. I have an idea of who he is now, without having to click on his article straight away. I am a little worried though that you may have said a little too much. Given that this article is quite short overall (understandably given the age of the show), we have to be careful not to place undue weight on any one aspect, and I think it may be a little skewed towards Johns now.
- I suggest saying that he was a successful professional (?) rugby league player, but not necessarily mentioning his teams as that doesn't directly impact on the show (I presume).
- I would cut the second paragraph to something like: After his retirement in 2002, he became a regular performer on The NRL Footy Show before being sacked by the Nine Network in 2009 over a sex scandal.
I'm still not hugely keen on saying that the seven network "poached" him. As well as informal/colloquial, it's not technically true if he'd already been sacked, is it? Perhaps say that they approached him with the idea of developing a new show?
Minor point, but I'd consider moving the citation for the quote to the end of the quote rather than before it
"Johns returned to Australia's television screens..." - although this makes sense, it's kind of about him rather than the show, and as a reader, there's a tiny doubt in my mind as to whether this return is on the aforementioned show, or something else in the mean time. I would say something like The first episode of The Matty Johns Show aired on 25 March...

Format

"In other states (in which the Australian Football League predominates)..." - this is an improvement, but I don't know anything about the AFL, or in which states it predominates, so could you name them? I'm still not even sure if you're talking about all of the other states or not. (If so, just say that rather than naming them all, perhaps. Even just: In the other Australian states...)

General

Big improvement on the overciting — well done. There are still a couple of places where you may not need as many. For example, six citations after the sex scandal. I realise that there's a potential WP:BLP concern, but I gather that the scandal was widely reported and easily verifiable. I think one citation to a reliable source would suffice. (Unless you're using one for him being popular on the show, and one more for him being sacked following the scandal.) Another example would be two citations supporting "However, it has recorded one episode in South Bank Parklands, Brisbane." - that's a fairly innocuous sentence. Look at each place that you have more than one and just check that it is necessary to have more.
I haven't looked in detail at the 'segments" and "characters" sections. I think perhaps they could be combined into one, I don't know. Also, make sure that each segment or character is cited to a secondary source. If they can't be, then don't include them.
Some of your paragraphs are very short. When you've finished cutting bits or moving them around, try to combine some of them so that you don't have so many that go over just 1, 2 or 3 lines.
At some point, the lead will need a little bit of expansion to make sure it's summarising the main points.
In your references section, only print sources (books, newspapers, magazines) should be in italics. Sources that are online-only websites should not be.

Good work though, it's come a long way.--Beloved Freak 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]