Talk:Conan (talk show)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2011 (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):
 * Free of serious stylistic errors, but uneven. There are what I assume are in-jokes (e.g. 'Friday is Taco Night') and references that assume a level of familiarity with the program (e.g. 'Richter continues his role as sidekick' - continues from O'Brien's previous program, yes? also reference to 'New sketches').
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There is one 'Citation needed' tag, which can probably be satisfied with some of the existing references. I was more troubled by reference to 'the established six-piece format', which is not clearly defined and not referenced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The section 'History', especially sub-section 'The Tonight Show conflict', goes a bit far afield. 'The Tonight Show conflict' as well as 'Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band' should be shorter summaries with the details left to the sub-pages. The sections 'Production' and 'International' are also a bit long and meandering, though perhaps not so much as to disqualify the article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There have been some recent revisions, but these appear to be roving vandals rather than conflicts over content.
 * 1) 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):
 * Is the screen capture of O'Brien and Rogen used under fair use really necessary for contextual significance?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold until 19 February 2011 pending minor revisions.
 * On hold until 26 February 2011; see below.
 * On hold until 26 February 2011; see below.

Update: 19 February
There have been a number of edits in the past week, including the removal of what I thought was an inappropriate joke. (The editor who removed it suggested it was vandalism.) The lack of focus, however, has not been addressed. Also unaddressed is the comment requiring citation (an assertion about the professions of the guests). Similarly, an editor removed two claims about the demographics of the audience which were not addressed in the reference cited. This causes me some concern about the appropriateness of the current citations, though I have found no specific problems.

The page seems to have become just slightly unstable recently. Unlike earlier changes, which I noted appeared to be the work of roving vandals, at least one set of edits (edit 414577259 and its subsequent reversal) suggest a difference in point of view on which it may be necessary to reach consensus.

I will review the article once again next week before deciding whether to mark the article as Good status. Comments on this question from other editors are also welcome. Cnilep (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I failed to set the review status to 'On hold' until today. The seven-day hold will therefore run from now. Cnilep (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit more work is needed
Thanks and congratulations to those who have worked on this article, including both those who have improved it since 12 February 2011 and all those who worked on it since the beginning.

Unfortunately, I don't think the article is quite up to Good Article standards just yet. There are still problems with focus and stability.

Two sections need more focus, while a third is very well focused. The section "The Tonight Show conflict" gives rather more detail than I think is necessary, given the full accounting at 2010 Tonight Show conflict. That said, I do appreciate the challenge of summarizing such a sizable account. Similarly, "Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band" gives nearly as much information about the show's band as the article Jimmy Vivino and the Basic Cable Band does. (That article is also filled with information on The Max Weinberg Seven and other bands from O'Brien's television programs.) On the other hand, the section titled "'The Legally Prohibited' tour" does a nice job of giving just the main points and directing readers to the article The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour.

The page actually seems to have become less stable over the past two weeks. I noted on 12 February that recent changes seemed to relate to vandalism and not to conflicts over content. More recent changes, though, suggest disagreement about the program's ratings and the significance of those ratings. Some editors have questioned others' neutrality in edit summaries. Some consensus will need to be reached on this issue.

Again, kudos to all who have worked on the page. The article is coming along, but will require a bit more editing and consensus on some content before it becomes a Good Article. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)