The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: BuySomeApples ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm gonna start this review soon, so far it looks like a good start.
BuySomeApples (
talk)
21:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There are a few places where the prose could be a bit more concise and easy to follow but overall it is very well written. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Overall it is pretty solid but parts are written a bit too casually. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | The citations seem reliable but please double check that all citations are directly at the end of each quotation. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sources seem to be reliable and the kind you'd expect to see on a pop culture article. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article looks to be well cited based on the spot checking of sources I did, with no synth that jumped out at me. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Neither Earwig nor a light manual check turned up any copyvio. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Very good job summarizing the history of the show, I don't think any main points are missing. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | I think some details can be cut out to make the article a bit more focused, will be adding specific suggestions below. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article appears to be mostly neutral, it addresses the controversies and praise of the show in a well balanced way. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article has been stable and there doesn't appear to be any recent edit wars. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The images are all properly tagged but I'm unsure about using 3 copyrighted images in the body of the article. Can you find any creative commons replacements for some of these? | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The images and captions seem pertinent, if a bit wordy. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Very nice work so far! I can see how much you improved the article from where it had been and it's nearly GA ready. I have added some suggestions below and will go over the article again after you work on these as I have a few more thoughts. |
* Second sentence of lede - Can we rephrase to be less of a run on sentence? I count six commas.
"It premiered on October 14, 1995, on Fox, where it ran for 14 seasons, with its final, 326th episode airing on May 16, 2009." > "It premiered on Fox on October 14, 1995 and ran for 14 seasons with the final episode airing on May 16, 2009."
* "he ~~soon brought on former In Living Color writers Bahr and Small as showrunners." - Also briefly explain what In Living Color is.
* “The show was intended to compete with fellow sketch comedy series Saturday Night Live (SNL), which was being ridiculed by critics and audiences upon Mad TV's premiere.” - This seems like very strong wording. Can you rephrase it to something like “was experiencing declining viewership and poor critical reception.”
* “has since been described by critics as an edgier "cousin" of SNL.” > “has since been described as an edgier version of SNL.”
* “Fox also made few efforts to promote the series and often made budget cuts to it; its eventual cancellation in 2009 was due to budgetary concerns.” > “Fox made few efforts to promote the series and frequently cut its budget before eventually canceling the series in 2009 due to budgetary concerns.”
* “The show's diverse cast ~~over the years~~ consisted of”
* “After a 20th anniversary reunion special aired on The CW on January 12, 2016, the show's eight-episode 15th season was produced and broadcast on the same network, premiering on July 26, 2016.” > “A 20th anniversary reunion special aired on The CW on January 12, 2016. The network also produced and broadcast the show's 15th and final season, which premiered on July 26, 2016.”
* “Fax Bahr and Adam Small began working as staff writers on the sketch comedy television series In Living Color in 1992 after David Alan Grier informed Bahr that showrunner Keenen Ivory Wayans had fired the show's whole staff. Two years later, Bahr and Small were brought on to be the showrunners of Mad TV alongside Salzman.” - Can we condense this? Also, if Grier hired them for Mad we should mention that, otherwise this passage can probably be shorted to just mention that Bahr and Small started working on Mad after being fired from In Living Color.
* “It was pre-taped and contained a combination of short live-action sketches, movie parodies, and animated sketches” - I couldn’t find where it says this in the source.
We would do short sketches and, like in Mad Magazine, movie parodies. We also had animation ..." They make reference to the sketches being pre-taped when comparing it to SNL being done live, but I've included another article from the Boston Herald (
Nothing was sacred when it came to the show’s pretaped skits.) as a source for the pre-taped part. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* “appeared on Mad TV for four seasons, starting with its first season.” > “appeared on the first four seasons of Mad TV.”
* “The show's theme song was created by American hip hop group Heavy D & The Boyz, who had previously created the theme song for In Living Color, and composed by Greg O'Connor and Blake Aaron, the latter of whom was Mad TV's guitarist.” - The source makes it sound like Heavy D sang the song and O’Connor/Blake performed it. Is that accurate?
* “As the series went on, Mad TV became focused on satirical[7] character- and pop culture-based sketches, which were often parodies of popular films, TV series, and music videos.” - Ref7 isn’t needed to support the sentence, and it sounds like Mad always focused on popular culture. I would suggest rephrasing as > “The series satirized popular culture, with sketches parodying film, television and music.”
* “According to casting director Nicole Garcia, the series "skewed a little more urban” - More urban than what? Can this line be elaborated?
There were executives that wanted a little more diversity and then there were some that just wanted the most talented, regardless. Our show skewed a little more urban, in a way, so they definitely wanted to have that represented. Finding a Latino, male or female, was always something we were looking for. We always had diversity in the cast. That was very much a part of the creation." Reading it back, her quote doesn't fit super well in the rest of the section and "urban" is kind of a vague (and potentially loaded) term, especially when, like you said, it's not being compared to anything else. I'm wondering if it would make more sense just to remove the quote and/or repurpose it for the part about cast diversity. Let me know your thoughts. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* “However, SNL quickly bounced back and Mad TV typically trailed behind the show in ratings.” - The source doesn’t seem to state that Mad TV trailed in ratings (although I don’t doubt it).
I remember at one point, in season three I think, we were beating them in the demographics for a little while. But for the most part we were trailing them.benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
An additional note, the citations should be directly at the end of each quotation.
:::Nice work on these changes! When you get the chance, can you move the information about the show's ratings to the "Reception" section (as part of a new subsection? It's OK to leave a little information about the show's cancellation (and mention it was because of poor ratings) and its finale in the "Development" section. The review comments should also be moved down to "Reception". Leave the part about it being intended as a replacement for SNL in "Development".
BuySomeApples (
talk)
03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
* “She starred on the show from 1995 to 2001 and left to star in the ABC sitcom Me and My Needs, which was not picked up by the network after its pilot episode” - Is this addition necessary?
... original cast member Nicole Sullivan, who plans to leave the show at season’s end for her own ABC sitcom ("Me and My Needs") ..." I can take it out if need be. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
* “and Lange later became well known in the media for his struggles with drug addiction.” - This doesn’t seem relevant.
* “Borstein and Peele were both kept from leaving Mad TV to pursue other roles due to their contracts, with Borstein cast as Sookie on the CW series Gilmore Girls and Peele cast on SNL to play Barack Obama.[49][50]” - This line is kind of unclear. Were they kept from acting in these roles or did they just have to stay on Mad as well?
* Can we reorganize this section to have the reviews in a roughly chronological order?
::::Also, have you had any luck with replacement images for one or two of the screeenshots?
BuySomeApples (
talk)
21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
MadTV specialized in boisterously broad and scathing humor, trafficking unabashedly in racial, gendered, and sexual stereotypes." Josh Meyers in Vulture retrospective: "
The diversity of our cast allowed us to do some different stuff, certainly, but it also lent itself to the playing of stereotypes. Just playing the stereotypical African-American, the stereotypical Asian-American." This paper about stereotypical portrayals of African Americans in Social Psychology Quarterly also states that "
television shows such as Comedy Central, Def Comedy Jam, Mad TV, and Saturday Night Live ... often derive their humor from the stereotypical portrayals of social groups." I think taking out "racial" from the sentence would be fine, though there seems to be agreement among reliable sources that the show was known to use stereotypes in its sketches, and I didn't include the Slate ref since it already appears later in the paragraph. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
* In recurring characters, I think there's room to remove some of these examples. Ones like Stuart, Miss Swan, Bon Qui Qui, Bunifah, etc seem notable as do the celebrity impressions, but I feel like the list of smaller recurring characters could be a lot shorter.
"Michael McDonald played Stuart Larkin,[54] an overgrown, spoiled child with a bowl cut, bright red cheeks, and a rainbow plaid shirt." - The ref doesn't mention a plaid shirt (although I know its obvious) so this might need to be removed.
* "After the show's cancellation, sketches with Ms. Swan became popular on YouTube.[64]" - I think this might be a bit of a stretch from what Borstein says in the interview, which is just that people still watch clips on YT.
* It also doesn't seem like either Ref 41 or 65 support Bon Qui Qui going "viral" on YT.
As YouTube clicks can attest, Johnson is best known for the comic persona of Bon Qui Qui ... who was popularized during Johnson's brief run on 'MadTV' in 2007."The Hollywood Reporter ref used to support Johnson's ALMA Award nom: "
The video still has potential to go viral, as Johnson's character has garnered a cult like following online thanks to a 2007 skit called 'Bon Qui Qui at King Burger.' The video has garnered 54 million hits on YouTube ..." Here's an interview where the interviewer identifies her as "YouTube famous" and another article from the Fresno Bee that mentions how many views her Bon Qui Qui skit has on YouTube. I changed "viral" to "popular" and can include one or two of those last three, but it feels a bit redundant since the first one seems to do the trick. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)