Talk:The View (talk show)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will give this review a go, haven't seen the show but the article looks promising at first glance. I'll try and get to it shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review 1[edit]

It looks like some effort has been put into responding to the issues of the previous (failed) GA review, which is a good start. However, I am not ready to pass the article as GA just yet.

I think the lead still needs some work. This is a reasonably big and detailed article, and the lead should give a full and complete summary. You probably need at least three ~~articles~~ paragraphs worth of content there, and should aim for around a sentence per section of the body at least as a a good guide.
The format section doesn't really give a clear explanation of what the show is actually about. I am none the wiser having read it. The big quote is especially confusing, as you say it explains the premise but after reading it I don't think it actually does. Have a go trying to make the whole section clearer.
You start mentioning people in the format and production sections without having first introduced them in the body. Assume that your reader has not read the lead of infobox, and make sure they know who you are referring to as you first use names.
The last line in the co-host section, listing all the guest co-hosts for this year, is unsourced.
Make sure you aren't overlinking people's names. In the body, the people should only be linked for their first introduction and then also in tables.
The reception section could use some work. For such a long-running show, there should be a much more comprehensive critical response section, and it would be great to get some analysis content for the ratings section that can give an overview of the viewership (i.e. whether it has gone up or down at certain times, when the peaks have been).
I would seriously consider splitting the awards table off to its own article, given how big it is. There are plenty of articles like that out there that can be used as templates. If you do this, you should replace the table here with a short summary/overview with a link pointing to the separate article.
The entire international broadcast section is unsourced, and is probably a violation of MOS:TVINTL anyway.
Make sure all the references have been filled out properly, and in particular there should be archives for all web sources.
One more image in the article probably wouldn't go amiss, but that isn't a major.

I'll put the article on hold while you give this stuff a go. Let me know if there are any issues / when you are ready for me to take another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2[edit]

I am going to give this another look over now, per the message left for me at my talk page with this diff. I would also like to note that there has been significant edit warring regarding this page, with more details (including some input from myself) found at the talk page of Noodlefish96. Admin intervention has appeared to have solved the issue for now, so I am willing to overlook the problem for the remainder of the review as long as I do not receive any evidence of further stability issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like, for the most part, you have tried to address my concerns, and overall the article is looking better. I still have some concerns though, which need to be addressed if you want me to promote the article. The review can stay on hold until they are. There is a single sentence paragraph in the notable episodes section, which we generally try to avoid. You also still have an issue with not introducing people—literally the first line of the article's body references a person without telling us who they are. This is important since readers need to know who you are talking about. And most importantly, the references need to be sorted out as I said before. This is major, and I won't promote the article until it is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97 I did all of the suggestions above, and I think the article's ready for review! Thanks! DantODB (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is looking pretty good now. Just sort out the introduction problem, and I'll be happy to give the review a pass. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97 May I ask what adjustments you would suggest I make in regards to introductions? Because I put job titles before every name (e.g. Broadcast journalist Barbara Walters). DantODB (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about introductions in the body, not the lead. Since the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, the body should be able to stand on its own. In the very first sentence of the body, you mention "Walters", with no explanation who that is. Likewise, in the following quote you give the last names of the other initial hosts but not who they are with wikilinks. Just make sure that anyone who has not read the lead and instead starts the article with the format section is able to know who is who. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think I fixed it. DantODB (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I think that covers the issues I had. This is a good article, so I am happy to pass

this review. Well done. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97 Thank you very much! DantODB (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]