Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MonkeyStolen234 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There was an accusation of Ownership a day before I reviewed this page, but this'll hopefully not be taken further
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Heartfox:, there are slight plagiarism issues on this page, according to the plagiarism search, but the problem is that the other site doesn't have any timestamps that show if it was created before or after the page. MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MonkeyStolen234: Whoa, that must have just came up in the last week or so—I've never seen it before. I've run that plagiarism detector in the past month and that site did not come up. It is definitely is copying what is written in the article. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I see. There were no other problems, just that. Thank you. MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MonkeyStolen234: Thank you so much for reviewing this. I really appreciate your time. All the best! Heartfox (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further review

Reopening per discussion with MonkeyStolen234, I'll add some more comments. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: The main issue I see here is stability. Not only does the article document a series with a season that just ended today, there are also several recent and in-progress discussions on the talk page that seem to be relatively controversial. This article is not stable, and shouldn't have passed. I don't follow it, but I recommend that this shouldn't be considered for promotion for at least a week, so that it can stabilize. Hopefully, the discussions will be cleared up by then, too. Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsif: I would say there's only one discussion in progress, which is the critical response section, but in my opinion even that's been addressed... I re-added some stuff on May 17 and no one undid anything. Brojam did make some changes afterwards, which is perfectly fine. It's been over a week since then and there's been no edit wars, so... I mean I would personally consider it stable but I understand that it perhaps wasn't at the time of promotion. There hasn't been any further comments on the talk page since May 17 so there's not really anything to discuss further... It's already been promoted to GA status and the season concluded on May 20 (it was pushed up from May 27). I would warmly welcome a more comprehensive review with additional suggestions/changes to be made, but I'm kind of unsure how you're planning to proceed with this as it's already been promoted. Heartfox (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Heartfox: Per the discussion, the review is being reopened given it wasn't actually conducted. After a show has finished airing, there can be contentious edits from IPs happening all the time. If you're up to preventing that, we can say it's stable. I've added comments below, if you're happy to address/discuss them, we can treat this like a GA review - if it's all good after, it keeps GA status, and gets demoted if not. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

Do we need to be linking the various United States year television season articles? (During the 2018–19 television season,, at the start of the 2020–21 television season) Does it even need these mentions? They read strange and overly business-promotional-y. It would be more conventional to use the relative season of the show or simply the year of broadcast. Possible exception for the first example as the fact relates to the US network season - but this could easily be both rephrased and clarified by saying that "Its first season was the 2018-19 US network season's highest rated new show among adults 18–49". For the second example above, just say it's been recommissioned.

I've rephrased it somewhat; hopefully it's more satisfactory.

The panelists images could be put on two lines to not take up so much room, especially with only a short paragraph. There's also no need for the skinny timeline table - the appearances are very straightforward and suitably described in prose.

Per belief appearances are clear enough in prose, removing hidden table (although no one else has objected to its presence). What do you mean by having the images on two lines? Like under the prose?

@Heartfox: 'two lines' meaning to change the multi image template to have two rows instead of one. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Executive producer Craig Plestis discovered the format during a visit to a small Studio City, Los Angeles, Thai restaurant in October 2017 gets awkward at a small Studio City, Los Angeles, Thai restaurant - it could be rephrased to avoid this as "Executive producer Craig Plestis discovered the format while eating at a small Thai restaurant in Studio City, Los Angeles, in October 2017"

Rephrased.

The quote box is interesting, but it needs to be made shorter. The quote makes up nearly 50% of the source you took it from, which even in quotation marks and attributed is a bit too much to be safe. Some of the detail is also extraneous, even to the interest of the story. The first three sentences can probably go.

I've removed the first two sentences and replaced some comments with an ellipsis.

I feel like Intrigued, Plestis began researching the series and—in a deal brokered by his agent within one week—secured the rights to produce an American adaptation would read better as two sentences, if just so the fact about the deal only taking a week can be written in a main clause.

I've tried to split the points into existing sentences.

I'm confused about this part: MBC said the series "received a promising response" from the more than 500,000 people who watched it within five days of its release. The company, however, lacked the ability to produce the program in the United States. As a result, Endemol Shine North America produced the first season due to Plestis' relationship with the studio. There was no suggestion that the Korean producers - who it's already established sold US rights - would even try to produce it in the US. It also seems strange that they made a comment about the success of Fox's trailer for it? Why is Endemol and not Fox producing it for the first season anyway? It leaves me with a lot of questions. Then the next part says Fox decided to produce it themselves to have more rights when... that's not how it works? And in-house production is beneficial in itself. There are too many questions coming from the confusing statements in this part that it needs to be better explained.

I can remove the "promising response" comment if it's confusing, if you like. It's the first version of the show outside of Asia so I'm guessing they had high hopes for it as they'd make money from selling future version rights.

After buying the production rights from MBC, Plestis sold the show's broadcast rights to Fox. As his company Smart Dog Media "has an overall deal with" Endemol, they produced the first season. For whatever reason (Variety doesn't specify, I guess I should look for more sources?), Endemol decided to exit the US production after one season (I assume to focus on producing the very large amount of international versions that followed). Fox then launched a new in-house studio, Fox Alternative Entertainment, and began producing the show themselves. I've refrained from making any changes to this section yet as you might have further questions/comments. Should I explain the process like I did here?

@Heartfox: Yes, whatever you can to clarify! Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has got to be a simpler way of saying After the audience and panelists vote for their favorite using an electronic device, the votes are weighted 50 percent each - I'd take a look at an article on Eurovision for some ideas.

I'm not familiar with Eurovision as I live in Canada lol but it doesn't seem as complicated (I've just glanced at the Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest article and I'm kind of confused TBH). I've tried to make some adjustments; hopefully it's clearer.

Great - I just meant to look in terms of phrasing the voting system, I thought since Eurovision is very complicated but clear, the phrasing must be good Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are formula-adjusted votes

Simplified to "final score".

There is no cash prize for winning, rather, the celebrity wins the "golden mask trophy" - there's been no suggestion the celebrity contestants would win money, and my assumption is that they wouldn't, so why bring it up at all (and especially with phrasing that sounds like it's already been discussed?)

Attempted to rephrase.

The monster voice over clip doesn't really sound like there's been much if any voice modulation? It's also quite long for a clip that's only to serve for what a voice sounds like - I don't think it serves its purpose and is too long for appropriate fair use anyway (it seems to be the entirety of one of the voice overs. that voice over counts as the single work, and only about 10% of it can be used, the same reason that clips are used instead of full songs) A clearer, shorter, example of voice modulation may be useful - but most people are aware of 'robot voice' already so it may not be necessary at all

This is from the series premiere; I believed the modulation has changed for the stronger in subsequent episodes/seasons. I thought I just had to follow the 30 second guideline... whoops! Removing for now. I still think a (much shorter) version might be useful, though.

Perhaps one from later in the series then? Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of "feature" in They feature taped interviews which feature

Missed that one; fixed.

You should probably talk about how Cannon came to host the show, or even state it, before mentioning Ibarra's ecstatic reaction to it.

Not sure about this one. I think it pretty clearly says he was contacted and then agreed. Do you mind writing what you think would flow better?

@Heartfox: Just moving the first sentence about her reaction to a bit later would probably work. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused by this: The winner of the third season, Kandi Burruss, was also approached to appear in the first but was unable to participate due to other commitments. After watching T-Pain perform and having producers approach her again, however, she reconsidered. Saying she reconsidered is for when someone deliberately turned it down before, not just because they didn't have the time. So which is wrong?

I guess it doesn't really serve a purpose; removed.

Do we need an image of the text "Don't talk to me"? Is this really something that can't be adequately explained with text alone?

This is literally the style of the text and colour from the hoodies that the celebrities wear while disguised backstage, not just random text with a black background. It's like an artifact. I think it's okay. Perhaps the caption should better explain that it actually is what they wear?

That might work. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does "stealth cloth" mean?

I don't really know either, lol. Removed "stealth".

Eight costumes, for a non-free image, is a bit excessive. About three is suitable for illustrative purposes.

It is only one image and was created by the show, not by me or anyone like photoshopping them together or something. I don't see how it's any different than a cast image for a medical drama or something. The original image was this one, but I replaced it with the eight costume one to show as much examples as possible. Should I re-add the 5 costume one?

The 5 costume one might be better - remember the show can make graphics of as many as they like because they have the copyright. The article also says some costumes are on display? A photo of those would probably be able to be commons licensed if the photographer released it, and then you could show as many as you like. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one of her friends - is this friend a graphic artist or something that would be important to mention? If there's no other info, "a friend" would read more professional.

She only says it's "a really good friend of mine who's an incredible illustrator." Rephrased.

Saying Toybina then buys all of the necessary fabrics herself suggests that she uses her own money, when it seems like she just goes out shopping herself instead of using a studio buyer

Is "handpicking" better?

@Heartfox: That's much clearer! Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The costume fitting location isn't very private or hidden if it's known to be one of two locations. Were the locations revealed later, and could more details be included about this situation?

Removed quote.

I'm not sure if this - the production crew helps take them on and off contestants before and after their performances - is saying the crew help take the costume off, or if they help take the contestant off the stage (and vice versa - it should say 'put on', too)

Yeah that's confusing; removing for now.

An image of the set would be useful, the prose description is alright after saying the front of the show's stage is X-shaped, which I just can't picture

There are images but it would be non-free. I've suggested it on the talk page but another editor was reluctant to add it as it would mean another non-free image in the article (the show is shot indoors and phones are banned on the set so there's really no way to get a free image).

I think a non-free image would be justifiable here, if that's a helpful suggestion? Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation in Toybina said she had to "reach for the wire and glue" after the horn of the Unicorn costume detached during a performance in the first season is just flowery. All that needs to be said is that the costume was repaired after a performance (not a rehearsal?) - though since that's already stated in the costume section, the whole sentence could easily be removed.

Removed.

accompanying them on the side - an accompaniment is 'on the side', no? If this means the literal side of the stage, it should be "from the wings" or "at the side of the stage" or "off stage", the typical phrasings for such.

Changed to "off stage".

Standard sources for a TV show, seems fine

Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, thanks for your comments. I've attempted to address them and left some of my own seeking further explanation. I do intend on submitting this for FA at some point, so please don't hesitate to make any more suggestions! Thanks again. Heartfox (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Responded to a few things, looks good. Kingsif (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I believe I've made all the changes you suggested now. Heartfox (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Great, looks good. I've updated the GA template to reflect the changes (not something that's always done with GANR, but if there's been significant prose work it can be useful). Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Yeah, I thought that might be a good idea too. Thanks again! Heartfox (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]