Talk:2010 Tonight Show conflict

Latest comment: 2 years ago by RunningTiger123 in topic GA Review

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Tonight Show conflict/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RunningTiger123 (talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hi LuK3, this article caught my interest and I've decided to give it a go. It'll take some time to get through everything, but I should be able to finish it over the weekend. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Quick checks:

  • Copyvio check shows no major issues; closest matches are attributed quotes.
  • Images seem reasonable; the two non-free images (lead image and Kimmel) have solid rationales, and all images include proper alt text and captions.
  • The article is stable.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • "not participate in the destruction of The Tonight Show" – this quote is never used in the body, and is therefore unattributed.
  • on appearing on television – awkward repetition, maybe try against appearing on television?

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Background

edit
  • Note: From here on out, I'll assume Carter's citations are accurate.
  • Ref. 3 is okay, but not great. It would be better for a source to directly state NBC was a leader, rather than infer it from charts.
    • I changed the image caption. I think the chart is fairly straightforward in stating NBC/The Tonight Show were number 1 in viewership for most of the 90s and 2000s. If that still is insufficient please let me know and I'll find another reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • which began in 1993. – should be a comma at the end
  • can competecould compete
  • (for Leno's entire run) – this might be confusing, since it's not immediately clear if this means 2009 or 2014. I'd suggest rewording or just removing it.
    • I specified it was Leno's first stint as host.
  • Ref. 13 does not make it clear if Michaels suggested O'Brien for the role.
  • Ref. 14 never mentions a week-to-week contract.
    • There seems to be inconsistencies between the Bill Carter book and other references. Most online sources stated NBC put O'Brien on a 13-week (3 month) contract so I changed it to that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • 1:30 am.,1:30 am,

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Early history

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ratings

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Conflict

edit

Reaction and media coverage

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Settlement

edit

Sorry for the delay, I'll try to get the rest of the review knocked out ASAP.

(talk) 00:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Impact

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aftermath

edit

RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the lengthy review and the delay – overall, it's a really strong article. Once the above comments are resolved, I'll be happy to support promotion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the thorough review RunningTiger123. I believe I addressed all of the issues raised above. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
There are a few spots where I replied to your fixes across all sections that still need to be addressed (mostly grammar); otherwise, everything else looks good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing those out, I believe it should be good now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looks good! Passing shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply