Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I will grab this one for review. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

So, I can see that there has been a bit of discussion about the tables and colours that are used for this article and other Survivor articles. I do still have some concerns with what is being used for this article:

• The colours in the voting history table are confusing and I think misleading. I feel it would be clearer if there was a column in the top section for the tribe that is voting which can use the name and colour, and then remove the colour from the people names. That also helps from an accessibility perspective since you are otherwise expecting the reader to work out which tribe it is based on the colour alone and that will not always be possible. I also find the "votes" row to be a bit confusing and unnecessary.
  • The colour is less of an issue in the jury vote table since we don't need to note the tribe, but it is unnecessary. My bigger problem with this table is that there are columns for each person in which we are including their own name multiple times for all the votes. I think it would make more sense to have one column with the winner's name in the top bit and the name of each vote below it. If you still want a column for each finalist then perhaps you could use {{ya}} instead of repeating their names below? The "votes" row is also a bit odd and unnecessary here.
    • I agree with both of these. It has been hard enough to get users to remove the ridiculous colours, but yes, both of these were part of my original look for these tables, so I will implement soon..Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• The Challenge winners and eliminations table is quite confusing to me, and the fact that it has to have so many explanatory notes below it suggests that a table format may not be much of an improvement over prose (especially when most of this is already covered in the episode summaries). My suggestion here is that more of the explanation stuff needs to be clearer in the table format or this table should be scrapped altogether in favour of making the information clearer in the episode summaries either by using bolding/italics/paragraph breaks or by using {{hr}} and putting a summary of the key details at the end of each summary.
  • I went ahead and just removed it. It was completely unsourced after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• In the contestants table I think it would make more sense to have "Sole Survivor", "Runner-up", and "2nd runner-up" in the "cause" column and Day 39 in the day column, otherwise I think this table is fine.
  • I have made this changeBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Other than the tables and colours I do have a couple more issues that I would like to see addressed before this becomes a good article:

• I think the filming locations info should be separate from the format overview stuff, it seems a bit random to have them in the same section but with a subheading when really you could just have an "Overview" section and a "Filming" section.
  • I'm not sure I agree. I think filming is a part of the overview of the season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
    • If you want to keep it there then I would definitely like to see the Filming subheading removed, the section only has two paragraphs in it and does not need subheadings. If you move the filming dates from the overview paragraph to the filming paragraph and remove the heading then I think it will be clear enough that the second paragraph is about filming. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• The refs for the filming stuff need to be marked as having dead URLs.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Can we include an explanation of Exile Island in the overview section?
  • Hmm, I'm not really sure how to organically put this in. (And especially source it), I'll take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• The sentence starting "Notable contestants..." seems arbitrary and unnecessary, the actual notable contestants can already be identified because they have wikilinks.
  • Agreed. Removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting "Outside of Survivor..." seems trivial and unnecessary to me, can we just stick to future Survivor appearances for this section?
  • I'm not sure I agree. Noting that they went onto work on other notable projects seems like exactly what we need to show. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• The "Season Summary" prose seems unnecessary when there is already a breakdown by episode just below it, and I generally do not recommend having multiple plot summaries unless we are talking about a short premise and then more details prose (this goes beyond short premise for me, and the overview basically serves as the premise anyway). I would be interested to know what the justification is for having this stuff.
  • I have removed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• The ratings information in the episode table needs to be sourced, it isn't like the other details that can be attributed to the episodes themselves.
  • Unless someone can cite this, I've removed it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• A lot of the reception section talks about the race controversy. It would be good if this could all be grouped together, and then I think it will be more obvious that there really isn't that much other reception info here. I would like to see that expanded as much as possible. Rotten Tomatoes has a few reviews that aren't here yet, and a hunt through Google should bring up more sources that can be used. This is a pretty important one for getting an article to GA.
  • Once the reception is updated, it would be good to get some of that info into the lead to make sure there is due weight applied in the coverage
    • Sure, added some pieces to the lede.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• There could be some small clean-up done with references as far as having consistent date formats and proper capitalisation, etc., but otherwise looks pretty good.
  • Yeah, I'll make a check through later. I've fixed the date issues, just need a bit more time to get them sorted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please look through these issues and make the necessary adjustments. I will put the review on hold for a week, let me know if there are any questions or concerns in the meantime. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I've covered everything here Adamstom.97 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am happy with the changes that have been made, especially the table updates, and I think it is probably good enough to be GA now. Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)