Talk:The Kyle and Jackie O Show

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The Kyle & Jackie O Show → The Kyle and Jackie O Show – The name of the program uses "and" and not &. MOS also recommends the use of "and" rather then "&". Bidgee (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per common usage (110 gnews hits for and vs 30 gnews hits for &) and WP:&. Jenks24 (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources, copy-editing and clean up warnings no longer necessary

Have changed headings to fit Wikipedia's basic copyediting protocols. Have also double-checked all sources, thus the "issues" at the top of the page are no longer necessary (because they've been addressed and changed) - yay! Cheers Brewhahaha (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Brewhahaha

Problem is it needs more sources, secondary sources (news sources) should be used over primary sources (which is Kyle amd Jackie O Show), the whole article needs a clean-up and rewrite since it isn't at an encyclopaedic standard, it is more of a fan/advert type article with little if any balance (controversy). Bidgee (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the sources, I just looked over the reference list and the majority of the sources are secondary. This is one of the most detailed and referenced articles in the world of radio. The article has a whole section dedicated to controversy (thus balancing the article). I respectfully don't find your criticism valied Brewhahaha (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)brewhahaha

Just because there are a lot of references doesn't make it good. A lot of them are from unreliable sources, like tabloid websites. The article still needs work. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to offend the main contributors of this article but to be honest this article looks like promotional blabber, the article consist of segments, fill-in host, awards and brief information about the rating, absolutely no information on history or conception of the show, brief bio on the regular hosts regarding previous experience and/or on show traits, controversies (and there is quite a few). The majority of the length of this article is due to poor formatting of lists and information. YuMaNuMa (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea, most of the sections need major clean up, some could just be thrown out. I think the section of notable celebrity guests should just be removed altogether. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the copy-editing facet of the article looks pretty good.Belvyzep (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)