Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Shannen Says/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Shannen Says

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

Hello everyone. This article is about a WE tv reality show that documented the preparations for actress Shannen Doherty's wedding to photographer Kurt Iswarienko. I created this article back in July 2016. I put it up for a peer review in 2018, but that did not receive any commentary, and I withdrew the FAC in 2020 due to a lack of activity. I would like to try and put this article through the FAC process again, but I would like to make sure to get as much feed back as possible prior to doing that. Any suggestion for improvement would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

edit

I will place my placeholder here. TV shows are not really my area of expertise but I will try my best to be helpful in any way possible!--NØ 14:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the "We" in "We TV" is not an acronym, should the stylization be used here? I have the same doubt about "RelativelyREAL".
  • I usually use a comma after names of places mid-sentence, e.g. "Malibu, California,"
  • Are the names of the shows she watched in preparation known?
  • "Shannen Says and Doherty received mixed reviews" might have more of a ring than the way this sentence is currently written.
  • "since she had previously been married to actor Ashley Hamilton and poker player Rick Salomon that ended in 1994 and 2003, respectively" could just be "since her previous marriages to actor Ashley Hamilton and poker player Rick Salomon ended in 1994 and 2003, respectively"
  • Do you think changing "unidentified television network" to "another television network" would be detrimental to conveying its meaning?
  • I used the original wording to really emphasize that the network was unknown, but I agree that your wording is better. The current wording is awkward and the emphasis is unneeded as your wording covers that much more naturally. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref says "Realscreen" but the prose says "Realscrean.com"
  • There seems to be inconsistency in whether commas are used after a date mid-sentence, e.g. "April 10, 2012 in the United States", "April 10, 2012, as Shannen Says, Season 1"
  • "All of the episodes have been made available from Amazon Video" - Would another word be more appropriate than "from" here?
  • Could "as part of" just be "in" in "As part of an article for The Washington Post"?
  • I do understand your point, and I would not mind changing it in the future. I originally put this wording in to emphasize that this was a smaller part of a larger article to avoid any potential confusion or misinterpretation. I have also used "In X publication," elsewhere in the section so I thought it would be a nice change of pace to vary the sentence structure. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a reference directly after the quote from Berkshire
  • I do not think it is necessary since the citation is in the next sentence so it would cover both of these sentences, but I have still copied it regardless. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone once told me this at one of my first FACs but I have never been able to locate any MOS that mandates this. So should be fine either way, really.--NØ 08:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little unsure about the summary sentence for the last paragraph in Critical reception, since there are just two reviews and the second one seems to be saying that Doherty "did not 'sob for an hour'" like Spelling? Maybe I will get it if you clarify this, though.
  • I ended up removing the Boston Herald review. It was all from one sentence, She had her own reality show (“Shannen Says” in 2012) and she didn’t sob for an hour, Tori Spelling., in the article and that kind of throw-away line is probably not notable enough. I moved the MTV News bit up to the second paragraph because it is a commentary on Doherty's personality so I think it should fit there. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My review is more focused on prose and I didn't look at the references. The article is in great shape in my opinion. Great work here!--NØ 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words and for all your help with this review. I always find it super weird to revisit older articles I worked on. I may have only worked on this one six years ago, but it feels like a lifetime ago since I was in such a different space at the time. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

edit
  • What makes Realscrean.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed. It was only used twice in the article. One instance was already supported by another citation and the other instance was it calling the show a "docu-series" which is likely not important. I think I added that part because there was a time when people were using that term a lot (like with the Lindsay reality television show. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sneak peek" is too informal. I would call it a preview or something similar.
  • "172,000 people watched the premiere" - I suggest not starting a sentence with a number.
  • I would cut down on the use of however. It tends to be unpopular among FAC reviewers.

Very well-written otherwise. Let me know once you take it to FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

edit
  • It focuses on the preparations – Think you should refer to it as "the show" or "the series" on this instance
  • Shannen Says had low ratings, ranking below most other programs on its broadcast night – You could probably rewrite to "Shannen Says suffered from low viewership and ranked below most other programs when it debuted/premiered, despite its popularity among women between the ages of 25 and 54." Hope that reads better.
  • Shannen Says tracks the events leading up – I think the better word is documented (as my understanding is this is sort of a reality/documentary type of show)
  • and a contestant on the tenth season – think this needs to be "as a contestant"

Overall, the article appears to be in good shape. Great work. I hope my comments are helpful. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the edit. That was completely my fault as I should have read your suggestion more carefully. It was not confusing and I take responsibility for that. I will likely keep this peer review open for a while longer to get as much feedback as possible, but I will definitely let you know when the FAC is open. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit

I'll kick this off by assessing the images:

A general question about the captions: are you sure the parantheticals should be italicized? In either case, more to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for looking through the images. I have italicized the parenthetical information in successful FACs without an issue. I do it to distinguish the information from the rest of the caption, but I can understand what other editors prefer to not go this route. I do not think there is a policy about this. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the prose:

  • The tone of "suffered" from "suffered from low viewership" doesn't sound appropriate. You'd be better off with "had low viewership".
  • It would help to add a timeframe for filming to the lead along with what reviewers liked/didn't like.
  • I added a more specific timeframe to the lead, but I am not sure what else I can add for critical consensus. I have a sentence about the series and Doherty herself were the subject of mixed reviews, but I do not think there is a clear enough theme to comfortable put into the lead. There was some mixed opinions about the drama presented on the show and if Doherty came across as likable, but I was uncertain of generalizing too much if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I wouldn't recommend using Us Weekly, especially when better references are available, but were the photos exclusively published through that? If so, then I'd say making an exception by keeping it in place here would be reasonable.
  • Having a two-sentence paragraph under "Filming and cast" looks rather short, which makes the flow of text feel choppy. Either expand that or merge it with another one.
  • You can probably unlink "guest-starred" per WP:OVERLINK when that's a commonly recognized term.
  • Only the second episode has a viewership count listed. Is it because nothing is available for the others?
  • Unfortunately, nothing else is available for the others from reliable sources. This was a smaller show on a smaller network and according to reports, it fared poorly in terms of ratings so it probably just never registered on charts or was seen as notable enough to expand space in write-ups about television ratings. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the last two paragraphs under "Broadcast history and release" could be merged.
  • Use a capital T for The Futon Critic when "The" is part of this publication's title.
  • "SheKnows" and The Christian Post are subpar publications and I'd look for something stronger.
  • I removed the SheKnows citation as the other citation coupled with it already supported the information in the article. I replaced The Christian Post with the Associated Press. Unfortunately, I have been having trouble with archiving the new citation, but I will try to do it at a later date. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except for maybe episode ratings, I believe this has all the details needed to qualify as comprehensive enough in coverage to meet FA standards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "Shannen Says was initially going to be developed by Doherty's production company, No Apologies Production" - last word was plural in the lead
  • "The series was produced by No Apologies Production" - and again
  • "and RelativityReal." - in the lead you wrote the Real part in caps
  • "about her relationship with husband Dean McDermott and Keeping Up with the Kardashians." - can you re-phrase this so that it doesn't read like she had a relationship with both her husband and Keeping Up with the Kardashians?
  • "The second episode aired on Tuesday night in the same time slot, and two episodes were aired every Sunday night in the same time slot until the end of the season" - I would clarify that the first episode also aired on a Tuesday and that the second episode was a week later, and maybe also mention the gap between eps 2 and 3 (i.e. the first Sunday night episode wasn't on the Sunday immediately after ep 2)
  • "Doherty described Shannen Says as a one-off created" - created isn't a noun, so maybe you mean creation?
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Shannen_Says/archive2&oldid=1091998750"