Wikipedia:Peer review/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive2

The Masked Singer (American TV series) edit

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am wondering what questions about the TV series you feel are unanswered after reading this article and what improvements you think it could benefit from! Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Putting this up as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post comments by the end of next week. Aoba47 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is admittedly a nitpick, but for this part, "the program employs several panelists who", I'd replace "several" with four, since the seasons have so far consistently had four permanent panelists excluding the guests, or remove "several" altogether as the word choice seems unnecessarily vague to me.

Removed "several" but in many cases it is five so I'll refrain from adding "four" in case of any confusion.

That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen this show in a while, but is Jenny McCarthy credited with her full married name? I'd say she is more well-known as Jenny McCarthy without the Wahlberg so unless the show specifically uses her full name, then I'd use the more commonly known version.

She is credited as Jenny McCarthy Wahlberg in the credits.

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence, "While considering it more positive than other reality television shows, the series has received mixed reviews", is grammatically incorrect. The verb in the beginning, dependent clause (i.e. considering) is tied to the noun of the next phrase (i.e. the series) so it literally reads that the series itself is considering this. I'd revise it to, "While considering it more positive than other reality television shows, television critics had mixed reviews for the series, to avoid this.

Ah, I thought "considering" was able to be tied to "television critics". Thank you for the reword.

In this part, "In recognition of the show's costume design, they", it is a little confusing who "they" is referencing since in the previous sentence "they" is referring to the costumes and not the designers.

Reworded to "Toybina" (the Emmy Award was also given to a few other people of her team, but she is the most prominent and this is the lead so I guess it's a summary in a sense).

This more of a personal preference, but something about "spawned" sounds strange in a context like "have spawned as a result". I know that it is correct, but it just seems weird to me.

Perhaps "followed as a result" is better?

That works better. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a clarification question about this part, "has an interest in developing other South Korean reality television series". Does that mean there is a larger interest in developing South Korean shows in South Korea or developing South Korean shows for an American audience? If it is the second, then "adapting" would be a clearer word choice.

Thank you for pointing this out. Changed to "adapting".

I'd remove "A fourth season premiered on September 23, 2020" from the end of the lead. It does not really fit there, and it is not necessary since the season is already linked at the top.

Done.

For this part, "cover of a famous song", I am not sure it is necessary to qualify that these are covers of famous songs.

Removed.

I do not think it is necessary to list every guest panelist that information seems more relevant to the season articles. As the show progresses, the list will only grow longer and longer. I'd only include information about guest panelists that have appeared in multiple seasons like McHale. It makes me wonder if a separate section for the panelists and host is necessary of if this could be merged into the "Format" section?

That is an insightful observation. My initial thoughts were: I don't personally feel the section is too overwhelming at the moment, so I am keen to keeping it for now, but I appreciate your suggestions as to what to keep if/when it should be separated. However, I guess I might as well make the change and see if it gets reverted/a discussion needs to take place. Finding things to trim is always a good thing, I think. Let's see how it turns out.

It is up to you. It is probably best to get more opinions about this as your way could be better. I just thought it would be better to keep the list of guest panelists to the season articles to keep this article more focused on the show as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the following sentence completely: (In June 2020, it was confirmed that Jeong, McCarthy Wahlberg, Scherzinger, and Thicke would return as panelists in the fourth season, as would Cannon as host.) This kind of announcement is more relevant to the season four article, and it can already be safely assumed that the host and permanent panelists have remained the same through the show's run (at least so far).

Removed.

As someone who does not follow this show, I found these two sentences – "The following month, Fox affirmed Cannon's role and accepted his apology for making statements that "inadvertently promoted hate" on his podcast" and "He also pledged to donate his first paycheck from the season to the Simon Wiesenthal Center after visiting with its officials." – to be confusing. I would provide more context about this. I could see how this information would be relevant the main show article since controversy about the host and whether or not they will return is important, but more information is needed.

I've edited it a bit, though some wanted less info/thought most could go better in the season/Cannon's article per talk page.

Thank you for the response. My opinion is that if this incident is going to be brought up at all, then it should be done in a very clear way that could be understood by an unfamiliar reader. I would think there is a way to concisely word this background information so it is clear to readers like myself while still being brief. Aoba47 (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd paraphrase the "a couple of ... places" quote since it does not seem 100% necessary to me.

Changed to "several outlets"

I have a clarification question. This part, "Fox had offered Cannon multiple opportunities to host or produce other television shows", indicates (at least to me) that Cannon has hosted or produced at least one other television show for Fox. Is that true, and if so, is that information relevant for a brief inclusion here?

Variety says "Fox pitched Cannon several TV concepts for hosting and producing. Nothing resonated until the bizarre Korean TV format ... caught his fancy." Do you think this unclear in the article? This is paraphrased as "... though none interested him".

I am probably just over-thinking this, and will see how other editors respond to this part. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have two comments for this part, (Osbourne revealed on The Talk). I'd use Sharon Osbourne's full name, and I'd avoid using words like "revealed" as I think it is unnecessarily sensationalized.

Done.

Is there any further explanation for this sentence: "The COVID-19 pandemic allowed producers to cast celebrities in the fourth season who would have otherwise been unable to participate"? How would a pandemic encourage celebrities who are not interested? I could easily see arguments for the opposite.

I'll remove this until the end of the season and all the people are revealed (more info may be available then).

That sounds like a good idea. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told in the past to avoid the "with x verb-ing" sentence structure, as done here, (with both the performers and producers submitting "ideas [which] merge as [the songs] go through the clearance process").

I don't necessarily see an issue but I've changed the sentence to include a semi-colon. I will reword the following sentence momentarily as it doesn't seem right to have 2 consecutive sentences with semi-colons.

It is not an issue with me, but since it is something I've seen repeated in the FAC space, I thought I should raise this to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move the link Jesse McCartney and explanation of his role on the show to this part, (McCartney stated he ran "5Ks or 10Ks every day"), as that is where he is first mentioned.

Fixed.

Is it necessary to make Canadian ratings its own subsection? It is rather short, and one-paragraph sections and subsections are discouraged as it can read as choppy.

Removed subsection country headings.

I'd remove the following sentence, (The program's production value has garnered mixed reviews.), since there is not a clear citation that explicit supports it, and it is not really necessary since the rest of the paragraph already makes it clear.

Done.

I hope my review is helpful. Apologies for the amount of comments. The article is in great shape. Let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you very much for your abundance of helpful comments. I hope I've addressed them all. Let me know if you have any more. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help. I have responded to some of your points above. I will try to read through the article further in the future, but it looks like it is in good shape to me. I hope more editors engage with this peer review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you all will ping me when Aoba47 is completely done, I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dancing with the Stars logo in the "Concept and appeal" subsection does not seem necessary to me. I would remove it because it does not really illustrate something to the reader that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.

In the "Cast and commentary" subsection, I'd make the Canon commentary into its own paragraph (i.e. starting with this sentence "Cannon's role on the series has divided critics") since it is a natural break in content and would avoid having a wall of text. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

This part, "participated in Masked Singer-inspired contests to maintain friendly relationships remotely", does not have a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The refs next to United States and Canada were supposed to apply, but I didn't know if 4 in a row would look odd. Combining into one. Heartfox (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling citations is always a good idea when possible so I think that this is the best course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your additional comments; I believe I have addressed them. I don't know how to proceed with the Cannon-unclear role in fourth season part. Is there some specific information you think should be mentioned? Heartfox (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to have other editors look at this. I just find that part to be unnecessarily vague. The phrase, "inadvertently promoted hate", just leaves me wondering what exactly he said or did. It could be a thing to ask SG. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than my concern with the Cannon part, I think this article is very good. I will let @SandyGeorgia: have the space to conduct her review. I hope my comments were helpful, and again, you've put a lot of work into this article and that is something to be proud of. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! Heartfox (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am just glad that I could help. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC which is also music-related. I would be pretty cool if a female rapper like Lil' Kim participated on this show (though maybe that has already happened lol). Please let me know whenever you do put this up for a FAC (ideally after getting SG's comments and feedback from other editors) as I will be more than happy to help with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBD and TBA, neither defined on first occurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, SandyGeorgia. I've added {{abbr}} to the first instances of TBA and TBD; hopefully that's adequate though options are somewhat limited as the tables are templates. I've tried to pay attention to your comments on other peer reviews and did the writing exercises a couple days ago and found them very helpful. Do you plan on leaving any more comments or should I close this peer review? Heartfox (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t find anything else, although be aware it was just a quick flyover ... good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]