Talk:Strike Force Five/GA1

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

Nominator: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Eagowl | talk | contribs 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, a really nice topic. It shouldn't take too long. Feel free to ask any questions that arise during the review. Below is a list with all criteria, which will be updated as it goes on.

Overall, you've done a great job! Most of the criteria are fully met, others have just minor issues, so we'll go through them and the article is good to go.

1. I think the lead section should be improved; notably, I think the first paragraph lacks a sentence describing the format and the idea (or the lack of it) of the podcast. This should go as the second sentence overall, in my opinion.

The information needed is there now, but I attampted to improve it by merging two first paragraphs. Let me know your thoughts about it. Eagowl | talk | 04:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section and Reception: with many critics praising the cause... Cause seems inept here ("cause" in this context could be considered as "WGA strike" by readers), so, perhaps, "precedent" or "idea" would be better, what do you think?

Done. All good. Eagowl | talk | 04:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-debut:"Rolling Stone" published a report on October 7... I guess, you meant September 7, unless there was an extended version published later. Fixed it anyway.

Format: Additionally, a thunder sound effect played... Additionally seems odd here to me, and the whole sentencce should be in present.

As noted by one of the peers, Reception section is huge compared to others, while Format is rather small. I would suggest moving part of the paragraph on Strike Force Wives as well as guest appearances to this section, as there were several occassions for both.

I've seen you moved the Strike Force Wives paragraph up, and it looks nicier than previously. I would also suggest leaving a note about ep11, because, as far as I got it, they've done something similar there. (couldn't listen to the podcast due to issues with access) Actually, using the podcast itslef as a reference, aalthough generally unfavored by Wikipedia, could help resolving some issues with finding sources (like self-referencing in sm)

Yep, Episode 11 is the continuation of "Strike Force Wives!". Added information.

With your latest edit on the last sentence of the lead (changing "recording" to "conversations"), I got that I misunderstood the sentence. Did the uneven quality relate to the content, Zoom calls or both? (based on the reviews, I'd say both).

Yeah, it's both. That's why I used "podcast" at first, though I understand that it's a little vague.

How about "occasional disorder in the discussions and the uneven quality of the recording"? The first part is not good, but what do you think about the idea itself?

I'll find sources about the quality of the recording first before adding it.

3. It feels that major sponsors as well as the results of the podcast are missing, especially given its purpose. Vanity Fair article (ref 16) gives quite interesting details that funding came from a brand headed by George Clooney (although he's not in charge of Diageo or Ryan Reynolds' Mintmobile), which I could not verify by other sources, but the involvement of Reynolds should be mentioned in the article.

Additionally, as I read through the reviews, many mention the patterns in the hosts' behavior within the podcast, which is also a detail worth mentioning.

I see a little contradiction between refs 3 & 2, which is nonetheless perfectly resolved in the article itself. Ref 2: "...so Stephen [Colbert] suggested we get together..." and Ref 3: "He [Kimmel] had the idea, and he did a lot of the legwork before he even reached out to the other four of us". This needs additional clarification.

I believe the story is that Colbert had the idea of a text chain named Strike Force Five, while Kimmel had the idea of the podcast named Strike Force Five.

Fair enough, then the present explaination is alright.

The commentaries in the editing field should somehow be resolved. First, in the "Format" section about the thunder sound I would suggest looking up which episode was the first not to feature it, and then include it in the article, unreferensed or referenced by that episode. Second, in the "Episodes" section about the leading host for ep2, the best way out would be to find information in ep2, as it's the primary source that should be adressed to when there is a conflict between secondary ones.

I believe it was Episode 3 that they stopped doing it. The reason why I added the comment in the ep2 leading host was because I saw the Vulture review getting Meyers and Colbert mixed up as the leading host (they do have sort of similar voices and at that point episode 3 was not out yet), so I added it there in case others were confused.

Finally, I think it is worthy to mention that the format has done away with some broadcast shows constraints, which was mentioned in some reviews.

I'll find the references and add a brief sentence. What I've learned from crafting reception sections is that there's no need to mention everything the reviewers said, or else the section will get bloated.

I feel like it's more about the format part, not the reception. It's just that the reviews are able to justify it.

Actually, you might take this bit into consideration while improving the article and Format section further, but for this assessment it would not be sufficient (although nice if you would've done it). Eagowl | talk | 06:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. The criteria are met and formatting could be ruined by any images, but my suggestion would be: if additional info on Ryan Reynolds is included, than a photo of him with a caption like: "Ryan Reynolds sponsored the podcast and later made a guest appearance" could be quite appropriate. If you dislike the idea, than it's all right to leave it as it is.

Further comments may be added as I review the article, but they are more than unlikely, thanks to comprehensive citations, which are unusual to such small-scale projects. Eagowl | talk | 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, @Eagowl:! I've changed the article accordingly. The reviews and format part may take a while longer, so please be patient.

As for the concern: The tequila brand co-owned by George Clooney is Casamigos, which was sold to Diageo in 2017. The hosts also promote that tequila brand specifically in the podcast. I found at least two sources that talk about this brand specifically: KTLA and Fox Business, though I feel iffy using the latter. What do you think? Spinixster (trout me!) 02:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather use KTLA here, as it's considered more reliable, although Fox Business (despite its reputation and Wikipedia concerns) provides some insides (again questionable) about the revenue of the project, which I couldn't find anywhere else, so I guess it would be better to stick with the guidelines here. Thanks for clarifying it all. Take your time, and in the meantime I'll check the remaining references. Eagowl | talk | 04:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it again, I don't think this information would be good to include, mainly because:

1. KTLA only says that these brands are owned by Diageo. It's irritatingly vague, even though those brands do run ads on the podcast. Fox Business is a bit clearer, but again, I'm iffy with using that source.

2. It's already established that Diageo and Mint Mobile is sponsoring. Going into specific details about which specific brands of these companies were advertised on the podcast may not be the best choice and might fall under advertising (Wikipedia shouldn't be doing the advertising for them, I was advised before.)

Hope this is understandable. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here, guess it would be all right to leave it, the information introduced would be enough. Eagowl | talk | 10:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that means everything should be addressed, thank you for reviewing! Spinixster (trout me!) 12:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster:, There are still a few comments above that were left unanswered. I've added them after the start of the review under sections 1 & 3 as separate paragraphs. Once we go through them, especially regarding that comment issue, I'll promote the article. Excuse me for my poor grouping. Eagowl | talk | 00:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All references checked, and I hope no further questions should arise. Once everything is adressed, it's good to go.Eagowl | talk | 07:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]