Jump to content

Talk:Love Island (American TV series) season 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class Column

[edit]

@TheDoctorWho: Just asking for the future of the series, would we just delete this column after the season is over since everyone would be dumped except for the winners? It wouldn't make sense to keep the column for just the two winners. Jayab314 02:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that by the way I didn't mean to revert your edits. Feel free to reinstate as they were non-controversial edits just trying to maintain the most-agreed on version of the article on the big things since we have editors who think this article has to look identical to other versions. I think deleting the column after it's over makes sense, I was gonna suggest that once it was over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted now. The ‘Late Arrival’ section wouldn’t work when the islanders are dumped in a different order. You clearly haven’t thought this through at allTellyShows (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TellyShows: Yes it would, we would split the column... Jayab314 02:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unnecessary clutter. The reader can see that an islander is a late arrival by looking at the day they entered, and they can see an islander was dumped because the word ‘DUMPED’ is next to their name. TellyShows (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TellyShows: The "Dumped Islanders" was deleted. The "Initial Islanders" and "Late Arrival Islanders" is for quick glances to see if they were in the villa from Day 1 or not. Jayab314 02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are exactly the same people that ruined the Big Brother articles. It’s how it happened before. They start with the US and they work their way to other countries. I’m not letting this happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by TellyShows (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TellyShows: The US version of Big Brother is a different format, if you want to discuss, head to Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother. Jayab314 02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TellyShows: If you care so much, I suggest you become a member of the WikiProject seeing as you already already one. Jayab314 02:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record @TellyShows: You can't personally decide whether it happens or not. It's a community-wide decision. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also please refrain from personal attacks with phrases like These are the same people that ruined Big Brother articles and They start with the US and they work their way to other countries making it sound as if we personally infect the articles or something. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this even added? The reader can clearly tell the initial islanders from the late arrivals based on the day they entered. This is unnecessary clutter and it does not look nice imo. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj1238: Per TheDoctorWho’s first edit to add it to the table, it was an effort to organize it better. I made a few edits on it making it not look so cluttered, but I see it as a quick way to see if someone was in the villa since Day 1. Jayab314 04:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just look...at the day entered. I don't know why we're overcomplicating things so much on the American edition's article. It's the exact same format as the original version, it does not need these unnecessary editions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the fact that "overcomplicating" and "unnecessary" is being used to describe the word "different" which is all this really is. The bigger issue here is that a lot of people think everything has to look identical. That works for some things but in other cases it often prevents us from improving the article. I'm not just speaking about the table in this case but the article as a whole and what went down earlier today after the episode finished airing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about every instance you're talking about, but this little "late arrival"/"initial islander" is overcomplicating. It is essentially putting the same information in the table twice. If Caro entered on Day 1, she is clearly an "initial islander", if Cormac entered on day Day 4, he is clearly a "late arrival". There is no need to express that twice, not to mention the way the class section is separating the islanders into two groups is gonna make things look very off when more islanders are dumped, considering there is a chance almost every other islander will be a different class. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For reference this is the initial edit I added that split the table into three different sections. I personally think if not either of these versions that some kind of split is useful. Perhaps I'm wrong though. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjj1238 and TheDoctorWho: Maybe if we get rid of the column, we can just change the background of the entrance day to show a difference between initial and late arrival islanders (ex: Initial Islanders's get a purple background and Late Arrival Islanders get a pink background).
Islander Age Residence Entered Exited Status
Zac Mirabelli 22 Chicago, Illinois Day 1 Participating
Dylan Curry 25 San Diego, California Day 4 Participating
I'd be more inclined to support this color-coding, but I still fail to see why it's necessary to distinguish between initial islanders and late arrivals at all. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My original reason for attempting some sort of organization was because I noticed that the late-arrivals were mixed in with the initial islanders and readers could potentially skip right over it if you had five Day 1 entry's above and below it. I figured that some sort of organization was needed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a thought @Jjj1238 and Jayab314: with this being an apparent fast-growing franchise would you guys be interested in helping to set up some sort of WikiProject similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother where we lay out standards on what a general article should look like and how it should be set up to prevent large-scale type disputes like this in the future? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would definitely be interested in that. I think WikiProjects are very necessary to avoid things like these. As for your concern, I really still don't think it's necessary. If someone is concerned with differentiating the late arrivals from the initial islanders they will pay close attention to the days entered. Also, in the end there will probably be 20-30 islanders, so the idea that the Day 1 arrivals will drown out the other days in the table is an unneeded concern I'd say. There is no concern with that on the finished British articles. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very insterested in a WikiProject for Love Island. As for the class column/background, I think it would be safe to just go ahead and take out the column and put the backgrounds in with a note stating what they're for. If there are any future concerns over the backgrounds, I would not be opposed to deleting the backgrounds, too. Jayab314 11:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the color backgrounds and after Jjj1238 mentioned it I checked out some of the British articles and it does not seem to be as much of a concern with so many late arrivals mixed in. So I'd be fine if it ended up getting removed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjj1238 and Jayab314: As for the WikiProject I would love to start gathering some ideas and making sure we have everything organized and enough participants before actually creating the pages so I've copied the blank WikiProject skeleton to this sandbox of mine. Feel free to edit the page and we can use that talk page to communicate as we start ironing things out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary use of colour. Removing.TellyShows (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho and Jjj1238: Please do not just add a statement to the talk page and take that as the final decision. I am for the backgrounds in order to differentiate between Day 1 entrances and later entrances. It is not a major change and is just a different background depending on when they entered. I see no problem with having it, but I am open to deleting it if a consensus is reached. Jayab314 00:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In fact, the Islanders and Coupling tables are both eye sores. Miss HollyJ (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for either way on the Islanders table, I'm fine with whatever the general consensus is on it. As for the coupling table I think it should stay as is other than possibly adding who the couples voted for in the most recent episode and possibly changing some colors around. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an explicit vote going just to see what the consensus is about the colors in the islanders table? I for one am against differentiating when the islanders entered, whether it be by color or whatever. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Miss HollyJ (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Miss HollyJ: Do you support the column or do you support deleting the column? Jayab314 00:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging editors in attempt to garner consensus: @Miss HollyJ: @TheDoctorWho: @TellyShows: @Bsems: { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note TellyShows won't be back here, they've been blocked as a confirmed sock. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Miss HollyJ, TheDoctorWho, Jjj1238, and Bsems: The season finished a while ago and this problem seems to have disappeared. I would like a vote on this subject or even a peer review of this article since it is a GA nominee. Jayab314 12:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finalists photo

[edit]

@Jayab314: What do you think about replacing the finalists photo with something less-collage type. I personally prefer something a little more professional and something where they're all together and not four different photos put together. Something like this would be my first choice and this would be my second? TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: I like the second choice better as it's clear to see who is who, but either option is fine. Jayab314 11:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer your second choice. It is very difficult to see the contestants in your first choice. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Uploaded TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: The finalists photo in this article is currently up for deletion. Jayab314 16:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayab314: Thanks for the heads up, I've left a detailed message contesting the deletion on that files talk if you would like to join is as well. As a side note I've also left a message on the talk page of the administrator that previously declined File:Celebrity Big Brother 2 Cast.jpg for speedy since it was nominated again. TheDoctorWho (Happy Christmas!) 02:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House image

[edit]

@Jayab314 and Jjj1238: Considering an image for the villa section. Thoughts on this or this? I'm thinking the first of those right now. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho and Jjj1238: I definitely like the first one better as it shows the lights and customs signs more than the second one. Jayab314 14:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, I'll get that uploaded and added. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Uploaded TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Day Number

[edit]

@TheDoctorWho: I started an extensive study into what day everything happened on. In order to do this, I am looking at EXIF data to tell me at what day and time a photo was taken at (off of CBS Press Express). This way, I can correlate dates to day numbers. I made a Google Slide that shows this information (see here). Jayab314 19:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayab314: That sounds good! It'll help us make sure our days in the article are correct. I figure they're mostly correct anyways but always good to double check. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Ok, great! I’m a little busy right now as I had to leave, but I’ll make sure the google slides thing is finished by tonight. Jayab314 20:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: Take your time, there's no rush and it'll be easy to fix any wrong days considering how extensive the episode summaries are. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: I am pretty sure I finished it. It all seems to line up and make sense, so I think we're good. Jayab314 01:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: Looks good! TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion

[edit]

It's not a big event but does anyone think it's worth mentioning the reunion on here? (Here's a few sources [1], [2], [3]) TheDoctorWho (Happy Christmas!) 02:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: A reunion section under Production would be fine, and I can work on it tomorrow afternoon. Should specific things they stated such as Kyra and Cashel’s break up be mentioned or would that be more gossip-y and un-encyclopedic? Jayab314 03:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Island (American season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 13:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, some problems I encountered.

  • Link [22] is dead and CTV page doesn't mention Love Island.
  • Minor problem but: What does the official logo for this show looks like?
  • Link [36] shows (Account Suspended).
  • Link [39] is Not Available from my location.
  • Link [40] is taking a lot of time to load..
  • Twitter isn't a reliable site, but as it is an official account, it's alright.
  • On episodes, it doesn't have references about what happened, feel free to link the official video in there.

Please note that this is my second article to review, if you are not pleased with the review you could always submit back.

@Jayab314:, Greetings I'm pinging you as you made the article grow and you seem to care about this article, you can solve some problems from here. Editoneer (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editoneer and Jayab314: I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes but I saw this show up on my watchlist and wanted to help. I fixed reference 22 by adding an archive link. CTV updates their show pages when a new season is about to start and they refreshed their Love Island page in preparation for season 2. I also found an archive for reference 36. I checked reference 39 where I'm based in the United States and it works for me and the content of the reference matches the article with no copyvio issues. I found an archive via the Wayback Machine and added it to the reference so that may or may not work for you Editoneer. For reference 40 I replaced the Yahoo link with a direct link from People since the Yahoo link was an aggregate from People and it is the same exact content so it should load quicker. For the episodes I used the cite episode template for the episode summaries and included a link to each episode to the CBS All Access version. The links will most likely be geo-blocked outside the United States and for those inside the United States require a paid subscription to CBS All Access. Great job on the article Jayab314! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, gentleman you saved an article to be denied if it wasn't answered to within 7 days. I can confirm that CBS is blocking access because I'm not in America but I can't deny that due to WP:Verifiability guide. Editoneer (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review reopened

[edit]

Editoneer, the review does not appear to have been conducted by going over each of the GA criteria and making sure the article adhered to them; the few comments are mostly about references rather than the actual contents. I have accordingly reversed the approval and reopened the review so that the article can get the attention it needs and deserves.

The GA criteria include the following: 1. Well-written: this comes in two parts, the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

One thing I noticed was that the article couldn't decide whether it was about an American television program or an English one. The lead section refers to "presenter" and "narrator", both English terms, while the body of the article uses "host", the American term. I'd like to suggest that despite its origins in the UK, the article consistently stay with American terminology and wording/spelling. It should choose one or the other for clarity (a GA criterion). If American, use "while" rather than "whilst".

In addition, the lead section has some information that isn't in the body, and also uses some in-program wording that isn't understandable to a broad audience (i.e., "envelope ceremony"). It also has a high concentration of inline source citations, which is typically not needed here provided the sourcing is in the body of the article (the exception is information that could be contentious and quotes). More important, it's supposed to summarize the article yet doesn't have basic information about the show: that it's a show where people are isolated in a villa on a tropical island and are voted off. "Matthew Hoffman narrated it" does not explain to me what his function is. Is he a co-host? Seen on screen? Just doing voice-overs? Mind, this detail should actually be in the Production section, but Hoffman isn't mentioned there at all; he should be in the body of the article if he's important enough to be mentioned in the lead.

There are a number of places where the prose is unclear or lacking conciseness. There are also a fair number of grammatical issues and typos, all of which should have been identified in the original review, and all of which require fixing if the article is to attain GA status. A few examples:

Format section:

  • "or dumped," This should probably be written or "dumped",—the quotes are for the term "dumped", right? Remember, Wikipedia uses logical quotations, so quote marks should typically not include following commas, and not periods unless you're dealing with a full quoted sentence.

Islanders section:

  • The initial Islanders who entered the villa on Day 1 were revealed on June 30, 2019. There's a tense problem here, in that the revelation took place before the initial Islanders entered the villa: the revelation was June 30, and the first batch of Islanders entered the villa on July 7. Please recast the sentence, and you ought to specify here that Day 1 was July 7, 2019, since it has yet to be mentioned in the article text. (The infobox does not count in this regard.) One thing you should probably clarify somewhere is how the Days are counted: if filming ran from July 7, 2019, to August 7, 2019, and Day 1 to Day 31, what's up with the 32 days of filming?
@BlueMoonset: Counting July 7 as the first day of filming, August 7 would be the thirty-second day of filming. Jayab314 16:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production section:

  • On February 22, 2006, it was announced that an American version of Celebrity Love Island was in development at My Network TV but never materialized. They announced that it was in development and that it never materialized? The sources, since they're dated February 22, 2006, will only have covered the announcement. The failure to materialize happened later, and the sentence needs to be recast to reflect this.
  • later joined the series as additional executive producers in addition to the original three. Using "additional…in addition" is repetitive and not GA quality. Simplest fix would be dropping "in addition to the original three", or you could replace "in addition to" with "beyond" if you think it isn't sufficiently clear that all three original EPs stayed on.
  • and aired every weeknight until August 7, 2019 over which twenty-two episodes aired. Again repetitive, this time with "aired"; this should be written more simply and directly. The following sentence switches from past to present with "is simulcast" and really shouldn't.
  • Each person picks an envelope and announced what was inside. Tense change needs fixing, and I'd suggest a word more specific than "person", perhaps "winner" or "member of the winning couple".
  • Love Island is filmed in a custom built villa on the islands of Fiji. "custom built" should be hyphenated, as it modifies "villa", and the villa has to be on a specific island, not on "the islands of Fiji". If no one knows which one, then "one of the islands of Fiji" can be used.

Episodes section:

  • Episode 1: Then, they moved to the pool where they picked the couples. The uses of "they" lack clarity. Indeed, this entire description lacks clarity: how many women and how many men at each stage is important. If all 11 starters were known beforehand due to the June 30 announcement, then start with five of the six women entering, specify that the five men were there, and then Kyra as the sixth.
  • Episode 5: The guys pranked the girls with a fake text from Love Island. This left Mallory and a few other girls mad a Weston for pranking them. If all the guys did it, why were the girls "mad a Weston" (typo) rather than all the guys? Please clarify.

There's more like that throughout.

2. Verifiable: I haven't checked this. Some work has been done on the sourcing, but there was no mention of checking to ensure it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism, which is a crucial part of reviewing.

3. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic: there are some holes in the coverage: Production seems quite light, including development, any decisions on differences between the UK original in terms of location, organization of island site, etc., selection of contestants, and a great deal more. The article seems to be assuming basic knowledge of Love Island and shouldn't. The second part of broadness, it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, is one another reviewer should judge, though the Villa section may go into too much detail; Furniture throughout the villa has over three-hundred feet of custom-made fabrics. seems to me to be excessive.

4. Neutral: I'm not familiar enough with the show and its characterization to tell whether the episode descriptions and summary of the critical reception are properly representative, but nothing stands out as problematic during a quick skim.

5. Stable: the article has been.

6. Illustrated: the two non-free images appear to be okay, though it would be better if a patroller/administrator could verify that the villa photo rationale passed muster.

That's it for now. I'd like to suggest that once the nominator goes through and addresses these issues and others like them, that the article be submitted to the Guild of Copy Editors, which has a very short backlog and a month long drive ongoing, so the text can be improved to GA-level prose; it isn't yet there at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, that I'm way too familiar with the show that interfered with this review and most of the terms like "narrating" (which in this context means a voice-over) made me think it is obvious as a narrator is a story-teller and other terms of the show. Thank you for standing up and telling us this. I will try to be more careful next time. Editoneer (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I've made most of the fixes you suggested, but I'm a little confused on what to change in the lead. Can you give specific examples as to what should be changed? Jayab314 20:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Alright, I think I've made all the changes that were requested. If there's anything more I need to change, please tell me. I submitted the article to the Guild of Copy Editors about an hour ago. Jayab314 17:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayab314, thanks for taking care of the GOCE nomination and the prose changes. While that's good progress, you still have not done anything to address my points in the Broadness section, which are critical to a GA nomination: the article needs to be sufficiently broad in its coverage in terms of production, development, and so on, and it really isn't. I've never seen the show, so I don't know the basic physical set up: do all of the contestants sleep in the same room (the Villa section talks about a communal bedroom and a [singular] bathroom) and have to share a single bathroom? Is there a men's bedroom and a women's bedroom? Do the couples share a bed? (The episode 6 description would seem to indicate this, as the phrase "sleep with the girl's partner" is used, though confusingly this is expressed as "went on a date" in the following episode.) I think there needs to be expansion of the Format section to address these basics; remember, you have to make the basic setup understandable to someone who has never seen the show before. I also didn't see any cleaning up of the Villa section in terms of eliminating unnecessary detail about some of the design elements. Mentioning all of the designers seems like product placement: not germane to the article, but free advertising for them.
I also think you need to go through the episode descriptions to do some clean-up, which I've attempted for 5 and 6. I'm not quite sure why the game in episode 6 is not separated like most of the other ones are, but some consistency would be nice. Since the prizes won tend not to be mentioned, the detail in episode 5 that the Islanders didn't know the prize going in seems unnecessary since the prizes aren't generally mentioned (and this one isn't). The prizes don't seem to help that much, since Alana won unanimously in episode 7 yet was dumped later in the same episode. One important thing is to be very sure your antecedents are clear whenever you use "they" (the opening of episode 12 is but one example where clarity is lacking). There are a surprising number of sentences that don't meet the clear and concise criteria: examples can be found in episode 17's first paragraph and episode's 12 second paragraph.
Doing all of this before the copyedit will help, since it's better when they're working with a clearer article. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the feedback. As for the coverage problem, I have seen the show multiple times and am familiar with the format so I wouldn't know what to add that's not already there. If you don't mind, can you provide some topics or issues you might come across as confusing since you've never seen the show before. That would be much appreciated! Jayab314 21:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: The copyedit has been completed and I think I've done everything you asked for. Jayab314 15:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

[edit]

Hi, since I've had something of an invitation to look at this, I'll add some comments below.

  • Missing words in the format section:
    • The Islanders are from the outside world is presumably that they are kept apart from outside? (Never seen it)
    • allowing them access all of their options should have a 'to' somewhere but, also, sounds like an ATM with 'access all your options'. A more human phrasing would be nice.
  • This: While they are in the villa, Islanders have their own telephone, with which they can receive texts informing them of the latest challenges, dumpings, and re-couplings. Islanders and couples receive games and challenges that are designed to test their physical and mental abilities, and compatibility. Winners of games and challenges receive special prizes to aid them. Is almost word-for-word repetition of the above paragraph. It's different enough to indicate it was written without knowing of the other instance, but similar enough to raise concerns that both are copied text with minor paraphrasing edits.
  • The format isn't necessarily covered by WP:PLOT and needs some citations, especially for the more suggestive/analytical parts, like "must be in a relationship with another Islander for either love, friendship, or money" (italics mine)
  • I don't really see the value in having the non-free final couples photo, unless there's anything particularly significant about these couples above the rest of them in how they got to the final. If any of these people become notable, there will surely be some free photos taken in the future that could be added to show that they were in it. But at the moment they're just random pretty people. I don't think what they look like is super relevant to the show? And even if it were, the non-free low quality means they aren't recognizable in the group photo, anyway.
  • The phrasing of Matthew Hoffman, who leveled sarcastic comments at the contestants, was the narrator of the series. suggests that Hoffman was sarcastic to the contestants before becoming narrator, and indeed vaguely implies this is why he was hired. I don't think this is accurate, and it would be better phrased as "Matthew Hoffman was selected as the narrator for the series; his narrative style involves leveling sarcastic comments at the contestants in voice overs" or something
  • twenty-two is above 20 and therefore warrants being a numerical - to solve the issue with 60 next to it, just move the episode length to later in the sentence
  • Each member of the winning couple 'each member' only to be used when more than two, just say both
    • Of course, this Prize section is the same text as in the Format section, and can be dumped - move the bit about sharing the money to the Islanders section
  • Filming goes above Broadcast - TV and film MOS likes these parts in the order of when they happened.
  • 32 days, as a numerical
  • Non-free image of the villa is too dark and gives few details at low-quality - the description is more illustrative, and the image not needed
  • In Eric Thurm of The A.V. Club called the series "pure chaotic evil" and said, "Love Island is..., both 'The A.V. Club' and 'Love Island' should be in italics
    • This quotation also needs a ref at the end
    • Ditto for the next line, with 'Vulture' and 'Love Island' again
  • The sentence Ben Travers of IndieWire wrote, "The original batch of Islanders is extremely bland". isn't really incorporated well into the paragraph, and the quotation is too short to warrant the 'wrote'. It might not even warrant the quote - "Ben Travers of IndieWire opined that the contestants were bland" or, being merged to the sentence before, with an "and" before Ben
  • "less-than-ideal viewing figures" is used twice, not too close together, but it's also specific enough to feel repepitive when read. At least one of the instances can just say 'bad'.
Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Island_(American_TV_series)_season_1&oldid=1256819318"