Talk:The Ultimate Fighter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead is a bit short and could do with some expansion, describing notable highlights, significant players (alluded to in the last sentence) and other points of interest. I would like to see at least two paragraphs. In other words, more can be said about the game, the players, the coaches, the contracts, the impact on the sport, and the post-show success.
The lead is looking much better with the recent expansion. Good work!

The lead doesn't mention that the players are trained by UFC competitors, whether there is a host, or as the other reviewer said below, when the first episode aired.

13 stacked navbox footers isn't best practice. In this situation, the navbox with collapsible groups should be used. I'll see if I can get it to work.
Looks as though it does. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says the show is "scheduled" for a 13th season. Does that mean it was renewed or that there are just unconfirmed plans for another season? A little bit of clarification on this here, would help.

Lead should also very briefly describe the history I mention in the broad section below, such as the key production people. (Fertitta's, White, etc.)

Further concerns with prose detailed by Racepacket at the bottom.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References lack full attribution of authors and pub. data. I'll attempt to help fill these in, but your references should have the full author, date, accessdate, and any other important information. You also aren't using WebCite which means you could end up a page full of dead links in the future.

Some of the article relies on primary sources. For example, much of the "format changes" section relies on editorial interpretation from episode videos. This may or may not be problematic. It would help if this content was also supported by secondary sources. It is difficult to tell if the conclusions reached in this section belong to the editor (original research) or are easily verified in the videos.
Per comments at the bottom, I assume the nominator has added the material in good faith and the interpretation is correct. To reiterate what I said below, in future articles, I recommend that the nominator use primary sources for the purpose of illustrating and supporting secondary sources. It is difficult to tell if this interpretation of the importance of this material is accurate. Sources should be used in such a way that the content can be easily verified.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad: The "seasons" section lists an incredible 12 seasons, which if I estimate correctly, amounts to more than 100 episodes! Yet, this article is fairly thin if you remove all the images and tables. Surely more can be said about the show?

Ratings: Several of the sources mention ratings, but I'm not seeing anything in the article about it.
Ok, there's a bit more at the top now, but the article is still pretty thin on tying together the seasons and noting episode summaries in prose. And aside from some prose about ratings, there isn't much about reception, criticism, reactions, etc.

History: A good article about a television show is going to require the use of industry trade sources, newspapers, magazines, and other print publications (mostly available online or through your library). This article does not have any of them. That is a problem. So, for example, James Hibberd in Television Week (2005-12-12) writes that Spike TV experienced a "double-digit drop" in viewers because WWE left the network. According to Hibberd, Spike President Doug Herzog, expected to "offset" the ratings with The Ultimate Fighter and other shows. A television series article will need more history and background. I'm going to add some sources to a "further reading" section. You are welcome to use them for expansion. All you need is a paragraph or two talking about what it took to bring the show to television, with more discussion about the role of Dana White and the Fertitta's.
Moved this to the top as "History and impact". Links in further reading can be used to flesh this out.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No neutrality issues that I can see at the moment. Note to nominator: The article has only one criticism that I can see (tenth season), however the sources indicate that there was significant criticism about season eight.[1] I suspect there is a lot more criticism of the show as well.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable except for vandalism.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Could use some more images if possible.
Added the Dana White image. Please add a good caption or other images of your choice.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
As outlined above, lead needs to mention key production figures; history and impact section requires expansion with links in further reading section (and any others of your choosing); references require formatting of author, links and publisher (WebCite is optional, but will preserve the material if the server links are broken in the future); I'm still concerned about the lack of information about seasons/episodes that can easily be summarized in one or two paragraphs of prose; OR questions about primary versus secondary sources should be addressed; User:Racepacket has identified outstanding issues with the prose that should be easy to fix. I would also like to see a good caption with the Dana White image I added, or the addition of other images of your choice. Because of these things, I'm placing the article on hold. There's nothing here that can't be easily fixed over the course of a few days. I have additional questions that will wait until later, but I'm certain this can become a good article with a little bit of work. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed as of 12:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC), but I would still like to see content added from generalist secondary sources, such as the links in the further reading section, and less interpretation of primary sources, such as the editorial interpretation from episode videos mentioned above. Also, there is room for additional criticism and commentary about the show. Any future GA reassessment should revisit these concerns. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

First of all, regarding the broad coverage section, there's not a lot that can be said about the seasons that doesn't duplicate what happens on the individual season pages, e.g. we have a page for each individual season, such as number 10.

The lead wasn't short before, until it was chopped down. The sources have been listed as a question mark. Just to clarify, there are a lot of sherdog/mmajunkie references. Sherdog and mmajunkie provide content for yahoo and espn.com (not sure which order), so they are most certainly reliable. Can't really get any other images, as they'd be non-free and not eligible. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. As for the broad coverage and the series/episode articles, take a look at the MOS on summary style if you aren't already very familiar with it. If you are, disregard my comment. I'm not sure what you are saying in regards to the lead. Are you referring to my edit, or to another editor who made it shorter? Could you clarify on this point? Yes, I'm aware of Sherdog and mmajunkie as RS, but thank you for the helpful reminder. As I said on my talk page, it might be best for your stress level to avoid commenting until I finish the review (although I would appreciate it if you would help expand the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

The prose in the article can cause confusion to a reader who is not familiar with the program. Here are a few points to consider:

Since the article is the name of a TV series rather than a book, should it be italicized?
Yes, it should be italicized. WP:MOSTITLE includes "television series and serials". Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead should include the date of the first show and should explain that the series occurs more than once per year.
I'm assuming that the first episode is "The Quest Begins", which aired on January 17, 2005. If that information is correct, it should be added to the lead. As for the details of the seasons (not series), how would you word that? Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One possible wording: "So far, there have been twelve seasons of the show, two per year, with a thirteenth scheduled."
Done. Please check and modify as needed. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In "Early format", under WP:MOS, "The titles of ... television episodes, short films, and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks."
Comment: Yes, this appears to be an issue, as many (if not all) of TUF episodes use italics. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, they are italicized seasons, not episodes, which I believe are covered as italicized serials. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "However, going into the semi-final stage of each series, fights are scheduled for the full professional three rounds, as opposed to two rounds (with the possibility of a sudden victory round) for all stages prior." needs to be rephrased for clarity.
Not done. Only thing I can see in the source is "With the semifinal fights a mandatory three rounds..." Do we even need this detail? Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "Format changes", the sentence, " The winner of the wildcard bout would then go through to the quarter finals, giving the tournament the standard and required eight fighters at that stage." needs to be rephrased. Perhaps, "The winner of the wildcard bout would then be included in the quarterfinal round of eight fighters."
Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In "coaches involvement", you might want to explain that the coaches are hired from the ranks of active UFC fighters, otherwise the reader will be puzzled as to why a coach would fight.

The sentence "In addition to the seasons which did not feature post-season fights between the coaches, several seasons have been impacted, forcing postponements." is unclear and needs to be rephrased. Are you saying in part, that due to unforseen conditions, the fight between the coaches was not included in the series, but was held later outside the broadcasts?

How could a coach under contract make "his temporary decision to retire from fighting"? This may require explanation.

In "Six-figure contract" instead of "the touted 'six-figure' contract" explain that it is the UFC and the show's publicists that advertize the "six-figure contract."

"Those who have not won the competition can still fight in the UFC. However their contracts are not the same as the six-figure deals above." could be rephrased, "Some TUF competitors who did not win the series were also offered UFC contracts, although not on as attractive terms." Racepacket (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary possible?
[edit]
Hi, I'm currently on a fulltime job with stupid hours, so my chances to look at this are very limited. There appears to be a lot of points here, but I'm not sure which to action. Can someone please summarise in bullets? Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should mention key production people
In progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking we should also mention the name of the fight venues. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it accurate to say that the show is narrated by Mike Rowe and refereed by Herb Dean? Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some attention to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is not ideal, but passable at this point. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History and impact section requires expansion from links in further reading section
In progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See comments below.

~~References should have author, links and publisher~~
~~In progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Almost done.~~ BTW, reading these sources is a pleasure. Sports writing is indeed the most colorful and entertaining around. Sherdog's Scott Holmes really stands out with fight criticism gems like, "I felt shafted and instead of being Charlie Sheen on payday, I was more like Mel Gibson with Matisyahu tickets."[2] Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Ivan's Blog", written by Ivan Trembow, does not appear to meet the reliable source guideline. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still concerned that the majority of the article is sourced to only two publications and several authors, even though they consist of unique pages.
To be honest, they're the two most reliable sources in MMA. They both work for espn and yahoo. Other sources don't and could be argued as unreliable, so I keep it to junkie and sherdog where possible.
That may certainly be the case if you are writing for experts, or for a specialist encyclopedia. However, we are writing for the general reader, and for this reason, you need to use a wide array of sources that explain what the show is and how it works. I can't emphasize this enough. I've placed some in the further reading section for you to incorporate. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main body of prose lacks significant summary/highlights of seasons/episodes
Done

OR questions about primary versus secondary sources should be addressed, particularly in regards to the use of episodes or videos as sources for format changes
Not really OR if the video explicitly shows it, is it?
That's true, but the problem is with the interpretation. How do we know your interpretation is correct or important? I'm taking you at your word, but in the future, please get in the habit of always using a primary source with a secondary to lend weight to its importance and accuracy. As a reviewer, I have to trust your judgment, but good sources should also be accessible and easy to verify. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket has identified outstanding issues with the prose above

~~Please add a caption for the Dana White image, or add an image and caption of your choice instead or in addition~~
~~I can help with the first three, but the last four needs your attention. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Ok, I'm only going to answer to the first point intended for me, since I've got very little time free, but what sort of stuff are you looking for me to write about the seasons? They're pretty well covered in their own individual pages, so I'd be apprehensive about including detail that is covered in its own relevant area. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at some of our good and featured content and see how they do it. You've brought up this point before, and I previously answered, directing you to summary style. In other words, there is nothing to be apprehensive about. It is good practice to summarize highlights covered in other pages, but it needs to be done in a certain way. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) also gives some good suggestions. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Article should mention the "Octagon". Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Argh, there's so much stuff and I've so little time to read it. Thank you very much for all your help with it. I'm going to give this article a good kick up the backside in the morning, as I have the morning off work!! Paralympiakos (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! A few more suggestions in addition to the above: Try to use more of a variety of sources; think about replacing Ivan Trembow's blog and consider deleting any content that distracts the reader. Don't forget to add at least one source per paragraph in the seasons section. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Ivan Trembow bit is a guy who was a well-known writer for many MMA publications, and he often copied his articles onto his own website. Unfortunately, I can't find the original, but without it, we've got no info on pay rates for competitors, which I think is a necessary part of the article. I'm gonna source it; I just wanted to get the dull writing out of the way first. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to at least one site, Ivan Trembow "is a former writer and Editor with MMA Weekly". I don't see how his personal blog is a RS. It's really important to always have at least two sources for any claim. When you only have a personal blog to support a key piece of information, that's a red flag. There must be RS for the pay rates. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've done most of this now. Paralympiakos (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for you to read the entire article with beginner's mind. This means, as you read, pretend that you know nothing about the topic, not a thing, and this is the first time you've ever heard anything about The Ultimate Fighter. Edit and make changes along those lines, explaining the show for people who've never heard of it. For one example of a reference that does this, see Chua-Eoan's article in Time magazine.[3] Is there a reason we don't have this information in the article? Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for alerting me to this new comment. I'll attempt to make some changes and as for the Time article, I've not yet looked at it, but already I know that I've never heard of it/seen it. Had no idea that Time would feature the show in an article of theirs. I'll attempt to incorporate whatever it is. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have this finished up by the 15th. Be sure to take a look at the rest of the articles in the further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are we nearing a conclusion to the review? Been on GAN for nearly four months. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I would be happy to close it, but this is the second review where you've left this type of message. I don't think the fact that this article was backlogged for three months before I volunteered to review it has any bearing on this review. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]