Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 3)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 3)[edit]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now, season 3! This season contains probably the most famous of LWT episodes, Donald Trump, which broke the HBO viewership record for any piece of content. Also, why not forgive $15 million in medical debt just to beat Oprah? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • a second Peabody Award -- for the lead, since the first win seems to be for the previous season, and you are listing all awards won this season, perhaps only mention it as a Peabody Award.
  • that the show is "makes people dumb" -- that the show "makes people dumb"
  • 62 million views on Facebook -- worth linking Facebook
  • Great job as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14, all fixed- thank you so much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Reserving a spot for later. Hopefully this is of similar quality to the season 2 list, which was very good.

Briefly:

  • Lead section, paragraph 2: "Episodes in the season were credited with influencing US law and culture, a phenomenon dubbed the "John Oliver effect": the main segment of episode three, titled "Donald Trump", set an HBO viewership record and received widespread media attention; in episode fourteen, which covered debt buyers, Oliver forgave almost $15 million in medical debt for 9,000 Americans." - Perhaps this should be two sentences.

– Epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Production:
  • Paragraph 2: Not really an issue, but I remember seeing these blurbs a lot on NYC buses. Are there any other examples of blurbs, though?
  • Paragraph 3: It might be worth noting that Oliver did end up going into depth into Trump, though I'm not 100% sure. After all, Last Week Tonight segments about Donald Trump mentions that there are multiple episodes in this season specifically about his campaign.
Reception:
  • Critical reception: "others found that these quips are what made the show compelling" - I'd change "are" to "were" to match the tense of the rest of the sentence.
  • Ratings: "Donald Trump" set an HBO viewership record, according to a spokesperson from the network" - Would it be sufficient to say ""Donald Trump" set an HBO viewership record", or is the spokesperson mentioned since it's disputed? (The main article on this episode says By the end of March, the segment had been viewed 23.3 million times on YouTube and 62 million times on Facebook, for a total of 85 million times on the two social media platforms, making its viewership "a record for any piece of HBO content".)
  • Awards: "for the segment "F*ck 2016"" - What episode was this?
  • Influence: ""Donald Drumpf" (a joke about the surname of Trump's ancestors)" - The parenthetical seems unnecessary since it's already described in "Critical reception".
  • Influence: Would it be worth splitting the medical debt segment into another paragraph?
That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2: I didn't want to add more than one quote just because they're all essentially the same message: "LWT bad". Besides, one could look at the poster in the infobox to see other quotes
Ratings: the "according to" is because it's a quote from a spokesperson in the episode's own article. To my knowledge, HBO (like many other streaming services) doesn't release data reports, so this is all according to that one spokesperson.
Influence point 2: The other season articles just have it in one paragraph, and splitting it would result in a three line para. IMO, doesn't look very clean
@Epicgenius: replies above, everything else was fixed, thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair points. Regarding the quotes, I was just wondering if more existed; that wasn't meant as a request to add more of them.
Anyway, I support this nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a couple of tiny changes which it was easier to just make than list here - more than happy to Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

I'm seeing three supports so I'll get the other stuff done

  • Image review - pass: The poster image is appropriately licensed with a source link provided.
  • Source review - pass:
    • I haven't heard of The Mary Sue but it does not appear to be used for any controversial claims here.
    • Other sources appear reliable for the purposes they are used. Spotcheck upon request.--NØ 09:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AK
  • Did some copy-editing that was too minor to mention here.
  • "Last Week Tonight aired on Sundays at 11 pm, totaling 30 episodes in season three" These two clauses aren't logically connected, and "Totaling 30 episodes" sounds weird. I'd suggest "and had a total of 30 episodes".
  • "average high" sounds weird.
  • All I got. AryKun (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AryKun, thank you very much- all fixed! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, support on prose. AryKun (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL[edit]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Should probably link Tim Carvell, John Oliver in Production
  • Why does the infobox alt text only mention the WSJ quote? IMO it should mention all of them
    • ALT text should be short as said at WP:ALT; but, for the sake of consistency, I cut the WSJ quote from the alt text so that it's summarized by

"Various negative quotes..." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Republican
  • For Critical reception I think you can put "Reception and aftermath" of the Drumpf article at a See also or More info hatnote.
    • A "See also" hatnote is already present under 'Influence', and most of the (albeit small) critical reception section doesn't discuss the Drumpf episode MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the social media views, I think it's safe to say it might be outdated, so I suggest specifying the time the spokesperson looked at it, also maybe including the latest one for the YT.
  • "Emmy" --> "Emmy Awards"
  • Suggest removing ref 30's ISSN to be consistent with the other refs
  • ref 32 should use publisher not website parameter


That should be it! Relatively short article so there's not much to talk about; the list looks fine to me. GeraldWL 05:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, all fixed, with some replies above. Thank you very much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting~ :) GeraldWL 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good overall.
  • 11 pm -> 11{{nbsp}}pm. Similarly, 5.6 million -> 5.6{{nbsp}}million.
  • Several wikilinks appear in the lead and are then repeated in the main body of the text (e.g. HBO, John Oliver, Tim Carvell, YouTube, Donald Trump). Per MOS:LINKONCE, they only need to be linked the first time.
    Note that the MOS only states "Generally." Furthermore, repeating links in main bodies is fairly common practice and also recommended, assuming some might decide to skip the lead entirely. GeraldWL 17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to go with the community's consensus if it's against me, but I just don't see what makes this specific article an exception to the general rule. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See other television FLs like 30 Rock (season 1) and The Office (American season 8); it's common practice in season articles (as far as I know) to link thing the first time in the lead and the first time outside the lead. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, per MOS:SURNAME, "Tim Carvell, John Oliver, and Liz Stanton" -> "Carvell, Oliver, and Stanton" in the Production section.
  • "in depth" or "in-depth"? The article uses both. I think the latter is correct.
  • "others found that these quips were what made the show compelling". What's the source for this? I checked the DeJarnette citation, but I don't see anywhere that he said that critics found Oliver's quips compelling.
    • Quote from the article: "In fact, when covering issues as esoteric as net neutrality, an occasional joke about dingos might be exactly what it takes to get the audience to the finish line. Of course, it’s probably not possible (or advisable) for journalists to match Oliver’s comedic chops." DeJarnette explains that the comedic quips make the show compelling. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "winning winning" -> "winning"

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors, replies above- thank you for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver_(season_3)/archive1&oldid=1179264959"