Talk:Tucker Carlson Tonight/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Spinixster (chat!) 01:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. This is my second review that is not a quickfail, so please be patient as I work through the article and correct me if I say something wrong. Spinixster (chat!) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

Infobox

The infobox image seems to show the Tucker Carlson Tonight logo from 2016-2021, not the newest version. You can probably get the logo from here or crop from here (the latter would probably be the better option) and add a caption like "Logo used from 2021 to 2023", but if you can't, you can just add a caption like "Logo used from 2016 to 2021".
You should add a number of episodes, if there's not an exact number, you can just put an estimate (e.g., "over 2000") as long as it's mentioned in a reliable source.
Consider adding the names of the producers in the infobox.
If there is information, consider adding the names of the production companies and the theme song/composer(s).

Lead

For the second paragraph:
- I would rearrange the sentences like so: Tucker Carlson Tonight is presented in a populist format. During its run, the show garnered significant attention amid several controversies. The show employed a minute-by-minute viewership rating system, a change brought about by former senior producer for The O'Reilly Factor Ron Mitchell. In July 2020, Tucker Carlson Tonight became the highest-rated primetime program across all of cable news; its dominance in the time slot ended only after the program's abrupt cancellation. so related sentences are near each other. Right now, the sentences are abrupt.
- I'd merge "Tucker Carlson Tonight is presented in a populist format." with "During its run, the show garnered significant attention amid several controversies." together, because the two sentences are a bit short.
- a change brought about by former senior producer for The O'Reilly Factor Ron Mitchell. Add a comma after The O'Reilly Factor.

Format

I would recommend you remove or move information not related to the text somewhere else, for example,
- the head writer mention could be in the History section instead, as it is not exactly related to the Current events segments subsection. It could also be better in the Controversy section, but it's not really related to the show, so (shrug)
- similarly with the Ron Mitchell viewership mention, but if the shift to heavier topics is because of the viewership, you can briefly mention it.
- some parts would be better in the Controversy section or removed entirely, remember, this section is focusing on the format of the show, not some points Carlson made, so try to keep the parts as examples only, and keep controversial comments at the Controversy section.

Studio

I'd move Tucker Carlson Tonight was broadcast from Bryant Pond, Maine and, occasionally, Florida. to the start and then rephrase the first two sentences, something like: Tucker Carlson Tonight was primarily broadcast from Bryant Pond, Maine and, occasionally, Florida. It had previously been broadcast from Fox News' bureau in Washington, D.C. as of 2017. I can't access the source, so feel free to correct.
Remove Maine on the second paragraph if you had made the edits from the first point.
Move the image to the right per MOS:IMAGELOC.

Production

~~Would recommend moving the third sentence about scouring the r/The_Donald subreddit to the Controversy section because this is not really related to production.~~ Actually, now that I think about it, it's not that controversial. Perhaps you can move it to the end of the paragraph?

History

Roger Ailes' resignation (2016–2017)

I would change the Carlson that are not referring to Gretchen in this section to Tucker, per MOS:SAMESURNAME.
Add a period to the end of the image caption.

Timeslot changes and boycotts (2017–2023)

when Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor was let go, following allegations of sexual misconduct. Remove the comma.
Despite advertiser boycotts, Tucker Carlson Tonight became the second-highest rated news show in all of primetime in October 2018, after Hannity, with 3.2 million nightly viewers. At first glance, it wasn't clear that the 3.2 million viewers statistic was from Tucker Carlson Tonight and not Hannity's. I would use ...in all of primetime in October 2018 with 3.2 million nightly viewers, following behind Hannity. instead.

Cancellation (2023)

...leading to speculation that it was related to internal criticism of Fox News leadership,... Consider adding "either" after "was" so that it's clear that the speculation was either of the three and not just the first one; I was confused when I first read the sentence.
Link All In with Chris Hayes.
Link Jesse Watters Primetime instead of just Jesse Watters.

Reception

I would recommend adding reception of the show here, like reviews, etc, not just controversies and legal issues - that's not really reception.

Controversies

Add period to the end of the caption of the image.

References

Reference 68 states the website as mediaite.com instead of Mediaite like the other references. Same with 44, states adweek.com instead of Adweek.
Refs 49, 58, 68 and 71 are missing author.
Refs 44 and 45 are missing author and date published.
Ref 59 is missing author and website/publisher.
Refs 72 and 74 are missing date published.
To keep consistency within the references, I'd suggest you either link only the first instance of the website in the references or link all of them.
Would suggest replacing ref 31 with this - Crooks and Liars is a blog and is thus unreliable.
Would suggest replacing the Business Insider references since it's only reliable on a case-to-case basis, and on a contentious BLP, it is best not to use it.

Comments

@ElijahPepe: I'm done with the first round of review. Sorry it took a while; I was busy for a couple of days. Overall, it's a well-written article, just needs some points addressed. Spinixster (chat!) 10:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents: the article mentions repeatedly the Great Replacement conspiracy, but never says clearly what it is and whether Carlson endorses the theory or rejects it. Throughout the article I see overuse of words like "connected" that don't make it clear what views are actually expressed by the show. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Most of the problems have been resolved. I understand why some points were not resolved; it may be too much to ask for in a few days. I'll be passing the article now and hope that you can resolve the Reception section and also what buidhe pointed out in the future. Spinixster (chat!) 01:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.