Talk:Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I didn't know the segment got so much coverage! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to review this article. I look forward to addressing any concerns you may have. (And yes, the segment received quite a bit of coverage!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you summarize notability discussions (AfDs, etc.) and explain why there was consensus to keep the article in its current form? (I agree with you that it's notable, but I would just like to hear what happened)
  • There has not been a discussion with consensus to keep the article. The article was originally called "Jeff the Diseased Lung". Much discussion about the article was related to the old version. Since then, it has been expanded to cover the segment in its entirety and not just the mascot. I think notability is clearly evident at this point, and no one has raised concerns with the current version of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think bolding Jeff the Diseased Lung and #JeffWeCan is correct.
  • Both terms redirect to this article and are possible search terms people could use to access this article. I believe that makes them appropriate for bolding. I feel strongly that the mascot's name should remain bolded, but I feel less strongly about the hastag. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• The lead should be split into two paragraphs IMO.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• "with some outlets..." this sentence implies that other publications thought differently.
  • Do you have a specific request or suggestion? All I am meaning to say is that of of the outlets who covered the segment, some specifically commented on Oliver's marketing abilities. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Another Believer: I think that writing "many outlets" or "several outlets" would be better, as I still think that "some outlets" suggests that the sentence would later continue with "but other outlets..." Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Whose word was "grotesque"
  • Rolling Stone, per the inline citation at the end of the sentence. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• "By February 16..." Online, on TV, or both?
  • I would assume both, but the source says "Anyway, here is the full Last Week Tonight piece that has already been seen watched nearly 2 million times since yesterday morning...", so I am not sure we should speculate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Why is Tech Times a reliable source?
  • Why isn't it? Here is more about the site and its publisher. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that the image of Jeff is important, but could you place a more detailed fair use rationale on the file page?
  • I am not sure what you mean. Do you have a specific request or suggestion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I think that "Response by Philip Morris International" should be a subsection of reception.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• As "Criticism" is only one source, I don't think it's enough to make it a subsection of that. Also, I think you could summarize that source a bit more concisely.
  • I removed the subheading. Is there a specific part you think should be removed or paraphrased? The article is quite long, so I am trying to summarize the author's many points. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• First sentence of reception: Same comment about "some outlets"
• I would split the first Reception paragraph into two.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Any non-Philip Morris criticism of the segment?
  • Not that I came across in my research. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think that List of countries by cigarette consumption per capita is relevant enough for a see also.
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: That's all I have. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. I am happy to pass now.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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.