Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive3

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 January 2021 [1].

The Masked Singer (American TV series)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most popular television series in the United States at the moment, The Masked Singer. Given its concept and production, I hope you'll find it an interesting read. I happened to create it in 2018 and have conducted a significant expansion since April this year. This article was previously nominated for Featured Article twice, both of which were archived due to a lack of response. I would like to ping @Kingsif: who promoted it as a Good Article in April, @Nikkimaria and Wehwalt: who conducted successful image reviews in the previous nominations in June and August, and @Aoba47 and SandyGeorgia: who commented on a Peer Review in November. I look forward to anyone's comments and have plenty of time to address them as I am done with school until January. This remains my first FAC. Heartfox (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images are appropriately licensed, including those with non-free rationales. I see there's one additional image from last time, when I did the image review and passed it, and the new image is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Aoba47

I am currently wrapping up a review and a source review for two separate FACs so I will not be able to post comments for this right now. Once those reviews are done, I will turn my attention here. I will try to post comments in a week, but if for whatever reason I do not post anything further by this time next Monday, please ping me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in the last peer review so I have already posted quite a bit of comments so this review should hopefully go by relatively quickly.
In the "Format" section, I would avoid having citation two randomly in the middle of a sentence. In the same section, it is not clear what citation is being used to support the final two sentences so please clarify that.

The citation is placed there because it specifically refers to the "90 second" figure, but not the rest. Should this be moved to the end of the sentence even though it doesn't pertain to the whole thing?

I just found the placement of the citation in the middle of a sentence in a paragraph that uses very little citations to be strange. I will not press this any further though. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to which "final two sentences" you're referring to. Is it the ones with no citation at the end? I always thought plot/format sections didn't need citations unless it's controversial or not stated in the show. In the section, the "90 second", voting worth 50 percent each, and final two sentences in the second paragraph aren't obvious/stated explicitly in the show so there are citations, but I just assumed the rest of the section can cite the show itself. There aren't really sources who explain the format well enough. I also did cite av media for a time but it seems kind of weird to just cite one episode when it applies to all idk. Do you have any advice?

I was referring to the final two sentences in the same paragraphs. Apologies as I should have been clearer. I personally prefer to cite everything, but I know that is not required and other FAs have gotten through without this. I will not press this any further. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which citation is used to support this sentence: Nick Cannon hosts the show; his role was considered unclear in July 2020 after making anti-Semitic statements that Fox said "inadvertently promoted hate". Four citations are used in the following sentence so it is not immediately clear what is being used to cite this sentence right now.

I've duplicated numbers 6 and 11 at the end of the sentence.

I believe time slot should be two separate words. It is presented like this in the Wikipedia article, and after I did a quick Google search, it seems like people put it as two separate words.

I have left a message on the template's talk page, though I have doubts over whether there is consensus for a change as it is spelled that way on multiple templates. I don't really want to remove a template and do the table manually just for one word :/

I see now. I was not aware that the timeslot part was a part of the template. It should be fine since it is a part of the template. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially confused by this sentence, The fact that performers never sing the same songs was also thought of as an "ill-advised" decision by critics as they felt it inhibits fair comparisons., since it seem pretty obvious to me that they would all sing different songs, and I was not initially aware that the same song structure was done for King of Mask Singer (and possibly other iterations). Could you possibly make this clear in the prose?

I have changed it to While contestants on the South Korean series sing the same songs during a duet round, producers' decision not to do so in the American version was also thought of as an "ill-advised" decision by critics as they felt it inhibits fair comparisons. Is this okay?

That clears it up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodie is linked twice. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

For this part, conducting an admitted parody, I do not think "admitted" is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem uncontroversial; removed.

@Aoba47: I have responded to your comments above with some of my own. Heartfox (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits and clarifications. The "Format" section is good as it currently stands. Apologies for my confusion on this part, as you are correct that the show can be used as the primary source. I would like to wait until one of SatDis' comments is addressed below (the last one on the citation for those stream and video on demand releases). Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Heartfox (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

I will leave some comments for this article soon. SatDis (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I have provided some comments from the perspective of a casual reader which will hopefully help to make your article even better than it already is.[reply]

"who use various clues" - I feel like this sentence could be tightened a little bit. Maybe something like employs panellists who guess the identity of the celebrity performers based on provided clues which they interpret throughout the course of each season.

Does the program employs panelists who guess the celebrities' identities by interpreting clues provided to them throughout each season work?

... the use of code names, disguises, and non-disclosure agreements is extensive, as is a team of security guards. Could you say ... the production company makes extensive use of code names, disguises, a team of security guards and non-disclosure agreements.

Does the program makes extensive use of code names, disguises, non-disclosure agreements, and a team of security guards work?

The growth of the Masked Singer franchise has been credited to the show's success This seems a little superfluous - maybe The success of the Masked Singer franchise has inspired other television formats featuring extravagant costumes, including a similar South Korean reality series.

It's cited in the cultural impact section; the success of the Masked Singer format in the United States (through this show) inspired other countries to adapt the franchise. There wasn't any versions outside of Asia before the U.S. one.

I'm a little intrigued by the Format section - not much is cited and some of it is spoken in a way only familiar for those who watch the show. For example, All masked singers and during a non-voting performance... "masked singers" is not really a recognised phrase to a casual reader, and neither is a "non-voting performance" - does the performance vote? Also, group-exclusive episodes - what is this?

Apologies for interrupting this, but I think it is a fair point to use the show as a primary source for this section. I had a similar question in my set of comments, but it is similar to how in the Bluey (2018 TV series), citations are not used for the character descriptions because the show is used as the primary source for that. Whether or not, the prose is understandable to an unfamiliar reader is a separate issue, but I thought I should hopefully help with this since I raised a similar comment above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TVPLOT, "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given." This is the case here, except parts which are not sourced from the show itself (e.g., officially "90 seconds" long performances, and the 50 percent vote split) do have citations given.

I understand your concern with the way in which things are described; it's kind of hard to explain. I have reworded your concerns to Voting does not occur for certain performances; all contestants in an episode occasionally sing together as a group, and each episode concludes with the eliminated celebrity singing an encore unmasked, and the best I could come up with for the second one is Since the second season, the contestants are initially divided and only compete against others in a designated subgroup. I have also removed the single usage of "masked singers".

I think the "Panellists and hosts section" could just be a paragraph in the "Format" section. Also, his role was considered unclear. Could you just say that he faced controversy? And is that important to the "Format" of the show?

I'm not sure I agree with removing the subsection and making it a paragraph. The format of the show and the people on it are two different things, and it's probably useful for navigational purposes to make it a different section so that information can be easily found in the table of contents and scrolling on the page. It is not normal for a reality competition show to lack a section dedicated to the panelists/judges and just put them in a paragraph. There's also a consensus on the talk page to mention that he faced controversy, but just writing "facing controversy" was thought of as too vague by other editors.

They are available for streaming in the United States on Hulu, Fox's website, and the Fox Now mobile app through video on demand. Citation?

Added refs.

I will endeavour to leave further comments. SatDis (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: I hope I have addressed your comments above. Please let me know if you have any concerns/further ones. Heartfox (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your responses. Thanks @Aoba47: and @Heartfox: for explaining the use the show as a primary source for the Format section. With the latest amendments, which were written very nicely, that section reads fine to me. I am pleased with all other responses! Just a few more comments below;

I know it's typically personal preference, but just wondering if you might use the additional s for "Plestis's", "Los Angeles Times's" and "NBC News's"?

It may be more of an American thing to forgo the additional s, I don't really know. At least one other editor who regular edits the article prefers the s' for everything.

In the "Casting" section, the first two sentences begin with the word "After". Consider varying this.

Thanks for catching that. I've changed it to "since"

In the same section, it reads Jeong was... signed on due to his and McCarthy Wahlberg and Thicke due to their. Maybe change the second "due to" to "because of" or something similar, to vary.

Thanks again; changed to "because of"

An interesting point while reading was the critical reception of the show! I didn't realise it was sitting at 52% and 36 out of 100. Fascinating! I believe you captured that in the lead as well.

Reality television shows don't really tend to be reviewed per season, so most of the reception there is based on the premiere, but we're kinda stuck with those aggregations only because they haven't been updated/more added since. I'm glad you found it well-articulated in the lead, though!

One tiny nitpick - Critics felt the panelists spoiled the show. The use of the word "spoiled" is delicate for me, as it might be interpreted as the panellists actually spoiling who is under the mask with their comments, as if they already know. Maybe a synonym like "weakened" or "diminished"?

Good point, I've switched it to "undermined"

All citations look fine with me, and the article is written excellently. These were all the suggestions I could find, hopefully they help. SatDis (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SatDis! I have responded to your suggestions above. Heartfox (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes, I now support this nomination. I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my featured article review. Thanks so much and good luck with your nomination! SatDis (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I hope to take a look at Hi-5 in a couple days. Heartfox (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Just a courtesy reminder to ask if you will still be leaving comments, maybe after Christmas? Hope you've had an excellent holiday. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

Placing this as a placeholder. On first glance, the article is in good shape and seems to be FA-ready. Given that this has gone through two unsuccessful FACs because of lack of attention, I will commit to review this so that it won't be archived. As there may be a delay in my review, please bear with me.. HĐ (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRuLAuqsLK8
  - It is an interview with Cannon titled "Nick Cannon Discusses FOX's "The Masked Singer"" from a verified YouTube account. The citation is also formatted as cite interview with Cannon as the author, as it's his words which are being cited.
    - Okay, we can't cite it as if Cannon IS the author because ... it's an interview. And just being a verified YouTube account doesn't make something reliable - much less high quality. Who did the interview? What's their reputation for accuracy? Do they have a reputation for not slanting their editing of videos? Too much up in the air here. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://dailybruin.com/2020/09/14/the-masked-singer-creatives-discuss-artistic-intricacies-of-emmy-nominated-show
  - Yes, it's a student newspaper, but it is based on interviews with, and includes quotes from, multiple people apart of the show, such as the director. It is cited when there is no other source is available. There is a contact page for corrections, etc., as well as a staff list.
    - Student newspapers do not exactly enjoy the high quality reputation we are looking for at FAC. And just because something is an interview does not make it automatically reliable - that depends on a lot of factors - including the reputation of the publication doing the interview, the interviewer, and the veracity of the interviewee. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://awardswatch.com/interview-marina-toybina-costume-designer-of-foxs-the-masked-singer-season-3/
  - It's an interview with the show's costume designer in which she explains the design process in detail. It's formatted as cite interview. There's a staff list and contact page.
    - See above about interviews - they are not automatically reliable. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://theplaylist.net/marina-toybina-covid-challenges-masked-singer-20200806/
  - It's an interview with the show's costume designer in which she explains the design process in detail. It's formatted as cite interview. There's a staff/contact page.
    - See above about interviews - they are not automatically reliable. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.decoratingpagespodcast.com/podcast/episode/48588fed/james-pearse-connelly-everybody-forgets-the-size-of-the-mouth
  - It's an interview with the show's set designer, formatted as cite interview.
    - See above about interviews - they are not automatically reliable. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://web.archive.org/web/20180710224638/http://on-camera-audiences.com/shows/The_Masked_Singer
  - I can just remove them and cite ref 4 if you want but there's 3 there to show that for those 3 seasons it was filmed at Television City. On Camera Audiences is where tickets to the show are given/tapings are posted. Even the show mentioned it in a tweet.
    - Is it such a contentious fact that it needs three sources? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.mediavillage.com/article/robin-thicke-of-the-masked-singer-promises-a-post-super-bowl-shocker/
  - It's used for a quote from Thicke in which he gave during an interview with them. There's a staff page and contact page.
    - See above about interviews - they are not automatically reliable. And I do read the about and contact pages when I check out websites before I query them. I'm still not seeing how this is a high quality reliable source. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.mediaplaynews.com/tubi-begins-streaming-the-masked-singer-episodes/
  - It's an outlet dedicated to home media, streaming, etc. There's a staff page and contact page.
    - As above, I do check out the about and contact pages - not seeing anything there that indicated this was a high quality reliable source. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://programminginsider.com/
  - Used for DVR ratings when no other source is available. Unlike other networks, Fox doesn't publish press releases with ratings information, Variety did not publish DVR ratings for the weeks it is used; unfortunately no other source does so. It's run by people with a 10+ year history of reporting ratings, etc. There's a contact form. If you compare weeks when Variety did publish, you'll see they're identical (accurate). Used across television articles (mostly for DVR) since TV by the Numbers shut down in January 2020.
    - If Variety didn't consider it information worth reporting, why should we? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-masked-singer-season-two-ratings/
  - I couldn't find another source specifically referring to the season two ratings declining overall (not just as in a premiere or finale) because season 2 and 3 are grouped together as they both aired during one television season. They have a staff page and contact page.
    - As above, I do look at about and contact pages. If the reliable secondary sources don't cover the information or don't cover it as individual seasons rather aggregating them, then we should follow the sources and aggregate them. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the proposer, but I can tell you AwardsWatch is well-respected in film and The Playlist is a popular review source that also gets background info on media; both are carrying interviews in this case, so there may be different considerations re PRIMARY, though. Kingsif (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I've responded above. This is my first FAC so I'm not really sure what responses you're supposed to write. Heartfox (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing good - you gave your reasoning, and now we'll work together to get the issues resolved. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: With all due respect, I feel your expectations are unrealistic. Almost everything in this article (as are almost all pop culture articles—it's not about a dinosaur!) is based on interviews, even if they're not formatted as such. I have gone through literally every possible relevant published content about the series up to December 14, 2020, and I stand by the article's sourcing 100%. Not everything is going to come from Variety. My comments are further outlined below:

BUILD Series interview with Nick Cannon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRuLAuqsLK8

Interviewer's question at 2:22: "... "why did you want to host this show?"

Cannon's answer: "... so I heard about the phenomenon that was going on around the world with this concept, and it's also already been a global hit, and I was like you know what this is different and unique enough that I would get in front of the camera again, and here we are."

Paraphrasing in the article: "After being fascinated by the Masked Singer concept when presented with it and noticing its success in other countries, Cannon joined the show..."

So if the person interviewing him was from Variety, then this source would be allowed to stay in the article?? Oh, it was produced by AOL? Too bad, it's not Variety. I'm sorry but this is just so stupid. If you go to the timestamp indicated in the reference it is obviously not selectively edited. The most I will move on this is change the timestamp to the beginning of the interviewer's question. I feel this is totally unnecessary to remove. The video isn't available outside of YouTube. Here's an archived version of the show's website, with "Oath Inc." (Verizon Media) at the bottom. The video is also visible under the header "New This Week". You can see him wearing the same outfit. If you have an issue with the paraphrasing then I will obviously make changes based on that, but I'm not going to remove it just because you think "too much is up in the air". It's not. It's clearly his words. Why does the cite interview template even exist if you're telling me you can't cite someone as the author because it's an interview? This is very weird.

Daily Bruin: https://dailybruin.com/2020/09/14/the-masked-singer-creatives-discuss-artistic-intricacies-of-emmy-nominated-show

I fail to see what is so controversial with this that it might not be high quality enough to cite quotes from their own interviews with the show's crew. Nevertheless, I will remove it if you insist.

AwardsWatch: https://awardswatch.com/interview-marina-toybina-costume-designer-of-foxs-the-masked-singer-season-3/

It's an interview the show's costume designer she did with an awards-focused niche outlet after she was nominated for an Emmy Award. What in the world is not high quality about this? Why would an outlet like this sacrifice their credibility and forge her own words? Why would she give them permission to display her own costume concept drawings if it was not respectable? I refuse to not have a costume section in the article because you think they could be faking the costume designer's own words.

The Playlist: https://theplaylist.net/marina-toybina-covid-challenges-masked-singer-20200806/

Same as above.

Decorating Pages Podcast: https://www.decoratingpagespodcast.com/podcast/episode/48588fed/james-pearse-connelly-everybody-forgets-the-size-of-the-mouth

Are we supposed to wait for some Variety spy to report on how the show is filmed behind the scenes? It's the set designer saying how the clue package sets he designs are filmed. I don't see any reason to remove this. He didn't speak to Variety about it. So what?

On Camera Audiences: https://web.archive.org/web/20180710224638/http://on-camera-audiences.com/shows/The_Masked_Singer

There's one source per season, showing that for three seasons, it was filmed there. Again, if you want me to replace it with some other source that mentions Television City, I can, but they don't explicitly say that it was filmed there for all three seasons.

Media Village: https://www.mediavillage.com/article/robin-thicke-of-the-masked-singer-promises-a-post-super-bowl-shocker/

I don't see it as unreliable, but I will remove it if you insist because it is not really essential to the article.

Media Play News: https://www.mediaplaynews.com/tubi-begins-streaming-the-masked-singer-episodes/

Same as above.

Programming Insider: https://programminginsider.com/

Variety doesn't report on final Nielsen ratings for shows, yet that is what is reliable. Nor does Deadline Hollywood. "If Variety didn't consider it information worth reporting, why should we?" is not really a great view... Have you ever thought they have a financial incentive to publish certain things? They're not a non-profit organization. They publish what gets clicks, and final ratings is not something that attracts a broad audience. For whatever reason, they decided to not publish DVR data for those weeks. This is where Programming Insider is used. TV ratings are one of the best ways to express how successful a show is in an article. I'm not going to have a half-filled table in the "television viewership and ratings" section, and a misleading table in "The Masked Singer: After the Mask" section. Sorry, it's the only thing available. If Variety was available, of course it would be used. But it's not, and just because it isn't doesn't mean a viable alternative shouldn't be used. Yes, the website does look a mess but it's only citing the numbers, and there is no reason to doubt the numbers from people with at least a decade of history reliably doing so. I'm not going to remove it, sorry.

TV Series Finale: https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-masked-singer-season-two-ratings/

I don't see it as unreliable, but will remove it if you insist because it is not really essential to the article.

The article uses the highest-quality sources possible, and I stand by them. I have made further explanations above, but cannot remove Build Series, AwardsWatch, The Playlist, Decorating Pages, and Programming Insider as doing so would sacrifice the comprehensiveness of the article, and I do not at all see them as such low-quality as to question their reliability, particularly when all but the latter are citing people's own words (which aren't even controversial... it's just like basic facts... like "I sew x this way" or "we started using green screens in y season"). Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of these sources, the absolute most I would remove is the Build Series ref as it is not essential, and the ratings table for The Masked Singer: After the Mask which uses Programming Insider as it is perhaps not that important to have that much detail for a short mini spin-off (viewership for each episode is already given in the list of episodes article), though Programming Insider would continue to be used for the December 18, 2019, February 2, 2020, and the May 20, 2020, viewership in the series' ratings table as there is no alternative. I appreciate your comments greatly and thank you for your time reviewing the article. I think spot checks are also required? I'm not sure. Heartfox (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think my expectations are unrealistic but the criteria are what they are. They don't just require something be reliable but that it be of higher quality. There is indeed some understanding that what is high quality varies by subject matter, but that doesn't mean that using podcasts is going to necessarily meet the requirements of the FA criteria. I don't expect everything to be from Variety, but I do expect that the understanding that just as we up the requirements for prose at FAC, we also expect better than average sourcing.

if you want to try to demonstrate that these sites meet the criteria - you can look at User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet for some advice. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I honestly don't really want to try. I spent a while writing the stuff above. For certain statements of fact, "better than average" sources just don't exist for a reality television show. Ultimately, I would rather write something where a casual reader can learn something new or an interesting fact about the subject of an article than not include it because it dares to cite the set designer's own words about how his designs are filmed. My priority is helping people. I'm eighteen years old and I think I've written a damn good article. I have made a good-faith attempt to use the highest-quality sources possible throughout, but clearly, that's not enough yet. Respectfully acknowledging the helpful contributions and support of the three other reviewers, I would like to withdraw this FAC as I do not see a path forward here, and would rather spend my time on Wikipedia elsewhere than continuing to beg someone to accept my justifications for including particular sources. Heartfox (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.