Talk:Mad TV/GA1

GA Review

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: BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna start this review soon, so far it looks like a good start. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a few places where the prose could be a bit more concise and easy to follow but overall it is very well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Overall it is pretty solid but parts are written a bit too casually.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The citations seem reliable but please double check that all citations are directly at the end of each quotation.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources seem to be reliable and the kind you'd expect to see on a pop culture article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article looks to be well cited based on the spot checking of sources I did, with no synth that jumped out at me.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Neither Earwig nor a light manual check turned up any copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very good job summarizing the history of the show, I don't think any main points are missing.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think some details can be cut out to make the article a bit more focused, will be adding specific suggestions below.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article appears to be mostly neutral, it addresses the controversies and praise of the show in a well balanced way.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has been stable and there doesn't appear to be any recent edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images are all properly tagged but I'm unsure about using 3 copyrighted images in the body of the article. Can you find any creative commons replacements for some of these?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images and captions seem pertinent, if a bit wordy.
	7. Overall assessment.	Very nice work so far! I can see how much you improved the article from where it had been and it's nearly GA ready. I have added some suggestions below and will go over the article again after you work on these as I have a few more thoughts.

Lede

* Second sentence of lede - Can we rephrase to be less of a run on sentence? I count six commas.

"It premiered on October 14, 1995, on Fox, where it ran for 14 seasons, with its final, 326th episode airing on May 16, 2009." > "It premiered on Fox on October 14, 1995 and ran for 14 seasons with the final episode airing on May 16, 2009."

 Done and split up sentence into two. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* "he ~~soon brought on former In Living Color writers Bahr and Small as showrunners." - Also briefly explain what In Living Color is.

Better? benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “The show was intended to compete with fellow sketch comedy series Saturday Night Live (SNL), which was being ridiculed by critics and audiences upon Mad TV's premiere.” - This seems like very strong wording. Can you rephrase it to something like “was experiencing declining viewership and poor critical reception.”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* “has since been described by critics as an edgier "cousin" of SNL.” > “has since been described as an edgier version of SNL.”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* “Fox also made few efforts to promote the series and often made budget cuts to it; its eventual cancellation in 2009 was due to budgetary concerns.” > “Fox made few efforts to promote the series and frequently cut its budget before eventually canceling the series in 2009 due to budgetary concerns.”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* “The show's diverse cast ~~over the years~~ consisted of”

 Done, I think. Are the tildes meant to be a strikethrough? benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “After a 20th anniversary reunion special aired on The CW on January 12, 2016, the show's eight-episode 15th season was produced and broadcast on the same network, premiering on July 26, 2016.” > “A 20th anniversary reunion special aired on The CW on January 12, 2016. The network also produced and broadcast the show's 15th and final season, which premiered on July 26, 2016.”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! @Benmite: I'm a little unclear on whether the 2016 season is a reboot or the 15th season of the series. It sounds like most sources are describing it as a straight up reboot, and that's how you titled the subheading. Can we clarify whether it's one or both, and then keep it the same for consistency? BuySomeApples (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The lede was a bit repetitive in places and it didn't adequately summarize the article so I moved some sentences around and rephrased it. I also restructured the order and naming of subheaders. Let me know what you think. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: Sorry for being AWOL. Been kind of busy. Added "edgier" to the SNL comparisons, since a lot of critics quoted in the article mention that. Hopefully that's okay. Otherwise, looks fine! Will try to make everything suitable for GA status soon. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Benmite: and don't worry about being AWOL for a little bit. I'm OK with leaving the term "edgier" in. At first I was unsure if "edgy" was too informal and should be swapped out for something like "provocative" or "politically incorrect", but I think its a fairly accepted term. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Development

• “In 1995, following Gaines's death three years prior,” > “In 1995, three years after Gaines’s death,”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* “Fax Bahr and Adam Small began working as staff writers on the sketch comedy television series In Living Color in 1992 after David Alan Grier informed Bahr that showrunner Keenen Ivory Wayans had fired the show's whole staff. Two years later, Bahr and Small were brought on to be the showrunners of Mad TV alongside Salzman.” - Can we condense this? Also, if Grier hired them for Mad we should mention that, otherwise this passage can probably be shorted to just mention that Bahr and Small started working on Mad after being fired from In Living Color.

According to the source, Bahr and Small were hired after everyone else on In Living Color had been fired, not the other way around. I removed the mention of anyone being fired since, in hindsight, how they got hired on In Living Color seems more relevant to that show than it does to Mad TV. Let me know what you think. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “It was pre-taped and contained a combination of short live-action sketches, movie parodies, and animated sketches” - I couldn’t find where it says this in the source.

Bahr's quote from the source reads, "We would do short sketches and, like in Mad Magazine, movie parodies. We also had animation ..." They make reference to the sketches being pre-taped when comparing it to SNL being done live, but I've included another article from the Boston Herald (Nothing was sacred when it came to the show’s pretaped skits.) as a source for the pre-taped part. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “appeared on Mad TV for four seasons, starting with its first season.” > “appeared on the first four seasons of Mad TV.”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* “The show's theme song was created by American hip hop group Heavy D & The Boyz, who had previously created the theme song for In Living Color, and composed by Greg O'Connor and Blake Aaron, the latter of whom was Mad TV's guitarist.” - The source makes it sound like Heavy D sang the song and O’Connor/Blake performed it. Is that accurate?

The first source states that Heavy D sang the theme song as part of Heavy D & the Boyz, while the second source states that O'Connor and Aaron both composed it. I didn't see anything about the latter two performing the song. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think it just read it weirdly. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “As the series went on, Mad TV became focused on satirical[7] character- and pop culture-based sketches, which were often parodies of popular films, TV series, and music videos.” - Ref7 isn’t needed to support the sentence, and it sounds like Mad always focused on popular culture. I would suggest rephrasing as > “The series satirized popular culture, with sketches parodying film, television and music.”

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

* “According to casting director Nicole Garcia, the series "skewed a little more urban” - More urban than what? Can this line be elaborated?

The full quote reads: "There were executives that wanted a little more diversity and then there were some that just wanted the most talented, regardless. Our show skewed a little more urban, in a way, so they definitely wanted to have that represented. Finding a Latino, male or female, was always something we were looking for. We always had diversity in the cast. That was very much a part of the creation." Reading it back, her quote doesn't fit super well in the rest of the section and "urban" is kind of a vague (and potentially loaded) term, especially when, like you said, it's not being compared to anything else. I'm wondering if it would make more sense just to remove the quote and/or repurpose it for the part about cast diversity. Let me know your thoughts. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Good call! I think the section works better now. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “However, SNL quickly bounced back and Mad TV typically trailed behind the show in ratings.” - The source doesn’t seem to state that Mad TV trailed in ratings (although I don’t doubt it).

From Sullivan: "I remember at one point, in season three I think, we were beating them in the demographics for a little while. But for the most part we were trailing them. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

An additional note, the citations should be directly at the end of each quotation. :::Nice work on these changes! When you get the chance, can you move the information about the show's ratings to the "Reception" section (as part of a new subsection? It's OK to leave a little information about the show's cancellation (and mention it was because of poor ratings) and its finale in the "Development" section. The review comments should also be moved down to "Reception". Leave the part about it being intended as a replacement for SNL in "Development". BuySomeApples (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Cast members

• “In its early years, Mad TV's cast was considered especially diverse by critics.” - There is only one reference for this, are there other critics who said the same thing?

* “She starred on the show from 1995 to 2001 and left to star in the ABC sitcom Me and My Needs, which was not picked up by the network after its pilot episode” - Is this addition necessary?

The LA Times article about Mad TV reads, "... original cast member Nicole Sullivan, who plans to leave the show at season’s end for her own ABC sitcom ("Me and My Needs") ..." I can take it out if need be. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's OK to leave in if you want to. It's not a load bearing sentence but it does provide context for why she left. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “and Lange later became well known in the media for his struggles with drug addiction.” - This doesn’t seem relevant.

The two "where-are-they-now" sources both mention Lange and his drug addiction, though they are more relevant to Lange than to the show, so I've removed it. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

* “Borstein and Peele were both kept from leaving Mad TV to pursue other roles due to their contracts, with Borstein cast as Sookie on the CW series Gilmore Girls and Peele cast on SNL to play Barack Obama.[49][50]” - This line is kind of unclear. Were they kept from acting in these roles or did they just have to stay on Mad as well?

According to the sources, they were both kept from acting in those roles due to, in Borstein's case, Fox not letting her and, in Peele's case, contractual obligations, though I assume the former also refers to her contract. Let me know how I should change it to better reflect this. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be made a little clearer, because it was a bit confusing to me at first. Something like "Borstein and Peele were both kept from leaving Mad TV to pursue other roles due to their contracts, with Borstein having to turn down a role as Sookie on the CW series Gilmore Girls and Peele turning down a role playing Barack Obama for SNL." BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Reception

* Can we reorganize this section to have the reviews in a roughly chronological order?

Better? benǝʇᴉɯ 19:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Much, thank you! @Benmite: Once the last couple points (mainly reducing the number of quotes) are finished, I will give this a once-over but I think it's nearly there. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

::::Also, have you had any luck with replacement images for one or two of the screeenshots? BuySomeApples (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Better? benǝʇᴉɯ 01:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Good job! BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• This section is pretty solid but it would be nice to reduce the amount of direct quotations to 1 or 2 per critic and paraphrase the rest. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if you could add a sentence summarizing contemporary critical receptions and another summarizing its retrospective reception. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Some more notes

• In "Controversies", Ref 77 doesn't seem to support the sentence, it's only one reviewer and he doesn't specify that the stereotypes are racial. Can we add more refs for this or rephrase?

Aisha Harris for Slate: "MadTV specialized in boisterously broad and scathing humor, trafficking unabashedly in racial, gendered, and sexual stereotypes." Josh Meyers in Vulture retrospective: "The diversity of our cast allowed us to do some different stuff, certainly, but it also lent itself to the playing of stereotypes. Just playing the stereotypical African-American, the stereotypical Asian-American." This paper about stereotypical portrayals of African Americans in Social Psychology Quarterly also states that "television shows such as Comedy Central, Def Comedy Jam, Mad TV, and Saturday Night Live ... often derive their humor from the stereotypical portrayals of social groups." I think taking out "racial" from the sentence would be fine, though there seems to be agreement among reliable sources that the show was known to use stereotypes in its sketches, and I didn't include the Slate ref since it already appears later in the paragraph. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for tweaking that, I think it's OK to leave racial in as long as you use a source at the end of the sentence that uses those words. Otherwise we can leave it as is. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

* In recurring characters, I think there's room to remove some of these examples. Ones like Stuart, Miss Swan, Bon Qui Qui, Bunifah, etc seem notable as do the celebrity impressions, but I feel like the list of smaller recurring characters could be a lot shorter.

Just removed that paragraph entirely since most of those characters didn't get thorough mentions in refs past listicles about the best sketch characters. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Michael McDonald played Stuart Larkin,[54] an overgrown, spoiled child with a bowl cut, bright red cheeks, and a rainbow plaid shirt." - The ref doesn't mention a plaid shirt (although I know its obvious) so this might need to be removed.

The plaid shirt is mentioned in another ref later in the paragraph. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I moved that ref to the end of the sentence. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

* "After the show's cancellation, sketches with Ms. Swan became popular on YouTube.[64]" - I think this might be a bit of a stretch from what Borstein says in the interview, which is just that people still watch clips on YT.

I can see that. I've removed it. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

* It also doesn't seem like either Ref 41 or 65 support Bon Qui Qui going "viral" on YT.

The NYT Mag ref: "As YouTube clicks can attest, Johnson is best known for the comic persona of Bon Qui Qui ... who was popularized during Johnson's brief run on 'MadTV' in 2007." The Hollywood Reporter ref used to support Johnson's ALMA Award nom: "The video still has potential to go viral, as Johnson's character has garnered a cult like following online thanks to a 2007 skit called 'Bon Qui Qui at King Burger.' The video has garnered 54 million hits on YouTube ..." Here's an interview where the interviewer identifies her as "YouTube famous" and another article from the Fresno Bee that mentions how many views her Bon Qui Qui skit has on YouTube. I changed "viral" to "popular" and can include one or two of those last three, but it feels a bit redundant since the first one seems to do the trick. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I think popular is a better summary of the existing sources than viral. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• I also rephrased a sentence in "Cast". BuySomeApples (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• In "Controversies", can you open with a single sentence that summarizes the fact that its celebrity impressions and use of stereotypes were controversial? Then the rest can be examples.
• The Harry Connick controversy doesn't seem significant enough to mention.

Agreed. It's a passing mention in an article mostly about Connick Jr. that I guess I thought was important enough to mention when I added it. Removed. benǝʇᴉɯ 23:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• In "Accolades", can we rephrase this "n 2007, Mad TV's eco-friendly Emmys campaign, VoteMadTV.com, allowed Emmys voters to view clips of the series online rather than being shipped DVD screeners" - We probably shouldn't describe it as eco-friendly in wikivoice, only that it was intended to be. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Better? benǝʇᴉɯ 00:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

OK @Benmite: I think this is basically ready. (Awesome work on this!) The only thing I want to clear up before this nomination proceeds is whether the CW season should be described as a reboot or 15th season. It seems like most sources treat it as a reboot but I was wondering what your input is on that? If it's a reboot we should move it back down to the bottom of the article in its own section, but if it's a continuation it ought to stay in "Development". BuySomeApples (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking over all of the sources that refer to this season, almost all of them refer to it as a revival or a reboot rather than as a continuation of the series. Only the IGN article calls it the 15th season, so I've moved it to the bottom as suggested and added an infobox. It also makes more sense to separate the 2016 reboot from the original since, production-wise, they're pretty different. benǝʇᴉɯ 22:19, 23 August 2023 (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.