Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Tonight Show conflict/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RunningTiger123 ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply


Hi LuK3, this article caught my interest and I've decided to give it a go. It'll take some time to get through everything, but I should be able to finish it over the weekend. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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 non-free use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Quick checks:

  • Copyvio check shows no major issues; closest matches are attributed quotes.
  • Images seem reasonable; the two non-free images (lead image and Kimmel) have solid rationales, and all images include proper alt text and captions.
  • The article is stable.

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Lead

  • "not participate in the destruction of The Tonight Show" – this quote is never used in the body, and is therefore unattributed.
  • on appearing on television – awkward repetition, maybe try against appearing on television?
    • Changed to "...while after a contractual seven-month ban against appearing on television,...". -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Background

  • Note: From here on out, I'll assume Carter's citations are accurate.
  • Ref. 3 is okay, but not great. It would be better for a source to directly state NBC was a leader, rather than infer it from charts.
    • I changed the image caption. I think the chart is fairly straightforward in stating NBC/The Tonight Show were number 1 in viewership for most of the 90s and 2000s. If that still is insufficient please let me know and I'll find another reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • which began in 1993. – should be a comma at the end
  • can compete → could compete
  • (for Leno's entire run) – this might be confusing, since it's not immediately clear if this means 2009 or 2014. I'd suggest rewording or just removing it.
    • I specified it was Leno's first stint as host.
  • Ref. 13 does not make it clear if Michaels suggested O'Brien for the role.
    • I found a Los Angeles Times article that seems to say Michaels specifically suggested O'Brien as new host. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 14 never mentions a week-to-week contract.
    • There seems to be inconsistencies between the Bill Carter book and other references. Most online sources stated NBC put O'Brien on a 13-week (3 month) contract so I changed it to that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 1:30 am., → 1:30 am,

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Early history

  • No need to link Saturday Night Live again
  • For consistency, late night should be late-night when used as an adjective (not a huge issue, just something to consider)
    • Changed a few terms, I will have to go through the entire article but I'll do it section-by-section for now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Swap sentences for better flow: Chernin warned... and Numerous executives...
  • will stay at NBC → would stay at NBC
  • as host well after the extension – feels like it's missing a few words, maybe as until well after the extension was signed?
    • Reformatted the sentence based on your section. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Should it say signed instead of sign? Other wordings are fine, but the current one is wrong. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 28 and ref. 38 are the same
    • I removed reference 38, there are enough refs for that quote. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • he likened his removal → Leno likened his removal
  • Ref. 43 doesn't align well with article
    • Same with ref. 54
      • Sorry, I'm a little confused regarding this point. Are you saying the physical alignment of the references are causing a problem or is it something in the formatting? -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
        • My mistake, I meant that what the article says doesn't really match what the sources say (the article generally takes the statements too far). RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Thanks for the clarification! I changed the NYT references and reformatted the sentence cited by the Deadline Hollywood reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • "paradigm shift" – cited source never uses this quote, so shouldn't be a direct quote
  • Wrong year on ref. 57

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ratings

  • While Zucker called O'Brien to reiterate that the generational change was expected – following source doesn't mention this
    • I changed that online reference to a Carter ref. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • by over 2.6 million viewers – it was actually much higher according to the source
    • You're right, it was almost 5 million viewers (Letterman had 7.2 million while O'Brien had 2.4 million), thanks for pointing that out. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 18.4 million viewers – does not match source
    • Changed to 17.7 million based on reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 84 does not include that direct quote
    • It looks like that quote is in the second paragraph of the source. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • coveted 18–24 demographic should be 18–34
  • local news viewership – clarify that it's on NBC affiliates, not all networks
    • Specified it was NBC affiliate viewership. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Use Law & Order instead of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
  • he will return → he would return
  • Conan sidekick → O'Brien sidekick
  • Affiliate calls came at an alarming rate, and research analysis revealed... – sentence abruptly transitions from Leno to O'Brien; make the shift clearer
    • I changed it to Affiliate began calling the network to inquire about the show's fate..., perhaps that is a less jarring. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Unrelated to this specific section: Wherever the first time appears in the article, it would probably be best to add a note that all times are Eastern (or Eastern/Pacific).

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Conflict

  • The "Proposed changes" section relies heavily on Carter (the first and third paragraphs are sourced almost entirely to him). This may be WP:UNDUE unless other citations can be added to show why all of these details are relevant. If more sources are not added, the sections should be trimmed.
    • I trimmed some unnecessary sentences to just focus on the Leno meeting. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 11:35pm → 11:35 pm for consistency
  • lamented his anxiety – weird word choice
    • Changed to ...to share his thoughts regarding the ratings. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • including Los Angeles Times → including the Los Angeles Times
  • Only link Los Angeles Times and The New York Times at first occurrence (both are linked at least two extra times in the article)
  • Ref. 131 and 132 should use the same citation style as the rest of the article

Reaction and media coverage

  • Ref. 140 doesn't really mention the details it supports
  • reminiscent of the Obama "Hope" poster – that's a bit of a stretch, I'm going to need a pretty clear source for that
    • I changed it to "similar" to the "Hope" poster, I believe the reference I added supports that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Can't find anything in refs. 152–155 mentioning that Zucker's reputation was damaged (it definitely was, but sources here don't mention it)
    • Add a Variety reference that mentions Zucker's reputation. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 157, 171, and 176 should have citation style updated
  • Ricky Gervais should probably be linked
    • Done.
  • Paragraph for ref. 164 is currently inappropriate WP:SYNTH because there is no source connecting the 1992 and 2010 incidents
    • I just removed that paragraph. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leno retained an talent agent, a publicist, and entertainment lawyers – inappropriate synthesis again with the current sources
    • Also: an talent agent → a talent agent
  • "raced past the reviled likes..." – this direct quote doesn't quite match the source
  • Paragraph on Kimmel's response seems incomplete – didn't he criticize Leno more when he appeared on "10 at 10"? That feels like something worth mentioning.
    • I added a wrap-up sentence regarding Kimmel's criticism of Leno with an Entertainment Weekly reference.
  • "There's been three hosts..." – unsourced direct quote
  • The comedians who came out in defense... – probably should have a source or be cut, especially the latter half of the sentence
    • While it was most likely true, I couldn't find a reliable source to back that up. I removed that sentence. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 10:00pm → 10:00 pm
  • Conan's lead-in → O'Brien's lead-in
  • Don't link NBC Sports and Dick Ebersol again
  • despite O'Brien's success... – this part of the sentence isn't mentioned in the source, so it's inappropriate synthesis
    • Last part of that sentence removed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Settlement

Sorry for the delay, I'll try to get the rest of the review knocked out ASAP.

  • "betrayed" is a direct quote, so it needs a source.
    • Added the NYP article with the direct quote. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • above standard GE levels – not in source and can easily be removed
  • they have done → [they] have done
  • Ref. 216 (Carter) cannot prove that Leno's lead held for much of the rest of his run if it was published in 2010
    • Added another ref. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
      • It's another 2010 source – the source should be from 2014 or later if it discussed information up to 2014. RunningTiger123

( talk) 00:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

        • Yeah, I added the wrong ref, it should be fixed now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Impact

  • Also Leno's larger staff... – sentence is not supported by source, remove
  • any effort to mention O'Brien's tenure was whitewashed from company history – overstatement, they simply removed episodes from the internet
    • I reworked that sentence to just mention the removal of reruns. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 242 links to the wrong page.

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Aftermath

  • the show averages → the show averaged
  • US$4 million per episode – source says 2 million
  • No need to link Jeff Gaspin or Rick Ludwin
  • The current wording implies both Graboff and Gaspin left in November 2011, but that's not right – the easiest fix is to remove in November 2011.
  • Ref. 258 appears to be an unauthorized copy of an episode clip – I would remove it ( WP:COPYLINK).
    • Same goes for ref. 260 and ref. 185 (latter is in a different section)
      • I changed the citation style to cite the episodes and broadcast specifically. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • until he announced Jimmy Fallon... – weird wording; maybe use until Jimmy Fallon became the next host of the franchise in February 2014?
  • Less than a month removed from hosting Tonight... – irrelevant paragraph, remove
  • in addition to appearing on → and later appeared on (current wording implies appearances were on same date)
  • Ref. 278 doesn't talk about O'Brien or Triumph at all
  • In 2017, mention was made of the host in NBC's 90th Anniversary Special – unsourced
  • Ref. 281 doesn't mention Leno, as far as I can tell.

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the lengthy review and the delay – overall, it's a really strong article. Once the above comments are resolved, I'll be happy to support promotion. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the thorough review RunningTiger123. I believe I addressed all of the issues raised above. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There are a few spots where I replied to your fixes across all sections that still need to be addressed (mostly grammar); otherwise, everything else looks good. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 00:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing those out, I believe it should be good now. ​ -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Looks good! Passing shortly. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2010_Tonight_Show_conflict&oldid=1219127499"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 Tonight Show conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Tonight Show conflict/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RunningTiger123 ( talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply


Hi LuK3, this article caught my interest and I've decided to give it a go. It'll take some time to get through everything, but I should be able to finish it over the weekend. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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 non-free use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Quick checks:

  • Copyvio check shows no major issues; closest matches are attributed quotes.
  • Images seem reasonable; the two non-free images (lead image and Kimmel) have solid rationales, and all images include proper alt text and captions.
  • The article is stable.

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Lead

  • "not participate in the destruction of The Tonight Show" – this quote is never used in the body, and is therefore unattributed.
  • on appearing on television – awkward repetition, maybe try against appearing on television?
    • Changed to "...while after a contractual seven-month ban against appearing on television,...". -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Background

  • Note: From here on out, I'll assume Carter's citations are accurate.
  • Ref. 3 is okay, but not great. It would be better for a source to directly state NBC was a leader, rather than infer it from charts.
    • I changed the image caption. I think the chart is fairly straightforward in stating NBC/The Tonight Show were number 1 in viewership for most of the 90s and 2000s. If that still is insufficient please let me know and I'll find another reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • which began in 1993. – should be a comma at the end
  • can compete → could compete
  • (for Leno's entire run) – this might be confusing, since it's not immediately clear if this means 2009 or 2014. I'd suggest rewording or just removing it.
    • I specified it was Leno's first stint as host.
  • Ref. 13 does not make it clear if Michaels suggested O'Brien for the role.
    • I found a Los Angeles Times article that seems to say Michaels specifically suggested O'Brien as new host. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 14 never mentions a week-to-week contract.
    • There seems to be inconsistencies between the Bill Carter book and other references. Most online sources stated NBC put O'Brien on a 13-week (3 month) contract so I changed it to that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 1:30 am., → 1:30 am,

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Early history

  • No need to link Saturday Night Live again
  • For consistency, late night should be late-night when used as an adjective (not a huge issue, just something to consider)
    • Changed a few terms, I will have to go through the entire article but I'll do it section-by-section for now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Swap sentences for better flow: Chernin warned... and Numerous executives...
  • will stay at NBC → would stay at NBC
  • as host well after the extension – feels like it's missing a few words, maybe as until well after the extension was signed?
    • Reformatted the sentence based on your section. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Should it say signed instead of sign? Other wordings are fine, but the current one is wrong. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 28 and ref. 38 are the same
    • I removed reference 38, there are enough refs for that quote. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • he likened his removal → Leno likened his removal
  • Ref. 43 doesn't align well with article
    • Same with ref. 54
      • Sorry, I'm a little confused regarding this point. Are you saying the physical alignment of the references are causing a problem or is it something in the formatting? -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
        • My mistake, I meant that what the article says doesn't really match what the sources say (the article generally takes the statements too far). RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Thanks for the clarification! I changed the NYT references and reformatted the sentence cited by the Deadline Hollywood reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • "paradigm shift" – cited source never uses this quote, so shouldn't be a direct quote
  • Wrong year on ref. 57

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ratings

  • While Zucker called O'Brien to reiterate that the generational change was expected – following source doesn't mention this
    • I changed that online reference to a Carter ref. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • by over 2.6 million viewers – it was actually much higher according to the source
    • You're right, it was almost 5 million viewers (Letterman had 7.2 million while O'Brien had 2.4 million), thanks for pointing that out. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 18.4 million viewers – does not match source
    • Changed to 17.7 million based on reference. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 84 does not include that direct quote
    • It looks like that quote is in the second paragraph of the source. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • coveted 18–24 demographic should be 18–34
  • local news viewership – clarify that it's on NBC affiliates, not all networks
    • Specified it was NBC affiliate viewership. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Use Law & Order instead of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
  • he will return → he would return
  • Conan sidekick → O'Brien sidekick
  • Affiliate calls came at an alarming rate, and research analysis revealed... – sentence abruptly transitions from Leno to O'Brien; make the shift clearer
    • I changed it to Affiliate began calling the network to inquire about the show's fate..., perhaps that is a less jarring. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Unrelated to this specific section: Wherever the first time appears in the article, it would probably be best to add a note that all times are Eastern (or Eastern/Pacific).

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 01:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Conflict

  • The "Proposed changes" section relies heavily on Carter (the first and third paragraphs are sourced almost entirely to him). This may be WP:UNDUE unless other citations can be added to show why all of these details are relevant. If more sources are not added, the sections should be trimmed.
    • I trimmed some unnecessary sentences to just focus on the Leno meeting. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 11:35pm → 11:35 pm for consistency
  • lamented his anxiety – weird word choice
    • Changed to ...to share his thoughts regarding the ratings. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • including Los Angeles Times → including the Los Angeles Times
  • Only link Los Angeles Times and The New York Times at first occurrence (both are linked at least two extra times in the article)
  • Ref. 131 and 132 should use the same citation style as the rest of the article

Reaction and media coverage

  • Ref. 140 doesn't really mention the details it supports
  • reminiscent of the Obama "Hope" poster – that's a bit of a stretch, I'm going to need a pretty clear source for that
    • I changed it to "similar" to the "Hope" poster, I believe the reference I added supports that. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Can't find anything in refs. 152–155 mentioning that Zucker's reputation was damaged (it definitely was, but sources here don't mention it)
    • Add a Variety reference that mentions Zucker's reputation. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 157, 171, and 176 should have citation style updated
  • Ricky Gervais should probably be linked
    • Done.
  • Paragraph for ref. 164 is currently inappropriate WP:SYNTH because there is no source connecting the 1992 and 2010 incidents
    • I just removed that paragraph. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leno retained an talent agent, a publicist, and entertainment lawyers – inappropriate synthesis again with the current sources
    • Also: an talent agent → a talent agent
  • "raced past the reviled likes..." – this direct quote doesn't quite match the source
  • Paragraph on Kimmel's response seems incomplete – didn't he criticize Leno more when he appeared on "10 at 10"? That feels like something worth mentioning.
    • I added a wrap-up sentence regarding Kimmel's criticism of Leno with an Entertainment Weekly reference.
  • "There's been three hosts..." – unsourced direct quote
  • The comedians who came out in defense... – probably should have a source or be cut, especially the latter half of the sentence
    • While it was most likely true, I couldn't find a reliable source to back that up. I removed that sentence. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • 10:00pm → 10:00 pm
  • Conan's lead-in → O'Brien's lead-in
  • Don't link NBC Sports and Dick Ebersol again
  • despite O'Brien's success... – this part of the sentence isn't mentioned in the source, so it's inappropriate synthesis
    • Last part of that sentence removed. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Settlement

Sorry for the delay, I'll try to get the rest of the review knocked out ASAP.

  • "betrayed" is a direct quote, so it needs a source.
    • Added the NYP article with the direct quote. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • above standard GE levels – not in source and can easily be removed
  • they have done → [they] have done
  • Ref. 216 (Carter) cannot prove that Leno's lead held for much of the rest of his run if it was published in 2010
    • Added another ref. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
      • It's another 2010 source – the source should be from 2014 or later if it discussed information up to 2014. RunningTiger123

( talk) 00:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

        • Yeah, I added the wrong ref, it should be fixed now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Impact

  • Also Leno's larger staff... – sentence is not supported by source, remove
  • any effort to mention O'Brien's tenure was whitewashed from company history – overstatement, they simply removed episodes from the internet
    • I reworked that sentence to just mention the removal of reruns. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ref. 242 links to the wrong page.

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Aftermath

  • the show averages → the show averaged
  • US$4 million per episode – source says 2 million
  • No need to link Jeff Gaspin or Rick Ludwin
  • The current wording implies both Graboff and Gaspin left in November 2011, but that's not right – the easiest fix is to remove in November 2011.
  • Ref. 258 appears to be an unauthorized copy of an episode clip – I would remove it ( WP:COPYLINK).
    • Same goes for ref. 260 and ref. 185 (latter is in a different section)
      • I changed the citation style to cite the episodes and broadcast specifically. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • until he announced Jimmy Fallon... – weird wording; maybe use until Jimmy Fallon became the next host of the franchise in February 2014?
  • Less than a month removed from hosting Tonight... – irrelevant paragraph, remove
  • in addition to appearing on → and later appeared on (current wording implies appearances were on same date)
  • Ref. 278 doesn't talk about O'Brien or Triumph at all
  • In 2017, mention was made of the host in NBC's 90th Anniversary Special – unsourced
  • Ref. 281 doesn't mention Leno, as far as I can tell.

— RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the lengthy review and the delay – overall, it's a really strong article. Once the above comments are resolved, I'll be happy to support promotion. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 03:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the thorough review RunningTiger123. I believe I addressed all of the issues raised above. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply
There are a few spots where I replied to your fixes across all sections that still need to be addressed (mostly grammar); otherwise, everything else looks good. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 00:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing those out, I believe it should be good now. ​ -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Looks good! Passing shortly. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 02:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2010_Tonight_Show_conflict&oldid=1219127499"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE