Talk:Observational comedy

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article would be enhanced by placing "observational comedy" alongside other kinds of comedy, particularly other kinds of stand-up comedy. Really, are there any other kinds? Ccoll 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; accordingly I've added a prod. Dlabtot (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

towards the U.S. (a shock, I know) in this article. - Dudesleeper 12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... God bless the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "quotes" section completely escapes me. The quotes are not examples of observational comedy, nor are they stated to be such. They should be removed but I'm afraid if I erase them somebody will get mad and undo it and yell at me. But seriously, not encyclopedic at all. --Springreturning (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed that this article only gives a list of the comidians performing this type of shows and gives very little information about the art itself. i propose narrowing the examples and start giving more information about its history, present, etc.--camr ^nag 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what the article claims is the most common sort of comedy used by stand-up comedians, it's a terribly short article. Surely there's much more to say. Where to start? What's lacking? What's the most essential missing material? Deluno (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally dreadful. That's the best way I can describe this article (which is about comedy, I might add). I can't even break each section down because all of them have the same problems throughout, namely:

- Too many direct quotes. A shocking amount of text in this article is cribbed directly from an outside source with little to input or explanation given by an editor. This intro and overview sections are notable offenders for this.

- Poor paraphrasing and overall stilted language. A large portion of the history section is comprised of a run-on paraphrased sentence, and a confusing one at that. This section is also written heavily in the passive voice, and at times it is nearly impossible to understand what is going on. The information itself is valid but it simply must be reformatted.

- Vagueness. With all the passive voice, confusing sentences, and massive unsourced lists of "notable" comedians, this article obfuscates observational comedy more than it explains it. It needs serious edits on all fronts. OzyXCV (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a sentence this is! "One of them, who became outstandingly successful in America and mixed it like Twain's personal gab of common man's as perspective, with his own personal trademark as embodyment of America's quintessential folky hero as a plainsman, by noticing and pointing to Public as his accomplice in the observations, using their old country folk common sense as deadpan or jolly neutral denominator for the comic revelation punch unfolding which departed from the hitherto satirical, was Will Rogers." I will have a go at rewriting it but I thought it was important to keep it here for posterity!Graemec2 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The history section needs to be fixed. Schoolbus777 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolbus777, what part of it needs to be fixed?LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 02:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]