Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands

	Survivor: Cook Islands has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 30, 2022 Good article nominee Listed

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

Television: Episode coverage / Reality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance). Polynesia: Cook Islands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia 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.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Cook Islands (assessed as Low-importance). Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 12, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Where's the reception and ratings for Survivor: Cook Islands? --TMProofreader (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#Jury vote tables to list the vote totals in the same order as the names in the finalist row immediately above the vote totals. All interested editors are invited to join that discussion. Since the Survivor task force appears to be inactive, I'm notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Reality television task force and the talk pages for each Survivor season in order to reach interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is some kind of task force going around trying to change the way the survivor articles are laid out, but why this one? Why is this article different from the others? Also there is some repetitive information under the overview section that is already explained in another article. None of this makes any sense, I won’t undo any of the changes that have been made suddenly but I do not agree with them. - SecondLooneyaccount (talk)

I would say its odd that we need a "show overview" for a season article. For nearly any other TV series that has gone through a GA/FA review process, this isn't done with the expectation that the main series article is linked and includes all these needed details for the reader. --Masem (t) 02:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the aim was to do this for all articles across the series, but I'd rather work in a couple of articles and get them up to spec before moving to the next one. See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The voting tables didn't conform to our MOS requirements, and looked incredibly ugly, which is why they were edited, arguably not even to the extent required, as we should never use colour alone to show information. I'm up for discussion on the benefits of having an overview, but I don't really understand why we wouldn't want to explain what the show is on this page. It could maybe be condensed slightly, but saying what the show is, is beneficial for the rest of the article. I've seen this many times at FA, where simply linking to a term is not good enough, and the actual premise of the show is pretty vital information for the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

100% agree on table colors. Accessibility of these tables has always been a problem (and part of the larger issue with all competitive reality TV shows with their own approaches and ccolor schemes that violate accessibility MOSes). --Masem (t) 18:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say now I don't think I've gone far enough, but I do at least think these meet the basic requirements. They probably need additional scopes and there is an argument that there is no need for any colours in any of these tables. I am eventually going to do the changes across all of the series, but that's not a reason to revert on this article. The fact these tables were so bad was actually the reason I wanted to make the changes on these series anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely not consensus that this edit is needed. Secarctangent (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest the colors are needed. If the colors are conveying any information of real importance it needs to be clearly stated as text anyway (such as a team or a person having a particularly winning performance). These list and table heavy articles are making the same old mistakes (remember

WP:PROSE

in any case. Even if it wasn't an accessibility and reability issues, it is bad graphic design and page layout, and it might also be a symptom of bad writing if anything of importance is actually lost simply by removing the colors.

You need

MOS:ACCESS not the other way around. -- 109.79.73.24 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, Local consensus doesn't trump the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to explain what the show is, you could explain it briefly in the heading. “An American reality competition series.. etc etc”. I do not agree with the changing of the voting tables though, the colors make it easier to understand who was in what tribe during the game. - SecondLooneyaccount (talk)

Yeah, I don't really understand how anyone is supposed to actually know that, as there's no key, nor anything explaining what the garish colours mean. I'd be happier if we culled the colours completely. Regardless, it's not something that we can ignore, as it clearly violates our MOS. I'm happy to cutback the section on the show, although I do think it's worth explaining the core concept that the eliminations are done via a majority vote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but the changes are awful and don't seem to be very popular. The tables are not accessible anymore and actually make it way more difficult to navigate and understand. I wish we could have had a vote before making such drastic and confusing changes. Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something being popular by a series of fans of a show is irrelevant. You can try and change the MOS, but we have to stick to it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But some changes are being done by POV since MOS says nothing so specific, and one person giving a GA review is not always correct. There is no question the consensus is the tables are now harder to read and navigate, and MOS says something about that to. We have to be careful to balance what is best for our readers with what is best for Wikipedia. They are sometimes in vivid contrast to one another and we don't want to make something visually difficult to read or unappealing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, do you have a version of the table that does meet the MOS? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than have this conversation as a split over many pages, I've created a suitable thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#MOS fixes for tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will grab this one for review. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I can see that there has been a bit of discussion about the tables and colours that are used for this article and other Survivor articles. I do still have some concerns with what is being used for this article:

• The colours in the voting history table are confusing and I think misleading. I feel it would be clearer if there was a column in the top section for the tribe that is voting which can use the name and colour, and then remove the colour from the people names. That also helps from an accessibility perspective since you are otherwise expecting the reader to work out which tribe it is based on the colour alone and that will not always be possible. I also find the "votes" row to be a bit confusing and unnecessary.
  • The colour is less of an issue in the jury vote table since we don't need to note the tribe, but it is unnecessary. My bigger problem with this table is that there are columns for each person in which we are including their own name multiple times for all the votes. I think it would make more sense to have one column with the winner's name in the top bit and the name of each vote below it. If you still want a column for each finalist then perhaps you could use {{ya}} instead of repeating their names below? The "votes" row is also a bit odd and unnecessary here.
    • I agree with both of these. It has been hard enough to get users to remove the ridiculous colours, but yes, both of these were part of my original look for these tables, so I will implement soon..Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The Challenge winners and eliminations table is quite confusing to me, and the fact that it has to have so many explanatory notes below it suggests that a table format may not be much of an improvement over prose (especially when most of this is already covered in the episode summaries). My suggestion here is that more of the explanation stuff needs to be clearer in the table format or this table should be scrapped altogether in favour of making the information clearer in the episode summaries either by using bolding/italics/paragraph breaks or by using {{hr}} and putting a summary of the key details at the end of each summary.
  • I went ahead and just removed it. It was completely unsourced after all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In the contestants table I think it would make more sense to have "Sole Survivor", "Runner-up", and "2nd runner-up" in the "cause" column and Day 39 in the day column, otherwise I think this table is fine.
  • I have made this changeBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the tables and colours I do have a couple more issues that I would like to see addressed before this becomes a good article:

• I think the filming locations info should be separate from the format overview stuff, it seems a bit random to have them in the same section but with a subheading when really you could just have an "Overview" section and a "Filming" section.
  • I'm not sure I agree. I think filming is a part of the overview of the season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to keep it there then I would definitely like to see the Filming subheading removed, the section only has two paragraphs in it and does not need subheadings. If you move the filming dates from the overview paragraph to the filming paragraph and remove the heading then I think it will be clear enough that the second paragraph is about filming. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The refs for the filming stuff need to be marked as having dead URLs.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we include an explanation of Exile Island in the overview section?
  • Hmm, I'm not really sure how to organically put this in. (And especially source it), I'll take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence starting "Notable contestants..." seems arbitrary and unnecessary, the actual notable contestants can already be identified because they have wikilinks.
  • Agreed. Removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The paragraph starting "Outside of Survivor..." seems trivial and unnecessary to me, can we just stick to future Survivor appearances for this section?
  • I'm not sure I agree. Noting that they went onto work on other notable projects seems like exactly what we need to show. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Season Summary" prose seems unnecessary when there is already a breakdown by episode just below it, and I generally do not recommend having multiple plot summaries unless we are talking about a short premise and then more details prose (this goes beyond short premise for me, and the overview basically serves as the premise anyway). I would be interested to know what the justification is for having this stuff.
  • I have removed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The ratings information in the episode table needs to be sourced, it isn't like the other details that can be attributed to the episodes themselves.
  • Unless someone can cite this, I've removed it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of the reception section talks about the race controversy. It would be good if this could all be grouped together, and then I think it will be more obvious that there really isn't that much other reception info here. I would like to see that expanded as much as possible. Rotten Tomatoes has a few reviews that aren't here yet, and a hunt through Google should bring up more sources that can be used. This is a pretty important one for getting an article to GA.
  • Once the reception is updated, it would be good to get some of that info into the lead to make sure there is due weight applied in the coverage
    • Sure, added some pieces to the lede.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There could be some small clean-up done with references as far as having consistent date formats and proper capitalisation, etc., but otherwise looks pretty good.
  • Yeah, I'll make a check through later. I've fixed the date issues, just need a bit more time to get them sorted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look through these issues and make the necessary adjustments. I will put the review on hold for a week, let me know if there are any questions or concerns in the meantime. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered everything here Adamstom.97 Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I am happy with the changes that have been made, especially the table updates, and I think it is probably good enough to be GA now. Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]