Talk:Survivor: Africa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Survivor: Africa. 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) 18:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Survivor: Africa. 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) 00:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor jury vote table discussion[edit]

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) 16:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contestant result confusion[edit]

Can we please not remove the original tribes and colors associated with them ? Almost every other season of survivor has made it clear which tribe each contestant was on throughout the various tribe swaps. These changes do nothing but confuse the reader. I’ve seen many complaints about the new changes in the fan base, and if someone were to go back on these confusing and pointless changes, I will personally begin to donate to Wikipedia for making the right changes to the topics I care about. 76.190.196.224 (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are on Wikipedia, not a fan website. Everything that has been changed is to adhere to our Manual of Style, mostly MOS:ACCESS and WP:COLOUR. Donating to Wikipedia makes no difference to the content on it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will eventually change this to be uniform across all of these articles, but consistency is not a good reason for things to not adhere to MOS. See our policy on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why losing some of that color can be disconcerting since it's been there so long. However, as an editor in a topic area that is similarly impacted by inaccessible pages, this is important. What may be lost for sighted people (and it might be nice to have a color accent somehow) is more than made up for by the addition of features that make these tables more readable for the color-blind and those who use screen readers to interact with the web. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what about users that might be dyslexic who would regularly rely on the colors and original format? Removing all of the color and previous organization structure negatively impacts them. 47.138.105.171 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New table layout[edit]

Does anyone else agree that the new table layout for contestants, season summary, and voting history are very unpleasing to the eye? The way that they were previously looked way better. Thoughts? NintendoGeek (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look terrible and I dread the possibility of this spreading to the rest of the seasons, making them significantly more difficult to easily and quickly read. AddMLR (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The old format violated WP:ACCESS. --Masem (t) 04:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: How does using color with other attributes violate WP:Access? The design works as it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version didn't have row or column scopes, so that is an instant MOS failure. We need to minimize use of colour. Per Talk:Survivor: Cook Islands/GA1, the current version isn't even stringent enough. What is more, the colour of the tribe is irrelevant. The information is plenty with saying who was voting, and which person was voted off. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That can be remedied, but the color of the tribe is far from irrelevant. It's one of the more helpful items in quickly discerning who has been voted off. Color is important in Survivor... it's not some arbitrary use of color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How so? How does a reader even know that there is any meaning for the colouring? It's not what is important for Survivor, it's important for Wikipedia. If you can come up with an alternative table that follows the MOS, then that would be fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not supposed to represent important information by color, that is a core facet of ACCESS. And the fact that people wanted to use the exact tribe colors, which nearly always were not accessible colors, and use those over and over and over again, made that even more difficult. Using the tribe color once in appropriate locations in a table and then repeating the tribe name in normal non-colored text is far more appropriate even if it made it a tad less easy to see the results at a glance. --Masem (t) 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They look hideous now 2601:196:0:750:450D:26A6:5C9A:D5CC (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were unreadable before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were not unreadable at all. Could the colors have been better... sure... but they are important that the tribes are starkly different. Do you even watch the show? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will be applied in all seasons to make the table layout clean. ApprenticeWiki work 07:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It will, but there is WP:NODEADLINE. Feel free to make the changes yourself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least we can put a border color around each cell to designate the tribe color. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which cells exactly? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On things like the first table List of Survivor 42 contestants. Mine was just a crude example, but those colors help us a great deal and there must be some middle ground on this. It would be better if the cells remain fully colored in. Wikipedia has plenty of example of colored cells including MOS and essays. If the choice of green is too dark or vivid it can easily be softened to more of a standard html5 color. I can't tell you how many folks I talk to that watch the show simply say the "green tribe", or the "yellow tribe", rather than the tribe name. It's ingrained in the show and is quite important. Does it need to be the exact color green from the show?... not if we can help our sight-challenged readers see the text a bit better. Screen readers should have no trouble. But we also don't want our majority of sighted readers to be inconvenienced either, and from dark-bold colors to white or grey is a bookend of extremes we can avoid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- apologies, I thought we were still discussing the voting history table. I don't know, I think I even prefer the background to the weird outlines. The thing is, a lot of these articles have severe duplication of information. Prior to changes, the contestant section would state which tribe they were on, and then that would also be stated again in the season summary, and then again in two places on the voting history.

It's a mess. here is a diff from before changes were made to the tables. The contestants table uses small html lettering, which isn't something we should ever use, thus meaning suitability for creating columns for age and location. Having a series of yellows, red and greens, especially without any explanation isn't helpful. You might say that fans of the show might only remember the colours used with the individual tribes, but I counter that someone reading the article who doesn't have that information will be completely lost. The voting history is the same on the old version, it is using that colour to mean that a that person was a part of that tribe, but doesn't explain that at any time, and is using that colour as the only way to distinguish information... Which is against our MOS. I can't say that there being colours in the contestant summary would be all that big of a deal - but also, when we literally have a table for who won each challenge, and every tribal council do we even list this information again in the contestants section?

I just want the articles to meet the MOS so that they can be viewable by all, and get the items up to a higher rating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite often info is repeated if it's in a separate table. Just like linking. MOS tells us not to overlink once a person is already linked in prose, but often the first time someone's name is mentioned in a new table, their name is linked, and every subsequent table is the also linked the first time. When we start to get distance from the first time someone's tribe is mentioned it's not a bad thing to do so again. MOS also gives us the ability balance things with common sense. What MOS does not allow us to do would be use color alone to distinguish data. But we have a tribe name smack dab in the middle of that color to distinguish what it's for. That should be good enough for MOS. If you want more then add a small key table above the chart with color and tribe name. I agree that color in the cell is better. What I was worried about was contrast of the cell color with the text so visually impaired readers could best make out the text while still conveying tribe color to sighted readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for your example on the Africa "List of Survivor: Africa contestants", beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I understand Wikipedia MOS wanting separate columns (especially for sorting), and I understand them trying to avoid the small text unless necessary. That said, if I presented the new chart at work in replacing the old chart, I would be fired! The old chart conveys the info best. Having the name age and location in the same box is tighter and lets readers assimilate the info in one glance. The color for the tribes is missing... that alone would have a magazine throw out my submission. And turning "Finish" cell into two cells with extra subheadings is overkill. It also make the entire table wider which is tougher on cell phones. In the real world, the new chart is busier and much harder to navigate for most readers. Again, Wiki has it's rules we follow but sometimes it's a bitter pill when it's our readers who suffer the consequences. My choice when asked is to give the best experience to our readers, not wikipedia management. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't a magazine. We follow our style guidelines. There's a reason why we don't usually keep lots of different pieces of information in the same cell, that's due to sorting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, and I said sorting comes into play because of wikipedia rules. We are not a magazine. If we were we would take things into consideration like aesthetics, ease of use, and our readers. Sorting age and birth year is extremely trivial. Splitting the last column into two columns is better for wiki, not for readers. I didn't revert those things because of wikipedia rules. But the table is worse for it. The cell tribe color is different though... it is useful and important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I don't particularly like the amount of colour, but so long as the article (and these articles in general) meet the MOS, that is all I care about. I am steadily working my way through them with a plan to GA, so that is the solution. The voting history table is very much where the MOS was particularly effected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you saying that coloring the tribe cells on the contestant table is okay? I redid a number of the Survivor tables based on the Cook Islands table, and don't want to continue if they're just going to be reverted. Please advise. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with colored cells at all. However the shade of color should match html5 standards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, they do not provide any new information already given by the tribe name. The excessive use of color is something that is reflective of fan-driven tracking of players, and that's beyond our purpose here; we need to keep these "bland" to meet MOS standards. --Masem (t) 01:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't and yes they do. It is not excessive in the least because the show constantly throws the colors in our faces. It is very important to keep, and we do not in the least need to "keep these "bland" to meet MOS standards"... that is far from true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure how colours being used in the show (which I don't even think is true) has any baring on how we layout the tables on Wikipedia. I feel like the arguments are to appease fans of the show, which isn't what we are here for. It feels very WP:CRUFTy to note that someone was in the red team over and over again in an article. We also mention in prose what colours the teams are - so all I can suggest is that these tables are being used for quick reference for fans of the show. We don t (or at least shouldn't) have items designed for fans, but optimized for the general reader. It's the same reason why we don't have trivia sections. The article is perfectly readable without the colours, and pointing to the season summary section isn't great, as that table probably needs a cull of fancruft too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This right here. Compare these tables to major sporting events where colors also are key and they use colors too but far more limiting (eg see Super Bowl LVI where team colors are used for table headers but thats its). Naming the tribes is sufficient. --Masem (t) 12:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise as to whether or not the colors should remain on the contestants table. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the new layouts, although I could see adding a softer version of whatever color to the contestants’ table since the tribe name is also given. I like having the age and hometown separated, as well as the day of elimination. The only adjustment I did was to combine the elimination order and jury member data into one cell, since they are elements of the same component, and having a separate column for jury members left the table with a lot of dead space on the far right column on both the top and bottom, and looked awkward. As far as readability, it’s the voting table at the bottom that’s incredibly wide, but there’s very little we can do to remedy that. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contestant layout is dreadful. Colours are a huge part of Survivor (tribe designation being pivotal) and unnecessarily creating rowspan for tribe swaps is an incredible amount of overkill and overcomplication. But the episode guide and voting chart USE the colours? There's no uniformity and creates a mish mash of information that can be explained clearer using colour identifiers. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The big issue with the old version of the contestants table is having three pieces of information in one cell, small tags and no rowscopes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t see the overcomplication the new tables create? Rowspans for tribe membership unless it’s a merged tribe is just creating more work for the editor. Wikipedia should be an easily disgusted article for the subject matter. This and other changes do not accomplish that. The old system worked, it’s not in line with Skill based shows as it factors in social politics, advantages, physicality and luck. 82.24.78.193 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia articles should follow the MOS as for any other article. The old system didn't meet the MOS guidelines. It makes no difference what the season is about. If you want to have different tables that don't meet the MOS, do it on a fan website. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your ideas for the new table formats are not very good. In fact, they make it more difficult to understand than before as others above have also mentioned. It actually seems more people are against this new table layout. So maybe we should go back to the drawing board before making such drastic and unpopular changes. I understand the colors need to be changed but the new table format just isn't going to work. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style is a site wide consensus. We can't just revert to a version that doesn't meet this. If you can come up with a better version that is fully MOS compliant, I'd be more than willing to look at it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:20, 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 is a total outrage within the table format for all seasons that doesn't comply with accessibility requirements. The Reddit Survivor should have getting to understand with the arguments. So User:Lee Vilenski must understand to use the "new" table to read certain readers with brightness and contrast between color tables. ApprenticeWiki work 01:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have anything new to add, just to say that this new layout is very uncomfortable to read or even understand the voting process. Colors are parts of the game, fans might not remember the tribe names, but they'd remember their colors. This feels like an unnecessary change. The old format is much better and easier not only to understand but easier to the eye. SeosiWrestling (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 20:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! I think I can lend a hand on this review! ~Vocem Virtutis

Good Article Criteria[edit]

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):
    I definitely do see some grammar issues throughout the article that need to be improved. When I see minor issues, I'll fix them myself, but if anything larger comes up, I'll let you know!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Definitely will get started on this part when I get a chance and get back to you.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I think a section should probably be added that breifly describes the show as a whole. Some of the episode summaries need to go a little more in-depth. I'll point out individual issues I see below.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    On a quick skim of the article, this doesn't seem like a major issue. I'll keep an eye out for any problems here when I take the time to read a little more closely.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    This one doesn't seem to be an issue.
  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):
    If illustrations are available, and I've got to think they are, we could definitely use some. Visually, the article is pretty bare-bones at this point.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

First Thoughts[edit]

Looking at the article in its current state, I definitely do see some significant work that needs to be done. Fortunately, several articles on other seasons (Borneo, the Australian Outback, and Cook Islands) of the show have been classified as Good Articles, and I think that they provide a pretty good template that we can take advantage of in improving this article further. The first few places that need to be improved are the following: an Overview section should be added at the beginning of the article that gives a brief synopsis of Survivor as a show, as well as any relevant information about the location or production of the season; the episode summaries should all be reviewed and given proper attention (I see that episode five doesn't have a summary at all as of now); and, if possible, some illustrations of the contestants or maybe the filming location should be added to better the article. Again, I think that this is definitely an article that we can work through, but I do see these as major issues right off the bat, before I even get into the more minor issues.

First Draft: Issues Unresolved[edit]

Lead

The lead should be a bit more in-depth a summary. For example, Ethan ought to be specified to have won the cash prize of one million dollars in addition to the title. Furthermore, some information ought be included about the tribes the and the contestants divided into them. Again, I think looking at the other Good Articles I mentioned provides a decent template here.
I fixed a couple minor verb tense issues in the lead. If the rest the article resembles the lead, grammar work will need to be done.
I've made a bit of a change here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

Currently unadded
Now added Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants

Overall, this part looks alright. I would add a mention of the players making up the jury from the final 11 onwards.
Some pictures in this section could really help out the article visually.
I'll have to fact check the information in the chart at a later point, but the formatting all looks good.
Future appearances subsection looks good as well.

Season summary (on hold; please see my comment below before you do any work on this)

This is also relatively solid, at least for the most part. I think that it would come off less clunky to refer to the two Kims on the season as Powers and Johnson rather than by their last initials (after going through the whole article, this is actually an issue that is not unique to the season summary.).
The first paragraph focuses heavily on the tribe dynamics of the Samburu tribe, almost without mentioning dynamics of Boran, the tribe that the final four players came from.
Again, there are some grammar issues to clean up.
I think it should be noted within the summary that Teresa was responsible for the mystery vote against Lex at the Clarence elimination. The current summary leaves the reader wondering whether or not Kelly actually was responsible for the vote.

Episodes

Maybe the section that needs the most work. Some of these episodes summaries are just too shallow. The fifth episode, arguably one of the most consequential episodes of Survivor considering the introduction of the tribe swap, has no summary whatsoever.
Several grammar issues are within this section as well.
I notice that reading through all of the summaries, the winner of the season, Ethan, is barely mentioned at all. On one hand, I understand that Ethan wasn't the most strategic player on the season or even the one who was usually in the spotlight; on the other hand, it is an issue that if I had not seen the season before, I would have absolutely no clue why Ethan would have won the game from the episode summaries alone.
I think that the summary of episode seven, though very clunky, is a decent example of the amount of information that ought to be contained within the summary. It establishes the main plots of the episode (the merge, the deal struck between Teresa and Clarence, and everybody else's refusal to work with Clarence), while still being concise, though, again, even it needs to be reworded to sound less clunky. To give an example of some of the clunkiness, "The tribes are told of the immunity challenge but do not realize they have reached the merge until they arrive, and the challenge is now on an individual level." seems like it could be simplified to something like "When the contestants arrive at the immunity challenge, they learn that they are all merging into one tribe, thus entering the individual portion of the game."
I'd argue they need to be pretty small to retain focus. WP:VG/PLOT for example says these should be 700 characters for example. I'll have a scunny through, and maybe watch the swap episode again and write something up. Give me a bit of time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely don't need to go super in depth, but I do think most of them could use at least a bit more meat. If you look at Season 40's episodes that give the ins and outs of every single challenge throughout the season and all that, I definitely think it comes out to way too much unnecessary information. The climax of most episodes of the show is someone getting voted out, and thus, the most necessary part of an episode summary should be the explanation of why the person who left did, how they did (or didn't) attempt to save themselves, and (assuming they did try) why their plan failed. In addition, the summary may mention important themes or plot points that come up later in the season, like Teresa's vote for Lex in the merge episode.
I used episode seven as my example, which, in hindsight, was a pretty terrible choice. When I made this comment originally, I did so thinking about quantity of information over quality of information. Quality-wise, episode seven dwells way too much on Teresa and Clarence at the challenge, while comparatively taking almost no time to explain why Clarence was voted out when his tribe had the majority over Samburu.
At the end of the day, the main point I should've made it to say that, if nothing else, at least some of the episode summaries need to be rewritten.
The part of the MOS you've linked me to seems to be in reference to episodic video games and not television, which is found here: [[1]]. Looking at the television part of the MOS, it seems as though the expectation is for the series overview to contain a section dedicated to the plot of the season in one of two ways: an episode table in which each episode's plot is summarized in no more than 200 words OR a prose plot summary of 500 words for the entire season. Looking at this, I would lean towards the former option. To do otherwise would require a series overview with an average of 33 words for each episode. The MOS guide specifically notes that an article should NOT contain an episode table summary AND a prose plot summary, which is an issue since this article contains both.
Forgive me for this; I made the mistake of using the other GA listed seasons to help me find the mistakes in this one. While that's not entirely unfair, I should have checked the MOS first. I'm still quite new to reviewing, so I hope you'll excuse the mistake; I know that I'll become better at this with time.
With all that said, how do you think is best to approach the article from here? Additionally, is there anything I've described here that I'm misunderstanding (because, again, I'm very new to this)? Assuming that I am properly understanding, my recommendation would be a full deletion of the prose section of the season summary.
Sorry, I know that's a lot of information, but I want to ensure we're on the same page. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Many thanks! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No drama. I actually prefer the plot summary to the episode list as survivor is a series that is much less about the individual episodes and more about how the tides turn over it. The current plot summary is less than 500, so if you are cool with it, I'll remove the info from the episode summaries. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Thank you much! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These have now been culled Vocem Virtutis. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Africa no longer needs episode summaries, why not eliminate the episode recaps in Survivor: Borneo, which still has a GA-status? George Ho (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, sure - I didn't write that article, nor is this a review of that article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting history

This one looks mostly alright to me.

Controversy

Again, this one looks alright. The one other possible controversy that comes to my mind is in regards to the "Beangate" situation between Clarence and Diane in the first episode and specifically the way in which Clarence was treated by the other members of his tribe being perceived by some viewers as having racist connotations. If there is sufficient information about that incident, particularly if it came up at all contemporary to the season, it should probably be included here.
    • If there is a suitable ref, I'd do so. I had a scunny and couldn't see one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All looks very doable. You may need to give me a little time as I've got quite a bit on at the moment. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay with me. I've seen you around the community enough to know you're pretty active, so I'll take your word that you'll be here to check in on things once you get the chance! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an image. There are several images at Shaba National Reserve that might be appropriate since that was the reserve where this season was filmed. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought! Thank you much! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a couple replies. I think this pretty much boils down to whether or not we kill off the episode summaries. That would be my preferred way to deal with it - as individual episodes just give details on challenges and such, not really an overview. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything else I needed to do Vocem Virtutis? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be finishing the review soon enough, but I want to make sure there's future clarity on how the season/episode summaries need to be handled. Once I look through the article again, I'll get back to you. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Draft: Issues Unresolved[edit]

Contestants

I wonder if the paragraph at the beginning of this section may not go better in the Overview section. It also might still be good to mention something about the jury, if we're mentioning the tribe swaps and merge.

Season Summary

Since we've decided to go with the season summary route, the summary should really be rewritten to better encompass the season as a whole. I would take the focus off of specifics such as Carl and Lindsey's quiz at tribal council or Linda's being voted off; instead, it would be simpler just to summarize that the younger players took control of Samburu but the older players were able to adjust to the tribe swap. Similarly, make sure that Boran also receives a bit of attention in the summary. The goal here should be to follow the broad narrative that CBS is attempting to tell. I don't know that the section needs a full rewrite, but it could use work.

Episodes

The section looks good to me, but judging off the discussion, this definitely has broader implications than this article.

Reception

There are several errors here, especially with quotations and punctuation. Dalton Ross' quote is a bit clunky; it would be smoother to use a paraphrase, especially because whoever quoted Ross messed with his original punctuation. Similarly, using three Santilli quotations in one sentence feels clunky. The second comma in the sentence about The Purple Rock Podcast is unnecessary, and, again, the multiple quotations make the sentences clunky (assuming citing a fan site is proper to begin with). In the last sentence of the section, a semicolon is incorrectly used to introduce a quote. Really, this whole section could use a rewrite.

Discussion[edit]

  • A comment about the episode summaries. I fully agree that on these Survivor articles they are far too long and tend to get lost in trying to interpret motives and intents of the scheming by players, but the actual game elements, like challenges and swaps, should still be documented as those are obvious, require no interpretation, and should remain relatively short. The season summary can document how major player actions influenced the game at a level that is too hard to delve into interpretative details. --Masem (t) 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, losing the episode summaries is a real loss. Sure, some of these could use some work compared to more recent seasons. But I was under the impression that individual episode summaries were preferable to season-long recaps, although in the case of Survivor, I think both are worthwhile. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, I get why you might want to include info on swaps, or major gameplay items, but things like challenges rarely have an effect on the outcome of a vote, unless a potential votee wins immunity. The actual details of the challenges are kinda irrelevant in my eyes. I think the current way of giving an overview of the season's structure is ample. Vocem VirtutisLee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would disagree with the challenges, in part as they are the most objective part of any episode and part of the structure of the show. Masem (t) 20:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are talking about challenges where the description of the task can be really long-winded. Sure, "hold your hand up for the longest", is quite easy to explain, but a multi-task challenge with a puzzle at the end would be a bit much to explain and then just say that X won. There's also usually two challenges per episode - I feel like we're getting down the fancruft avenue. In the past, these episode summaries have been incredibly wrong with all the details of the reward and immunity challenges, along with names that aren't mentioned in the episodes.
          I don't think it matters in terms of the season what the individual challenges are. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Working from the Amazing Race articles (where our episode "summaries" there are limited to the tasks and locations), I think it is entirely possible to write the tasks for Survivor w/o getting into the weeds about the rules. What is 100% in the weeds is the strategy discussion at the individual episode level, as that really gets into interpretation of motivations. Masem (t) 00:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, is there a reason why individual Survivor episodes couldn't be made their own individual articles? If not, that's where I feel that would be the better place for most challenge or strategy-related information.
    The reason that I agree with @Lee Vilenski about the season summary being more important than individual episode summaries is because this is a case where the whole does not necessarily equal the sum of its parts. Some episodes are vital to the story of a season. Others really don't have much impact at all. Ultimately, I feel that the page for a season of any show needs to be focused on the specifics of that show as a whole, and not the individual pieces. Season summaries probably fulfill that role better than episode summaries. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    re: Individual episode articles - the amount of reception for a single episode is very small. While there is definitely recap coverage and some opinion in that, it is nowhere close to the standard the TV project has for standalone television episodes, much less those from reality TV. Masem (t) 01:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be the case; I'm not an authority here. I mainly want to emphasize that the season summary and episode summary are two separate things. If we can only have one, I don't want to sacrifice the former for the sake of the latter. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The season summary is far better because it captures broad trends in how a given season goes. I do think we still can have the season summary and episode "summations" which only touch on the gameplay activities (including things like merges, etc.). Masem (t) 02:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vocem Virtutis - was there anything else preventing this from promotion to GA status? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

As Vocem Virtutis has not edited for two months, I am taking over this GAN. I see that there was quite a bit of discussion about things like episode summaries but those seem to have been revolved, as have the other issues relating to quotes. Overall, this article passes all criteria and is an easy promote.

  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:
    ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 04:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Survivor:_Africa&oldid=1202871637"