Talk:Jeopardy!/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for potential GA status. My review should be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I feel that this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Please feel free to re-nominate once the below concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

 * This article could use a general copy-edit for clarity and flow
 * Don't use words like "all", "some", "also", etc so much - in many places, they're not needed, and they reduce text readability
 * Does "composer" refer to the creator of the music or of the questions?
 * Could you explain (perhaps in a footnote) the overlaps and gaps in dates for production companies, executive producers and producers?
 * What is ToC? Explain before using the abbreviation
 * Does Super Jeopardy play with points instead of money? If so, this should be mentioned
 * You need more internal links, especially for show-specific terms and American-centric concepts. However, don't link the same term more than once or twice
 * Avoid one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections
 * Must College competitors attend US schools? I can't find that requirement on the website
 * Spell out GSN on first appearance

Accuracy and verifiability

 * Dead links: refs 7, 18, 28, 29
 * Citation needed tags must be dealt with
 * "These episodes also feature a "house minimum" of $25,000" - minimum winnings or wager?
 * I would recommend a minimum of one citation per paragraph, usually more
 * Beyond the marked passages, citations also needed for:
 * gameplay rules
 * increasing value table
 * "true Daily Double"
 * visually-impaired contestants
 * phrasing rules
 * "house minimum"
 * first paragraph of "Final Jeopardy! Round"
 * earlier vacation/merchandise packages
 * cap increase and big-winner cash prizes
 * Jennings records
 * "Other versions" section
 * "Tournaments and events" section
 * "Audition process" section
 * Emmy paragraph
 * "Merchandising" section
 * "Notes" not already referenced


 * Use a consistent referencing format
 * Do some clean-ups in referencing
 * What do you mean by "p. circa 271"?
 * J! Archive is a fan site, and thus may not be a reliable source
 * Don't use bare URLs in references

Broad

 * The obvious omission here is a complete history of the show
 * What happened between 1975 and 1978, and 1979 and 1984?
 * "International adaptations" should be expanded slightly, as should "Audition process"
 * "Portrayal in other media" should be condensed
 * Is there a special show for vision-impaired contestants, or are modifications made within the usual format?
 * Overall, it seems like this article is written for someone familiar with the show - you intended audience should be someone with no knowledge of the topic. I've watched the show before, but I still felt that there were gaps in what I learned from the article. Could you have someone unfamiliar with the show read the article?
 * For example: "Six categories are announced...The host then reads the clue". The obvious question here is "How is the first clue chosen?" Randomly? Top-left? Host chooses? Competitor chooses? If so, which competitor?


 * Other material is repeated - for example, the table showing the increasing value of clues over time appears twice

Neutrality

 * Look at WP:W2W and WP:ASF

Stability
I'm seeing quite a bit of reversion lately...no edit warring, not enough for page protection, but please remember to discuss

Images

 * Provide date in caption for image of earlier set? Also, maybe put that image under "Set" to better spread out the images

Notes on the GA review
Robert K S (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The question about the composer would probably be best resolved by altering the credit to "music" or "music by", rather than explaining a distinction between a musical composer and a writer of material, especially since it raises further issues of whether subsequent composers provided original music or merely re-arranged/supplemented Merv Griffin's original composition(s).
 * The question about Super Jeopardy! points is probably best left to the article on Super Jeopardy!
 * The name the network goes by is simply "GSN" now and no longer "Game Show Network"; thus, it would be inappropriately anachronistic to spell it out.
 * The question about college competitors being required to attend U.S. schools cannot be definitively resolved in absence of a publication of a sourceable rule. We can only say whether it has or hasn't happened in the past (I don't think any non-U.S.-school competitors have ever been invited), and such a factoid would probably be best placed in the special article for the subject (Jeopardy! College Championship).
 * The gameplay rules have already been sourced, to FN8. It doesn't matter that the link is dead (it may have been a copyvio to begin with); this booklet was widely distributed, is publicly available and therefore counts as a printed publication.  The increasing value table and some various other items in the bulleted list are exempt from strict sourcing requirements under WP:FACTS.
 * I'll leave to others the determination of whether the J! Archive should be used as a reliable source, but, from an objective perspective and as a policy matter, we ought to take exception to that site and others like it which merely compile data as being classified as "fan sites" on the (faulty) basis that they are maintained by fans of the show (as distinguished from the producers of the show or corporate entities affiliated with the show). It is, instead, an objective record of the show, and contrasts to the traditional "fan site" in that it is not merely a representation of fandom.  It bears none of the hallmarks of a fan site (fan pictures, praise for the show, opinion content or commentary, blogs, forums, gossip, rumors, etc.)—the essence of a "fan site" and what chiefly characterizes one is boosterism.  Deprecating the J! Archive as a fan site is akin to calling the CIA World Factbook a "fan publication" on the basis that it is authored by "fans" of facts.  This is not to say the J! Archive should be immune to disqualification as a reliable source on all grounds; merely that doing so on this ground is unreasoned and does not hold up to rational inquiry, and this would be true so long as any person sufficiently interested in a subject to collect facts on that subject could in any sense be termed a "fan", expanding the term to include all academics, researchers, etc.
 * Re "the obvious omission here is a complete history of the show"--this is not an omission, this is an excision. As the article grew, portions of it were spun off to child articles.  In this case, a larger history may be found in one such child article, sensibly enough called Jeopardy! broadcast history.  As for "international adaptations" and "audition process", additional expansions would unnecessarily bloat this article when suitable child articles already cover that material.