Talk:The American Bible Challenge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this soon. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 09:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Infobox: No issues; image is fine.

Main game: How many teams are there? How many players are in each team? You can work out that there are 3 players in each of 3 teams (I think) from later information, but this should be explicitly mentioned early on in the section.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Final Revelation: I don't really understand the last sentence. It says they win $100K and "all previous winnings" — I didn't think they earned money (only points) throughout the game. Does it mean winnings in previous episodes that season? This probably needs to be explained a bit better.
 * Yes, ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Previous rules:
 * "The question had 3 possible choices" — This seems a bit clunky; I would integrate it into the previous sentence.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Would it be better to change "+/-" to "±"?
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Production:
 * The green-light in March doesn't appear to be cited. Is it supposed to be sourced to the Schmidt book?
 * It appears they never confirmed it had been given the green-light until they announced its premiere date. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The links in references #6, #7, #11 and #12 don't work. They should send you to the Bibliography subsection.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review the rest of the article shortly. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasons:
 * Explicitly state that the first two seasons had nine episodes — this is later apparent with the phrase "The third season once again consisted of nine episodes", but not mentioned under the Season 1 or Season 2 subsections.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It talks about "champions of the foo season": does this mean that teams recur over multiple shows, there are finals, semifinals etc. or something else? This might need to be explained under the Gameplay section, and maybe the lists of winners from each season would belong under there somewhere as well.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reception:
 * Is it worth inserting "in 2014" after  (or after the word "honored" in the same sentence)?
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph repeats information from the first sentence of Season 1; info about ratings belongs under Seasons or Reception, but not both. I'd replace the sentence under Season 1 with the content currently under Reception, as the former contains an incorrect date (August 21) and is less detailed.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Merchandise: No issues.

External links: It might just be my eyes/computer screen, but the external links appear to be smaller than normal. I can't spot a  tag or anything that should make the text any smaller, but is there a coding error here somewhere?
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead:
 * Jeff Foxworthy is described as a "American stand-up comedian and television personality"; this is perhaps too detailed for the lead and not mentioned anywhere else. I'd mention that he's a comedian under Production somewhere, and remove the above phrase from the lead.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I also think it'd be good to do something similar with Kirk Franklin.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The gameplay section takes up a large portion of the article, but doesn't get a mention in the lead. Could you briefly summarize how the game works in the first paragraph?
 * ✅? Let me know if it needs to be tweaked. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

References and categories etc look good. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I am currently involved in an FAC right now which has priority over this, but I'll try to respond to your comments as soon as I can. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ with everything, let me know if there are still issues that need to be fixed. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything I've addressed has been fixed. I've just spotted one more thing:  (under Production) doesn't have an inline citation — is it sourced to the Schmidt book? — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll tweak. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed. Pass for GA. :) — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 17:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)