Template:Did you know nominations/The Almost Impossible Game Show


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is going nowhere - consensus seems to be tending towards ukgamesshows.com not being a suitably reliable source for most facts.

The Almost Impossible Game Show

 * ... that The Almost Impossible Game Show is based on a German format?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Du'a Arafah

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I think there could potentially be a very interesting or funny hook for this article, especially if the hook mentions one of the games from the show, but there are two problems with this nomination at the moment. First, per WP:DYKSG D6, the dispute tags should be resolved. Additionally, per WP:DYKSG D7, the unexpanded headers should be expanded . I am happy to review this again later once these issues are resolved. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What unexpanded headers? They've all got at least one subsection.-- Laun  chba  ller  07:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After taking a closer look at this, it does appear that the unexpanded headers do, in fact, have expanded subsections. I was thrown off by the fact that the major headers are the same size/font as the minor headers. Although this may technically satisfy the requirements for D7, I think there may be a better way to present this information. Maybe you can put it into a table? Also, have you thought about using one of the games from the show as the basis for a hook? I think that could potentially be more interesting than telling readers the show was based on a German format. Once you resolve the issues with the dispute tags, I will take another look at this nomination. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference, as the contents page shows. I have college now but I'll have a look later in the day.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg, I took another look at this article and looks much improved. Nice work! However, the text of the article is below the 1500 character minimum (right now, it is just under 1100 characters). Also, the games on this show sound very funny; is there a way we can think of a clever hook that involves some of the crazy tasks contestants must perform? I think most Wikipedia readers have never heard of this game show, so a hook about the games will likely be more interesting than a hook about the show's origins. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. There was a source I was aware of anyway I just made a critical reception section out of.
 * ALT1: ... that challenges in The Almost Impossible Game Show involve challengers not only trying to shake croissants off their crotch but thrust teabags into it? -- Laun  chba  ller  10:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg It looks like ALT1 is good to go. The article has been expanded above 1500 characters, the article was created two days before the nomination, and the article satisfies core policies. However, I would be careful to stay consistent with the use of "contestant" or "contestants" in the game summaries, and I would also clean up the internal quotation marks in the "Critical reception" section. QPQ is satisfied, and there are no images used in the article. ALT1 is under 200 characters and it is supported by citations to the episodes (though I would clarify in the article that the croissants are attached to their "groins," rather than their "suits"). The hook is definitely interesting, and I am a little surprised that the show awards no prize money for completing these crazy tasks. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging you rather than just changing it boldly myself since the nomination was already approved, but there are grammar issues with ALT1. It should be one or the other of these versions (underlining for clarification of the differences only): Since that final "them" in ALT1b is ambiguous, my recommendation would be to go with ALT1a. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 07:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1a ... that challenges in The Almost Impossible Game Show involve each participating challenge r trying to not only shake croissants off their crotc h but also thrust teabags into it ?
 * ALT1b ... that challenges in The Almost Impossible Game Show involve challenge rs trying to not only shake croissants off their crotc hes but also thrust teabags into their crotches ?
 * Thanks for double checking the grammar, . I have struck ALT1 above. I agree that the final "them" in ALT1b is a little ambiguous, but I think the word "each" in ALT1a may also be problematic because it implies that every person in the challenge will be doing the shake/thrust, when only a portion of the challengers may be doing those actions (I've never seen the show, so I'm not sure how the challenge works). How do you feel about replacing the word "them" with "their crotches" to resolve the ambiguity? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, . I see what you mean about ALT1a; I've added the word "participating" to it to cover not all contestants necessarily being part of every challenge. I also changed ALT1b per your suggestion. Both ALT1a and ALT1b are still well under 200 characters. I also italicized the show title, which we had all overlooked previously. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thanks, . Both ALT1a and ALT1b look good to me! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I pulled this back from prep after the hook and article were revised on the fly, and when I realized that the hook comes from the article's author viewing the show and writing what he saw. There don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources—the British Comedy Guide is a by-fans-for-fans site, Bother's Bar is a blog, and UKGameshows.com is a wiki and recently established as insufficiently reliable. There isn't even a written primary source. The sourcing comes down to three different episodes of the show, and that's just not sufficient to support a DYK nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , when I initially reviewed this article, I checked to make sure the sources conformed to Wikipedia's policies for reliable sources. I concluded that the citations to television episodes were appropriate, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:WPNOTRS, because the article included "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source", rather than interpretations or inferences based on the source material. I also concluded the British Comedy Guide was reliable because all contributions are vetted by the website's editors. I was not aware of the fact that UKGameshows.com is a Wiki, and the article cites a weekly review column that has apparently been published on a weekly basis since 2001. When I did a google search, I noticed that other authors have apparently considered the website a reliable source (see, e.g., this book). If there is consensus that it is not a reliable source, then I will follow the consensus. In any event, I hope this explains my thought-process and why I thought this article satisfied relevant policy considerations when I initially conducted my review. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where were you at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198? You would have been useful. I will set about removing the British Comedy Guide references another time.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)