User talk:Tlbro0/sandbox

Suggestions

Maybe go into detail of each episode or season. If each season has a theme. -There were no themes, it was all about the gaming and made an effort to try and be random. However, a lack of games trumped that.

Talk about highlights of some of the episodes. For instance if something big happened in one episode that made it memorable. -Nothing memorable

Give a source where you said team zombie won one of the tournaments. -Can be done

Maybe add a picture of the set and or an episode. -Can be done once I figure out how to add images

Add challenges the show faced -Funding seemed to be the chief issue. The station did all it could according to the documentary.

What was their audience -There was a small audience, likely test audiences or used for effect (e.g. "applause sign").

What were they successful at    -Holding a time slot for a few years.

Detail the growth and progression of the show -No real growth, the issues of funding were constant throughout the show's existence.

Expand about the scandal of why the two hosts left -The two hosts left due to personal issues with the staff, namely the producers. This was all explained in the cited source, I can put in a quote if necessary.

Discuss the structure of the show, expand on what happens in the show -You mean the rules of each episode?

Break it up into different sections. For instance history of show, describe the show, audience, etc. -Episodes have been listed already with titles, dates aired and in chronological order. There are also separations made to specify which episodes are from which seasons. The history has already been explained, I'm not sure how I would explain the small test audiences that were used.

Nickaveni125 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional Questions for Article Evaluation  -You have one source. Make sure to add sources for each fact. For instance when you talk about who wins the tournament, or when the show moved stages.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

-Everything seemed relevant to the topic. Nothing distracted my attention away from the primary topic.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

-This article stayed very factual. There were no claims made or opinions expressed.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

-The source seems to be a factual unbiased source. There were no claims made in the source, just facts presented.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that biased noted?

-See comments above.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

-The links work fine
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

-See comments above
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Nickaveni125 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your responses will be graded on a 10-point scale, based on quality and depth of response. TinyDynamo (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)