Talk:Jeopardy!/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 04:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quickfailing this article. Many problems with GA1 unresolved. There are more deadlinks now than were listed at GA1 according to the external links tool to the right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous entire paragraphs without any citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:WIAGA before resubmitting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

I have taken care of all the dead links in this article. For the majority I used Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine", but for two links for which I could not retrieve archived versions, I simply eliminated their dead links, but retained the citations themselves. For those paragraphs that lacked citations when the article was quickfailed, I have added citations to such paragraphs.

I saw that one of the problems that led the article to be quickfailed was the article being too long. To do this, I condensed the "Merchandise" section to a basic summary (while simultaneously restoring the child article for merchandising, which I had unknowingly merged into the parent article months ago without allowing for discussion, on the grounds that it was not entirely comprised of original research - the Jeopardy! video games, for instance, are notable, as they had been discussed by a reliable source: IGN). I also removed unsourced cultural references from the "Portrayals in other media" section, and made various other edits and modifications. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 04:04, Monday, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the apparent illogicality of the format, in which the "correct" answers often fail to make any logical or grammatical sense as questions eliciting the response posed, which is the oddest and most confusing feature of this game, is still not adequately explained. 86.171.43.236 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would constitute POV and/or original research unless verifiable against a reliable source. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 03:32, Monday, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
  - So would many things, no doubt. 86.146.104.35 (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]