Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple/GA1

Failed GA

I have failed this from GA for multiple reasons:

References 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 in this diff were all from fansites. None of these seems to be reliable (one's on Geocities, one's on Freewebs). I have removed these as they do not meet WP:EL or WP:RS.
Most of the "theming and premise" section is unreferenced.
Teams: Do the team names really need to be in color like that?
Main Game: Tighten up the prose here; it seems too wordy. Too many sentences beginning with "if" as well.
Footnotes such as "...However, studio master evidence shows that new episodes were airing at least through July 1995." and "This is according to Fogg's rundown of the rules before a tiebreaker occurred; it is probable that these are the same rules used in the Steps of Knowledge." smack of original research.

In short, the article needs more reliable sources, not fansites, and maybe another copy edit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (insert your choice of profanities) Internet Explorer ate my reply, so here's an abbreviated version. Basically, after exhaustive Internet research (including subscription databases), I could only find three print sources on the show.

The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows has about a quarter page of information on the show. It has a mostly complete list of people involved in production (which is why it is cited in the beginning of the article). However, it glosses over many details of the show's gameplay.
An article in the Los Angeles Times from July 10, 1994 about the show (Mendoza. "Shows for Youngsters and Their Parents Too: Nickelodeon and the 'Temple' of Treasure Mix History and Games." p.7). The article contains a few producer comments, as well as a little gameplay description (even less than EOTVGS) and a little behind-the-scenes.
A Variety article from February 17, 1994 about the show's timeslot change and renewal for a second season (Flint. "Stone Stanley Inks for Firstrun with Nick, ESPN"). Zero gameplay detail, but there might be stuff in this article to beef up the broadcast history section.

These articles gloss over many important aspects of the subject (for instance, not one of them mentions the names of the teams), which is a necessary component of a Good Article. Hence, I believe the two deleted sources, while not the most reliable, can still be used as reliable sources for this article. While they are self-published (which is one strike against them), I believe they are still reliable for the following reasons.

They are run by a webmaster; hence, the quality and veracity of the information can be attributed to a single person or group of people in each case.
Those webmasters are considered experts on the subject on the largest forum on the show I've seen (Phantom's Temple). While this is not a reliable third-party certification of the webmasters as experts, it's the best one can get, since journalists have concurred that a show that has been out of production for 12 years is not worth writing about in print.
The sources are mainstream, do not present fringe views, and mostly agree with each other (most differences between the two sources are additions and omissions, not contradictions).

Thus, while the sources are not the most reliable one could hope for, they're the best that can be found. Thus, I believe them to be reliable enough for this article. Let me know what you think. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]