Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (game show)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2021 [1].

Greed (game show)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the short-lived Fox game show Greed, which was considered to be the network's answer to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It was hosted by Chuck Woolery of Wheel of Fortune, Love Connection, and Scrabble fame, lasting for roughly eight months from November 1999 to July 2000. This is my second FAC nomination for this article, as the first one stalled out and was eventually withdrawn for various reasons. I believe the article is much stronger than it was during the first nomination (the referencing in particular is much improved), though as always, any additional feedback is welcomed and appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • I have a question about this part, while Mark Thompson was its primary announcer. Why "primary announcer" instead of just "announcer"? Where there are other people who did announcements on the show?
  • I have two comments for this sentence: The game consisted of a team of contestants who answered a series of multiple-choice questions for a potential prize of up to $2,000,000. The first being I believe this should be all in present tense as it is referencing things that happen in the show. Second, the "The game" starter reads a little off to me. I would use a different word choice.
  • I would reword this part, although others believed Greed to be the more intriguing and, to this, although others believed Greed was the more intriguing and. It is a super minor and nitpick-y thing I know, but I think it just reads better that way.
  • For this part, After all six submit an answer, the answer is revealed, I would avoid repeating "answer" in such close proximity if possible.
  • I have two comments for this part, consisting of a Jaguar XK8 convertible and $25,000 cash (approximately $100,000 total value). Would it be possible to move both citations to the end of the sentence? I just find the current placement to hinder readability somewhat. If not, then maybe the approximate value can be made a note instead. My second comment is about the value. Is this referencing the value at the time of the show's release? Would it be beneficial to directly say it. If it makes the prose cumbersome, making this a footnote could be helpful.
  • These two sentences, Team winnings of $500,000 or more were paid as annuities. Some travel and accommodations were provided by priceline.com., do not have a citation.
  • For this sentence, Some travel and accommodations were provided by priceline.com., link Priceline.com.
  • This is more of a clarification question. Do we have any behind-the-scenes information about Super Greed? Like why the changes in format occurred?
  • I have a question about the "Production" section's structure. It seems a little odd to mention the show's cancelation and its attempted revival and reruns in the middle rather than the end. The final two paragraphs seem to focus more on the show's production and I would put that information before the parts on the cancelation to have it read more chronologically.

Here are my comments so far. I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a second time to see if there is anything else. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hi Aoba, thanks for coming back to this. I believe I have addressed all of these with the exception of Super Greed. I will look into it, haven't come across anything regarding why it was done but I'll get back to you. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. Thank you for your very fast responses. It is completely fine if you cannot find any further information about Super Greed. It was just something that I thought about while reading the article. I know that some things just do not get covered. I will most likely return to this review on Monday (so apologies for the delay). I plan on taking the day off from Wikipedia tomorrow and on Sunday, I want to focus on my own FAC review (so apologies for being selfish lol). I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a super nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. For the table in the "Payout structure" subsection, I think it would be clearer to say Greed instead of "Regular episodes".
  • For this part, who won $1,765,000 on NBC's Twenty One, I do not think it is necessary to include the network. It does not really add to the reader's understanding of this part (at least in my opinion), and other game show mentions (i.e. Sale of the Century, Win Ben Stein's Money, and Jeopardy!) do not mention the network so it is rather inconsistent. To be clear though, I would ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire as the network mention is more relevant there (to point out how Fox was responding to a rival network's success).
  • This sentence, Twenty years after Greed's premiere, Forbes's Marc Berman wrote an article titled "20 Years Later: I Still Feel The Need For Greed", arguing that the show could eventually be rebooted due to the "current era of [game show] revivals"., is rather repetitive to me as it repeats that the article was written 20 years after the show's premiere (i.e. in the opening phrase and the article title). I would try to avoid that.

Thank you again for your patience with my review. Once all my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that if you find further information on Super Greed, you will add it to the article. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything here. I did go through Newspapers.com again and all I saw were the standard news stories saying the Super Greed episodes would happen but not why they'd happen. I appreciate the comments as always! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything and for checking for further information about Super Greed. I would not be surprised if this information was just internal with the network and companies involved at the time. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. This really does inspire me to work on a game show article one of these days! Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

[edit]

We covered so much on the previous nomination; it seems the major thing I hadn't struck by the time it was withdrawn was that I felt the critical reception section was missing possible good content. I went through the refs quickly again and here's my comments so far:

  • Toronto Star articles on ProQuest via The Wikipedia Library are sometimes messed up; the page number for fn 79 is not actually 1. Luckily I have access to the images of the physical newspaper through my university's access to ProQuest, so I can verify that the article is on page A37 and was written by Antonia Zerbisias. The ProQuest id to the document is 1345366464 (docview/1345366464) in case you'd like the change that as well.
  • I don't think fn 55 New York Post is acceptable for an FA. I can't ignore the RfC result at WP:NYPOST. Factual reporting is being cited, but it was determined that the New York Post's factual reporting is generally unreliable.
  • fn 29 is issue 11 not issue 1.
  • fn 36 location=Phoenix, Arizona (according to the byline) not Austin, Texas. same for fn 90; location=New York, New York.
  • is fn 36 missing publisher= ? what is your style for including/excluding?
  • fn 59 should Los Angeles be Los Angeles, California - given the other cities have state/province after?
  • fn 61 I believe Asharq Al-Awsat should be work= not publisher=
  • fn 61 can you translate what it says like a specific quote that proves a Greed version existed?
  • So, I will be the first to admit that I don't know a word of Arabic. However, Google Translate did provide this line from the citation: "the program shown on the “LBC” screen, which is greedy, “Oh killer, you killed” and indicates from the first moment that it develops the side of greed." LBC also refers to the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation, which would seem to specify Lebanon. Finally, the article includes an image of Marcel Ghanem on a set that resembles other countries' versions of the show. While the computer translation isn't great, this would seem to me to prove that a version of the show did in fact exist in Lebanon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 69, 81 'Greed' should be italicized rather than in quotation marks
  • mmp24.pl article author appears to be Serwis Dzienny
  • when citing two pages from a book I believe it should be pp= not p=, and use an en dash (–) for page ranges, not a hyphen

Once these are resolved I will do spotchecks/other stuff. If you're interested, I have a short article with an open FA nomination that could use some more reviews at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here Is Mariah Carey/archive1. I hope you're doing better than in May! Heartfox (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thanks again! I do have one question regarding the fn 36 publisher...believe all are taken care of with the exception of fn 61 (now 60 with the NY Post ref gone). I'll get back to that in a bit. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Addressed the Lebanese/Arab World version, see my comments above. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can no longer complete the source review. I have changed the heading to "comments from Heartfox". Best of luck with the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
  • File:Greed The Series.jpg: The image has clear ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. The WP:FUR is filled out and seems appropriate for this type of image.
  • File:Dick Clark cropped.jpg: The source link leads to the photographer's Flickr profile and not to the specific image. Please modify the source link to this one, which is already used in the uncropped version.
  • File:Chuck Woolery 2004 cropped.jpg: The source link for this one also leads to the photographer's Flickr profile and not to the specific image. The uncropped version uses this link and I would recommend doing the same here. The Flickr profile says that "Some rights reserved", but I trust the note on the Wikimedia Commons page for this image. Also, the date on this one says 25 February 2010, 21:50 (UTC) but the uncropped version has 30 September 2004. I believe the 2004 date is the correct one so modify this image to reflect that.
  • File:JerrySpringerJan2011.jpg: Everything looks good with this one.
  • For the Clark, Woolery, and Springer images, I would modify the image captions to include the year the photo was taken to provide additional context for the reader.

I hope this image review is helpful. I have honestly not done a lot of these, but I have tried to be as thorough as possible. Once everything has been addressed, I will mark this image review as passed. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the image review, believe all these are addressed now. Let me know if further tweaks are needed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

While this nomination has passed an image review and gained one general support, it has been open for a month and shows little sign of gaining a consensus to promote. Unless this changes in the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I don't watch much TV, but I'll give this a look. Hog Farm Talk 20:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The series format consists of a team of contestants who answer a series of multiple-choice questions for a potential prize of up to $2 million." - The rest of the description in the lead is in past tense. Should this be in past tense as well?
  • Running time and episode count in the infobox don't seem to be in the body or cited anywhere
  • For the prize amount figure, I recommend using {{inflation}} to provide a conversion for current dollars values, as well
  • Added, though we now have an inconsistency in terms of using "million" and the template writing the number out all the way. An editor changed these citing MOS:LARGENUM, though I've always tended to lean towards keeping things consistent and it's not like the exact values of these winnings aren't known...should we keep it the way it is or go back to "X,000,000"? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with either one
  • "Versions of Greed have existed in Argentina,[60] Australia,[61] Denmark,[62] Finland,[63] France,[64] Germany,[65] Israel,[66] Italy,[67] Lebanon,[68] Poland,[69] Portugal,[70] Russia,[71] South Africa,[72] Spain,[73] Sweden,[74] Turkey,[75] United Kingdom,[76] and Venezuela" - Is there a way to rejig the UK link? It's kinda a MOS:EGG situation where it looks like you're linking to the country itself
  • " Berman, Marc (November 4, 2019). "20 Years Later: I Still Feel The Need For Greed". Forbes. Archived from the original on March 13, 2021. Retrieved February 17, 2021." - The author for this piece looks like a WP:FORBESCON situation; not sure that it's reliable enough for FAC
  • Per WP:FORBESCON: "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." Marc Berman is the founder and editor-in-chief of his own website, and per the linked page, his list of publications for whom he has written extends well beyond Forbes, including several that would no doubt be considered RS. I won't push the issue too much on this one, but would this allow him to be considered an "expert" in this subject? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DeMichael source - is this a high-quality RS? the publisher ( Marshall Publishing & Promotions, Inc) looks like it primarily publishes children's DVDs.
  • As I said in the previous FAC, I've used the book as a source before in several GANs and can't recall any pushback on it, the material seems to be accurate despite it being a smaller/lesser-known publisher. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • From the get-go, the lead seems a little short.
  • I loathe footnotes after ONE WORD. Can we not footnote that on the first mention of the show in the main body?
  • Aoba was actually the one that suggested we footnote it in the first FAC, so I obliged. I won't let it stand in the way if you insist but thought I should mention why it was done before we change it again. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why just one sentence in the lead is referenced? See MOS:LEADCITE, we should be able to move that into the main body too.
  • "is an American" was? It no longer airs.
  • I've always been told to adhere to MOS:TV, which, in the past, has always said to use "is" as the show doesn't cease to exist in history once it is no longer in production. Again, I won't let it stand in the way of a promotion, just explaining the reasoning here. (A change to "was" would also necessitate a lot of edits to a lot of articles for old television shows). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "November 4, 1999 to" comma after 1999.
  • "series format ... a series" repetitive even if they're being used in a different sense.
  • The lead doesn't really give any insight at all into why it's called Greed. What's the hook in the show format?
  • Honestly, through all the articles I've read prepping this article for GA and FAC, I haven't seen a clear answer as to where the name came from. "The Need for Greed" is a frequent tagline mentioned on-air, but anything beyond that would likely be WP:OR. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the closeness of their" closeness reads clumsily, perhaps "proximity"?
  • "and the one who " maybe "and the player who".
  • "by a random drawing" just "draw" is fine.
  • "question and answers" question and possible answers.
  • " who chooses one of them" time limit?
  • "to question 1," to the first question.
  • Any chance of including an example of the slightly complicated "remaining four questions each have four correct answers to be chosen from several options, starting with six for question five and increasing by one for each question after that"?
  • "is played (see below) prior" don't do "(see below)".
  • The "payout" table needs to comply with MOS:DTT for row/col scopes and a caption.

That's getting us up and running to "Terminator" section. My biggest issue thus far is getting my head around the various complex decision-making options! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments so far, I will address some of the simpler ones tonight and tackle the rest tomorrow. Looking forward to your further feedback as the review continues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the easy fixes. Also, several episodes are available on YouTube if you want/need to see an example of how the show works. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you've taken care of the other suggestions and I'll continue the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Ugh, sorry, this completely fell off my radar. My apologies. Should be good now. Expanded the lead and updated the table, though I still have some outstanding questions regarding the footnote at the start, MOS:TV, and perhaps using a non-free screenshot from the show. I look forward to hearing further feedback from your review. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "a toss-up question"?
  • "In the only instance in which a contestant..." this sentence is repetitive, contestant in there three times, answer twice...
  • "Only one contestant reached this level" is this the same as "In the only instance in which a contestant"??
  • So with "reached $2,550,000" isn't the lead a bit misleading when it says the top prize was $2m?
  • "on Twenty One" Twenty-One.
  • "date of Thursday, November " is the day of the week relevant?
  • "premiered with a 4.0 rating " is there a link for the millions of us who don't know what a "4.0 rating" means?
  • "viewers.[95] improving" problem.
  • "respectable 12,000,000 viewers" respectable according to whom? and rather precise!
  • "July 14, 2000 episode" comma after 2000.
  • Ref 5: "1700-1799" en-dash.
  • Ref 38: "The Arizona Republic" is a work.
  • Ref 59: same.
  • Ref 67: needs en-dash.
  • Ref 68: same.
  • Ref 69: same.
  • Washington Post references required me to subscribe.
  • ISBNs could be consistently formatted.
  • "F-L" en-dash.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this now, re: the hyphen in the inflation template, if that really is a year range (i.e. 1700 to 1799) then it should be an en-dash so it'd be worth putting a request on the template talk page to make that uncontroversial change. Might even find an admin here who'd do that.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by David Fuchs

[edit]

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Heartfox dealt with most of the outstanding issues; I think the sources used are quality enough for FA, or where I'm less sure (the foreign press) I think they're adequate for the relatively uncontroversial statements attributed to them.

Performed a spotcheck to current refs 2, 15, 28, 29, 35, 39, 56, 60, 61, 81, 93, 94, and 99. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verification fails. Really my only hesitance is the use of primary sources for a lot of the gameplay section. To some degree I feel like if it can't be appropriately cited to secondary sources, it's probably not important enough to mention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Thank you, David! Yeah, it's tough to avoid the primary sources for the gameplay section, especially since the show was only on for less than a year and had plenty of tweaks and changes along the way. I appreciate you taking the time to complete the review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to chase you David Fuchs, but is that a pass on the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is really just that the gameplay especially seems overly reliant on primary sources beyond the obvious (or stuff that feels like it would be best served by citing directly to it.) If secondary sources aren't talking about minor rule changes, I'm not sure the Wikipedia article needs to mention it either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Der Wohltemperierte. Bcschneider53 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs and Gog the Mild: My bad, I suppose I misread the last bit of David's original comments. I'll take a look and see if I can find some more sources, otherwise I'll trim out what's only mentioned by primary sources. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Okay, trimmed out some of the primary episode citations and minor gameplay tweaks and added two more newspaper refs to help establish secondary sources. My only issue is the top prize section, I'll keep searching, but it seems the primary sources are all I've got at this point, and I think it's important we mention it, especially since the only contestant who played the $2,000,000 question did it when the value was actually $2,200,000. Is this better? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks much better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greed_(game_show)/archive2&oldid=1054601299"