Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Catch 21/1

Catch 21

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 11 sources, six are from GSN itself and one is a press release. This is extremely poor sourcing for a supposed GA class article.
About.com link is dead. The death of sources was addressed on the talk page in 2014 but nobody did anything.
I'm not sure that About.com or Hollywood Junket are reliable sources. This leaves very little in terms of actual verifiable secondary content.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Admittedly this is probably a bit weak for a GA as it stands, but I thought it was the best I could do given the limited resources of GSN shows at the time (and, as evidenced by the promotion, at least one other person seemed to agree). Regardless, that was three years ago and my researching skills have improved since then, so maybe there's some more stuff out there (especially now that it's back).

I have fixed the former About.com link; regarding reliability, I have used the two in numerous GAs before and haven't had many issues with it, nor have the sights ever to my knowledge deliberately given out false information. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is more that very few sources are not from GSN in some fashion. Compared to the level of detail some GSN originals get this is practically the Lord of the Rings books. The reboot of this show has just started too, meaning there might be a chance to gather more information on both the original and rebooted runs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly what I am hoping. We have a few GSN originals at FA and many more at GA because of what's available, but some get more press than others. Hopefully this revival leads to discovering some more sources (and it seems MWright96 has already gathered a few below as well). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96

I admit the review that was done three years ago was weak and did not review the aspects raised above. Here are some points that I have: MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main game

The first, second and third paragraphs in the main game subsection should be referenced entirely with no gaps left available.

I believe this is Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the remaining contestant simply continues drawing cards until either beating the highest frozen hand or busting." - I don't believe the word "simply" is needed in this instance

Removed --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Online game

"Playing exactly five cards in a column earns the player a bonus," - what sort of bonus is awarded to the player?

Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Have found some secondary sources that should alleviate the primary sources problem:
- Dempsey, John (July 7, 2008). "GSN shuffles 'Catch 21'". Variety.
- Reynolds, Mike (July 7, 2008). "GSN Looks To Hit Big With 'Catch 21'". Multichannel News.
- "'Catch 21' situation for GSN". The Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. July 6, 2008.
- Moyer, Philip (May 28, 2019). "Game show 'Catch 21' searching for Vegas contestants with blackjack skills". KSNV.
- Lawrence, Christopher (October 11, 2019). "Las Vegas a perfect match for 'Catch 21' game show". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
- P. Hill, Michael (October 7, 2019). "Game Show Network keeps host, shuffles its look for new 'Catch 21'". NewscastStudio.

The latter two sources are particularly helpful for expanding the production section. That is all I have for now. MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Added all of these. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is another further source I located and added above that could further help in the article's development. MWright96 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MWright96. TenPoundHammer, could you give me the weekend to work on this? I am busy today but should have some time tomorrow. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mikki Padilla is no longer the dealer, and this needs to be reflected in the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I assume you mean in the caption, I'll expand overall with updates later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: thanks for your good work. The article looks significantly better now, and I think it's good enough to keep as GA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am happy that the changes to the article now satisfy the GA criteria. MWright96 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]