Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeopardy!/1

Jeopardy!

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

Result: Keep It seems like this discussion has run its course and folks are pleased with the improvements. I see the maintenance tags have been addressed. Thanks all for your work keeping this up to code. Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for Good article reassessment for multiple reasons. The citation needed, page needed and Miscellaneous info tags alone would be more than enough, but there are also of couple a potential WP:COPYVIO Youtube refs (157 and 158), and the awards section doesn't talk about or source the specific awards in prose but rather just makes it dependent on a unsourced Succession box list. It may have met the criteria at the time it was promoted, but I don't think anyone predicted how even more popular this show got and thus there were probably less experienced editors infiltrating the article with unsourced info and trivia. Nonetheless, the issues are significant enough for a reassessment. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in regards to the awards section- I came upon that recently and there is certainly no need to list predecessors or successors of when the show did win. Something similar to Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series)#Awards and nominations would probably be more preferable. Would I be fine to go ahead and do that when I get a chance? Magitroopa (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever it takes to improve this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wasn't the one who did most of the work to promote this to GA (that would be SethAllen623) but I do remember when this was going through the nomination process. I am away this weekend but am willing to work when I get back...let me know if anything else needs to be done beyond reference/source fixes and improvements. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, my apologies. I looked at the edit history and it wasn't clear who the nominator was, so I assumed it was you. Sorry. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can take a look at this. The article has gotten rather bloated with fancruft and I've tried to chainsaw some of it out, but it just keeps getting worse. I'm sure we can make this one a True Daily Double. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does this article stand now @Ten Pound Hammer, HumanxAnthro, and Bcschneider53:. Aircorn (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Aircorn (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

missed @Magitroopa:. Aircorn (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Haven't had much time to take a look. I did try to trim some bloated text but I could use help on fixing the awards section and seeking feedback on what other bloat to remove. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: I know what I said above, but you're more than welcome to do that if you want to. I might check it out/redo the table tomorrow (currently 3:40am for me...)- just had never gotten around to it, like a whole bunch of other stuff I've been wanting to get to. I've been in the Jeopardy-mood lately (and have been cleaning up Mike Richards (television personality) since the recent news...), so will try to use that to my advantage. :P Magitroopa (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some of the mentioned issues. The rest seems alright, good enough to keep it as a good article in my opinion. Aircorn (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent scandal involving the newly-announced host (who was shortly thereafter out following the scandal about his sexual comments) may affect the article's stability, so I'd wait until that settles so that we can come to a conclusion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @HumanxAnthro: How about now? It is coming up five months which is long enough. I can close it myself if you are happy with the article, or I will request a closure from an uninvolved editor. Aircorn (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - This needs a citation: "In the show's history with Trebek's version, there were only six occasions where all three contestants ended the game with zero dollars." Also, it's been that long already? 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]