Talk:Wheel of Fortune (American game show)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks like solid work; thanks again for your time on this one. I only have a few quibbles here so far, found below.

"After discussing the idea with Merv Griffin Enterprises staff, they thought" -- this seems like it might be a dangling modifier, unless I'm misunderstanding who "they" is here. Perhaps "After Griffin discussed the idea with his staff, they thought"?
"apart of off-network syndication" -- should this be "a part of"? Or "apart from"? I'm not quite following this sentence.
"current" -- per WP:WTW (under criterion 1b): "Prefer specific statements of time to general ones. Don't say, "Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith." Instead say, "A Gallup poll in June 2013 showed that Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since January." When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline"

This article has a few points you might rewrite under this guideline:

" Amanda Stern is the current producer,"
"The production is currently designed by Renee Hoss-Johnson"
"Frankie Blue and John Hoke wrote the program's current theme"
"Thus far throughout the 30th season"
" most often in the present television season." (this also probably needs a citation) -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Tiny grammar point above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~See minor WTW points above.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some sections of the article are unsourced, but I believe everything this criterion requires to be sourced, is. Randy West's website seems questionable as a reliable source, but again, the claims that it supports don't seem to be the sort that require citations for GA anyway.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Looking at a few other web sources on Wheel of Fortune history, I don't see anything important left out.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Infobox image needs a caption ("Title card for Wheel of Fortune Season 30"?)
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Took care of most of the "current"isms and all other issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. Looks almost ready to go, but one more "current"ism needs to be addressed, the "Thus far throughout the 30th season," It looks like this stat dates to November 2012, and this week's Nielsen (which is linked to) actually shows Wheel in 3rd place. Is there a way to check a quarterly or yearly report that could replace the "thus far"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to find a more longterm source, but I've appended it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this claim simply needs to be removed? It concerns me that we've gone from "regularly placed second" to "regularly placed third"; next week the statistic may change again, and the language here doesn't really address the ephemeral nature of this statistic. I'm also not sure what the source is for "Wheel came in second place in syndication behind first-place finisher Judge Judy in the 29th season (2011–12)", but I'm not particularly good at reading TV ratings figures, so I apologize if I'm just missing this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have suggested this on the previous version anyway, but particularly now that it's so short-- would you be amenable to removing the two subsection headers here? Per WP:LAYOUT (also part of criterion 1b), "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.". I think these two paragraphs would be self-explanatory under the header "Reception" without subheads. If you're up for that, this should be good to go. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for the fast responses. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]