Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (game show)/archive1

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 May 2021 [1].

Greed (game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 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. The article just passed a GA nomination last month. I've brought a handful of game show articles to FA status before, but it's been a few years since I've been at FAC, so any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I do not return to post my review by this time next week, please ping me. This article brings back fond memories of watching GSN reruns with my mom when I was in middle school. I just have one quick comment right now. The part about Jerry Springer being a host needs a citation as it is currently not supported by anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I am curious on why citations are used in the infobox rather than putting that information in the article with the citations there? Either way is appropriate, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind this choice.
  • It looks like most of the information in the infobox is not supported by a citation. This includes Bob Levy being the director, the Fox Television Center being the location, Floyd Ingram being the editor, and the names of the distributors. This information should be supported by citations.
  • There are a handful of references in the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire article (a GA) that simply cite "End credits lists of appropriate U.S. Millionaire episodes." Would something similar be sufficient here? I'd imagine it would be difficult to find anything else since the Internet was in its infancy in 1999 and most webpages dedicated to the show are long gone... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding, it is better to cite this information through other sources rather than using the episodes as primary sources. You only mention webpages above, but have you looked into newspapers, magazines, or books? Newspapers.com is a good source for newspapers. In the past, I have found this kind of production information on past shows in these sources. This show was run on a major television network so I would imagine this information can be found somewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I've checked Newspapers.com the best I can and cannot seem to find a thing about any of these four things. I went back and watched the premiere episode and verified Levy as the director (at 1:26:49 here), so I've gone ahead and used the cite episode template for that one and removed the others where a keyword search came up empty. Let me know if you think this can be resolved better. In the meantime, I'll get to work on the rest. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am honestly uncertain about this. I would not have any issue with sourcing this information through episode (especially since they are readily available for viewing), but I would like to hear from other editors as I am not experienced enough in this matter to confidentially say one way or another with certainty. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I'm the nominator so I shouldn't have the final say, but I've always been under the impression that it's a primary/secondary sort of scenario? Citing the episodes is essentially using a primary, direct source, which from my experience is allowed when necessary, albeit better if it can be further backed up by secondary sources if possible. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is a primary/secondary scenario. I have seen instances where primary sources are acceptable and other instances where it was not accepted. The likely answer is it depends entirely on context, with secondary being preferable but primary being acceptable if there are not any sources available. I guess I am more surprised that there is not a source that lists the production credits, when I have found similar credits for obscure shows that do not have full episodes anywhere on the internet. But, it is likely judged based on context, but I would feel more comfortable getting more feedback if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's completely fair. I admittedly have minimal experience with Newspapers.com, but the few sources that did turn up for me in my keyword searches were mostly just TV listings. Google and the Wayback Machine turned up very little as well. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formally known as bit in the lead reads somewhat awkwardly to me. I think this information may be better represented in a footnote rather than as a parenthetical in the first sentence. That way, you can also include a citation to support this alternate name.
  • This part from the lead, that premiered on Fox on November 4, 1999, and last aired on July 14, 2000, with a total of 44 episodes in one season, seems unnecessarily wordy. I would condense it down to something like the following, that aired on Fox for on season between November 1999 and July 2000. I do not think the amount of episodes or even the exact premiere and finale dates are notable enough to be mentioned here.
  • I have a comment related to this part in the lead, with Mark Thompson serving as primary announcer. I would avoid that kind of sentence construction (i.e. with X verb-ing) as it is normally discouraged in FA writing.
  • I have two points about the tagline in the lead. The citation seems unnecessary to me. I have rarely seen citations used in the lead of a television article (and in those cases, citations are used to support controversial or contested information or when quotes are absolutely necessary or very beneficial to the reader). If the tagline remains in the lead, I would mention it in the article and cite it there. But that leads into my second point. Is it necessary to have the tagline in the lead at all? I have not really seen taglines used in television article's leads and this one does not seem particularly noteworthy to me.
  • In the lead, I would link ratings and timeslot. Most readers will likely be familiar with these things, but I think it is always beneficial to remember readers who may not be that familiar with more television-specific jargon.

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I only have relatively nitpick-y comments for the lead, but I do see some sourcing issues with the infobox that should be sorted out. Thank you to Nikkimaria for doing the image review below. My review will be mostly focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to hearing further suggestions for improvement. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I will try to post my full review of the rest of the article sometime later this week. I have one more comment. If you are citing resources in foreign languages, I believe it is necessary to provide the English translation of the resource's title. There is a parameter for this in the citation template. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the "Gameplay" section would be in present tense rather than past tense.
  • It has been a while since I have seen this show so my memory is very hazy at best. I am not really sure what this part means, the contestant with the guess farthest from the correct answer was eliminated How can you be the farthest from the correct answer? I would think you are either right or wrong without any grey area in between?
  • The answer was always a number between 10 and 999. So for example, if the exact correct answer was 100, there's a good chance a contestant who answered 500 would be furthest away of the six. I think I've hopefully clarified this a bit in the gameplay section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of surviving contestants, I would use remaining contestants as the current wording sounds odd in this context.
  • The word "contestant" is used a lot in the article. I understand why given we are talking about a game show, but I think instances like the first paragraph of the "Qualifying round" cross over into excessive, especially where it is repeated twice in the same sentence.
  • Removed a couple, let me know if you think more should be done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I would recommend avoiding the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as seen here, with the contestant who had the closest guess becoming the team's captain. I would look through the article as a whole to find any instances of this and revise it.
  • Again, I have not seen the show in a while, but I vaguely remember the caption sometimes consulting with his or her team about whether or not they should quit or progress to another question. Would that be beneficial to point out (if it is true of course)?
  • While the other contestants are free to make their case, but the captain still ultimately makes the decision on their own. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, he/she was given a guaranteed, reads a little awkwardly as I believe this is the only time you use these kinds of pronouns in the article so it seems to go against the style already established in other areas of the article.
  • I do not think this part, each team member again individually decided to quit with their share of the team's collective, makes sense as the previous sections mentions that the captain can quit not the individual team members. I would also say can decide to quit instead.
  • I am uncertain what this sentence means: When the program became a permanent series, the top prize was changed to a flat $2,000,000. What do you mean by "a permanent series"?
  • Just means it was picked up by Fox for the remainder of the season and for more than the first few episodes that were rushed to order to compete with Millionaire. Woolery briefly mentioned this at the end of the last episode before they changed the top prize to a flat $2,000,000, which is when it was first called "Greed: The Series". --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the part about who beat Warren's record needs to be a separate paragraph.
  • Please clarify in this sentence, It was considered to be Fox's response to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire., how is doing the considering. Was it television critics, audiences, people at the network? It is too vague right now.
  • Do we know what day and time this show aired?
  • Thursday nights at the start, though it eventually became Friday nights to avoid going head-to-head with Milionaire. I think this information is reflected in the production section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the tagline not used for the show? The way that it is worded right after what the show would have originally been called gives off the impression (at least to me) that the tagline was also not used in the final product.
  • Woolery occasionally referred to it on air (e.g. "Welcome to Greed, the richest, most dangerous game in America"). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part has not been addressed. I do not think it makes sense to pair the tagline in the same sentence with the initial show title as it gives off the impression that both are ideas for the show that ultimately did not make it in the final product. Since they are separate ideas without any real connection, I would advise you to separate them into different sentences. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the short, one-paragraph subsections in the "Production" section as it does make the information rather choppy. My primary concern is more so with the "Set" subsection rather than the "Audition process" one.
  • I have a comment about this part, noted the inspiration from science fiction in his set, specifically from Star Trek and various castle settings in other video games. Given how it ends (i.e. and various castle settings in other video games), I think this could give off the wrong impression to an unfamiliar reader that Star Trek is one of these video games. I would solve this by just saying in video games.
  • I would be careful of how quotes are used in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. Both the Pierce and Millman sentences used long quotes from their sources and I would limit the length of the quotes used and paraphrase more to give a better understanding of what the critics are saying.
  • I am uncertain about the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the "Reception" section (i.e. Favorability for Greed improved over time.) as "over time" implies to me a longer time span than only a few days. For instance, Pierce's review was published on November 10 while two of these "later" reviews were put out on November 17 and November 18. I think a better topic sentence can be used here, particularly one that more clearly represents this part of the lead, others believed Greed to be the more intriguing and dramatic of the two programs.
  • Could you expand on the Caryn James sentence? The "a success for Fox" quote is not particularly helpful so I would remove it and instead expand on how this show was more dramatic.
  • For small quotes like this ("has fared passably well."), the punctuation should be on the outside of the quotes. Punctuation should only be on the inside of the quotes when citing full sentences
  • Does Berman provide an explanation on why he would like the series to be revived? I would think there is more information here since he wrote an entire article about it.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Also, a friendly reminder that two of my previous points (citations for information represented in the infobox and the translated titles in the citations) need to be addressed too. Have a wonderful rest of your week and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I believe these have all been addressed, let me know if you find anything else on the second run-through. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses and apologies for the length of the review. The article looks very good to me. I am on the fence about the use of the Jerry Springer image, but since that passed without any issue in an image review, it should be good. I would like to wait to hear other editors' opinions on if episodes can be used as the primary sources for production credits. I personally do not have any issue with it, but I would like to hear other people's opinions before formally supporting. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After taking a day to reflect on this, I have decided to support the article for promotion. I trust that the nominator did their best to find secondary sources to support the production credits so I think the use of primary sources (i.e. episodes) should be okay. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Quick question: Where was Furman & Furman 2000 accessed? Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I own a personal copy of the book. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999. Each contestant enters their answers using a keypad in front of them." → failed verification
  • Removed, noting that it was on a keypad is probably excessive anyway. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim "Six contestants are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999" is not apparent in the book pages given. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning with the show's April 28, 2000 episode (the first episode of Super Greed) and continuing for the rest of the show's run, the qualifying round was eliminated," → but how can you cite one episode and not know it was Super Greed before/after then?
  • "although some of the episodes that aired in June 2000 still featured the qualifying question" → only one episode is cited
  • Reworked this section, only the college episode is fully available on YouTube so it's tough to verify the rest. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From April 28 to May 19, 2000, the show was known as Super Greed." → only the April 28 episode is cited.
  • You can move the footnote to the end of the sentence.
  • fn 43 is by Zap2it, so I would put that in the agency= parameter. It also has a dateline of Los Angeles, so I would add place=Los Angeles.
  • "reruns of Greed have been broadcast on Game Show Network (GSN) at times since January 2002" → but the source is from 2002, how can it be "since"?
  • Tweaked, ref indeed only verifies GSN acquiring the show in the first place. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 2 date differs from website.
  • I have no idea what the deal is with this one. The date in the url is reflected in the citation, and the context of the article makes it clear it was written in 2000 rather than 2005, so I went with the former. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes Mental Floss worthy of citing in a FA?
  • As I can recall, I've never had any pushback on it myself, though I've replaced it with a source from The Atlantic. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warren was the program's biggest winner ... and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time; combined with an earlier six-figure winning streak on Sale of the Century in 1986" → not in source.
  • "Warren was the program's biggest winner with $1,410,000 and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time" → Is it explicitly mentioned in the episode that he was its biggest winner, and that he was the biggest U.S. game show winner of all time?
  • Woolery only mentioned on air that Warren had broken the record for biggest game show winner of all time, which obviously means he would have been Greed's biggest winner too. Since no one after Warren won the $2,000,000 prize, Warren ended up being the program's biggest winner through its conclusion. This LA Times source appears to mention Warren as No. 4 all time while Ken Jennings was on Jeopardy!, would this be sufficient for citing him as Greed's biggest winner too? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of the same problem with "Daniel Avila was the only contestant to reach this level, risking his $200,000 individual winnings to play for the top prize (which had been increased to $2,200,000 as it was during Greed's progressive jackpot shows) on the episode that aired on November 18, 1999" → it can't say "only contestant" but cite one episode.
  • The DeMichael book notes that only one contestant reached this level, though it does not explicitly mention Avila by name, so I reworked the phrasing around it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it can be cited for Greed's biggest winner.
  • "won $1,765,000" → source does not give the figure to thousands.
  • "Warren's record was shortly thereafter as David Legler won $1,765,000 on NBC's Twenty One" → sources do not mention Legler beating Warren's record. Someone else could have beaten it in the interim.
  • Same LA Times source I proposed above mentions Olmstead and Toutant at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, followed by Legler at 3 and Warren right behind at 4. Both Olmstead and Toutant's wins happened after Legler, which would imply Legler broke Warren's record. I think we could use this source for both of these above two points, but wanted to explain my reasoning here and get the green light from you before doing so. Would this work? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes.
  • suggest moving fn 32 to end of sentence
  • fn 33; is there better source than something that looks to be self-published
  • This is tricky because Thompson was pretty much under the radar on Greed, never referred to on air...this is the only source I could find. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would need to be removed unless a better source can be cited.
  • Is this not a case of primary sources being better than no source at all? It's clearly Thompson's voice, not to mention he was with Fox for several other programs at the time, some of them game shows. If this is the difference between a support and an oppose I won't let it stand in the way. But I feel removing it entirely would be like omitting Johnny Gilbert from Jeopardy! or Rod Roddy from The Price Is Right. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it meets WP:ABOUTSELF unfortunately, because it involves a third party (an employer). Is he not listed in the credits of the show?
  • It's crazy but unless I've overlooked it in the credits of episodes readily available, I don't believe he was. Fortunately, I believe I have a TV encyclopedia source that credits Thompson, which I accessed through a Google Books search and have brought into the bibliography. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Los Angeles Times, New York Times refs look to be url-status=limited
  • Tried changing this but it came back as an invalid parameter on my end? I assume it's because non-subscribers only get a limited number of free articles, but when I went to change the status to limited, it gave me an invalid message in the references section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies; I meant url-access, not url-status. This also applies to The Atlantic. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ProQuest links are url-access=subscription.
  • fn 41 is from a WP:FORBESCON, and is more opinion than fact I think, so I would only use it for his opinion in the reception section. Are there other sources that point to Gail Berman?
  • Haven't seen one yet but I'll check, I'd imagine there might be something that discusses the general shift in Fox's strategy even if it doesn't mention Greed explicitly. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the Forbes contributor citation from statements about third parties. The article in The York Dispatch is by the Los Angeles Daily News so that would be the agency= and it has a dateline of Pasadena, so I would add place=Pasadena, California. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " as Greed was created before Berman's time at the network" → no source given
  • "Greed premiered with a 4.0 rating in adults 18–49" → not in fn 76
  • I highly suggest providing complete viewership/ratings for the premiere (and finale if possible). For example, this Newspapers.com clipping shows it got 9.86 million viewers, which is more useful than "nearly 10,000,000".
  • Done for the premiere, will check the finale (though it should also be noted that there was nothing particularly special about the last episode due to the show's abrupt cancellation). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Did it air outside of the United States?

  • Not to my knowledge, the format was licensed internationally but I do not believe the American version was broadcast itself. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I saw a piece on ProQuest that it aired on Global in Canada. Maybe try searching again. Also for the ProQuest links you only need to do https://proquest.com/docview/<the document number>/ and you can remove all the excess wikipedialibrary.idm stuff, as well as [FINAL Edition] from the title as it's just the newspaper edition not the actual title of the article. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there are sources in The Wikipedia Library that have not been consulted. For example, this USA Today article has valuable background/production info but is not used in the article. There are also many unused reviews which would enhance the critical reception section. I will have to oppose because I don't think it is well-researched enough and there are issues with text-source integrity. I would not consider this article "complete" at the moment. Heartfox (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for your review. I'm sorry to hear you don't think this is well-researched enough, especially since I've done just as much (if not more) research for this show than any of my other game show FAs. That's not to say there isn't more out there, of course, so I'll do my best to see what else is out there and hopefully change your opposition into support. I do, however, hope most of the text-source integrity issues have been fixed now and that I can clean up the last few shortly. Feel free to give this a second look to see if my changes have indeed addressed your concerns. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please take your time and I will come back in a few days and respond to the comments and probably leave more. I anticipate my oppose will be temporary. I am checking Furman & Furman at archive.org, and unless it's a different edition, some statements in the article still don't match the book (so maybe I would just cite the premiere instead for those basic facts if they aren't in a secondary source). Heartfox (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Thank you for your patience. I believe I have addressed the final few bullet points, and I would appreciate a second look to ensure I didn't miss anything. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find some more reviews. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck comments addressed and replied to other ones. I am also noticing there is not specific source for the program last airing on July 4? The cancellation date is not necessarily the last broadcast date. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the 14th? I have another book source that lists July 14 as the end date, I'll go ahead and add it in as I continue to address the rest of these points. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I think all the points have been addressed (or at least noted) now. Ready for another look to see what still needs to be done. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Further updates made, many thanks again for your patience. Hopefully we're getting close. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the original comments have been addressed, and I've struck my oppose. I'm not sure about the reliability of the DeMichael book to be honest; what is Marshall Publishing and Promotions? I'll reread the article and leave more comments soon. It looks much better so far! Heartfox (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Marshall is admittedly a smaller, independent publishing company, although a) I've used the book for a GA or two before and b) I've never had any problems, nor I have I discovered any factual errors (intentional or otherwise) in the book. Glad to see all the issues from the first read have been resolved for now. I look forward to further comments and suggestions for improvement. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • some sources have publishers while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.
  • Could you possibly be a bit more specific here with which sources need them? I thought I remembered hearing a while ago that "The New York Times Company" wasn't needed in the publisher field for NYT refs due to the redundancy. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Daily News, NY Post (also needs a link), Dayton Daily News, maybe the international ones idk

* some works cited more than once have links while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.

  • Think I got this taken care of, let me know if I missed anything. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there alternatives to the New York Post sources? It would be better to use something else in an FA given WP:NYPOST.
  • Replaced the one but not sure I can get that quote anywhere else, I'll see if I can find anything though. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* looks like fn 61 work has an article, Dagbladet Information, fn 65 Walla!, fn 67 Asharq Al-Awsat, fn 73 Aftonbladet.

  • is there a sentence in fn 67 that points to a Lebanese version? I had trouble finding it with Google Translate.
  • I could have sworn I saw Lebanon somewhere...it was listed as the greater Arab World originally with this ref, I've gone back to that for now.
  • Asharq Al-Awsat should be italicized and there's also a dateline and author in the article but to be honest on Google Translate it didn't mention anything about a version of Greed, unless I'm reading it wrong. I would just remove it at this point as it's not very clear what country it pertains to or if it existed, unless an editor who reads Arabic can translate it properly.
  • " If the captain quits after any of these four questions, the money is split evenly among all five team members. Giving/accepting a wrong answer ends the game and forfeits all winnings. The team member in the lowest position (farthest from the correct answer when a qualifying question was played) gives the answer to question 1, and each question after that is answered by the member in the next higher position." → there's no citation at the end
  • The Furman & Furman book refers to the lowest positioned contestant as "contestant number four," and so on from there. I've cited the book and moved the ref to the end since there would have been three of the exact same ref in the paragraph, let me know if you want this tweaked further. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If something is not explicitly stated in the book then please just cite an episode or something; I don't have time to check every sentence. The whole paragraph is not verifiable on page 36.
  • Went in and added more inline citations, hopefully making the verification more explicit. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* "otherwise, the challenge winner keeps their original position within the team." → no citation

* fn 16 is cited twice in one paragraph but it's the only source in the paragraph

  • Tweaked, again, let me know if you want this differently. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the critical reception section is shorter than it could be.
  • I feel like we've got a good handful here already, I'll see if I can track down a couple more later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really only six reviews from critics (not counting Philbin or Berman which aren't really reviews), which isn't that much. I would say 10 is a better number. Heartfox (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments above; these are the last ones. Heartfox (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thanks for the follow-up. Done some, will come back to the others later this weekend. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than three weeks in and only one general support: this does not look like a building consensus to promote. Unless there is more interest in this over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hello, and thank you for the note. I have actually got a lot going on the next couple of weeks, as well as a family member whose health has taken a turn for the worse recently. With that, I'm thinking it might actually be best to go ahead and archive this now so that I have no time pressure to address Heartfox's final concerns and build up the reception section a bit more, then I can go ahead and renominate when time permits for me. I think this would also ultimately result in a stronger article in the final product. Would this be alright? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, and seems a sensible approach to me. Heartfox is a good reviewer and may well be amenable to working on this off FAC if you thought that might be helpful. In case it applies, the usual two week wait for a new nomination would be waived. Would you like me to close the nomination as withdrawn? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Close as withdrawn is alright with me, and while I appreciate the waiver for the two-week wait, it will probably take at least two weeks before I launch a new nomination. With how much I have going on in my personal life, not having the pressure to look after an FAC would actually work out pretty well I think. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 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)/archive1&oldid=1022343114"