Talk:Greed (game show)/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Some Dude From North Carolina in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 12:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead edit

  • Improve the non-free rationale for the poster with this template.
  • Is the "approx." note needed? If it is, can it be referenced?
    •   Removed the note, most hour-long shows range from 42-44 minutes without commercials, Greed included. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Instead of using "<br>" and "<br />", use "plainlist" per the rules on the infobox.
  • That being said, I couldn't find any issues with the lead.

Gameplay edit

  • "each individual team member" → "each team member"
  • "Prior to the $2,000,000 question" → "Before the $2,000,000 question"
  • The last sentence in #Greed:_Million_Dollar_Moment needs a reference.

Production edit

  • "hinting a" → "hinting at a"
  • Other than that, every other section looks good.

Reception edit

References edit

  • Archive all archivable sources (either manually or with this tool).
  • Optional, but try linking websites in each citation.
    • Not exactly sure what you mean here, the only website I could think of adding to the episode citations would be YouTube for the handful of episodes that are available, and the refs for the book sources link to the bibliography section already. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bcschneider53: It just means that for example, if a source is from the Chicago Tribune, to link it with "|website=[[Chicago Tribune]]". However, it is optional, and all my other suggestions have been addressed, so I am passing the article.   Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Progress edit

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

@Some Dude From North Carolina: I believe all points have been addressed, please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else from me. Thanks for the quick review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply