2. More than 1/3 the sources are individual episodes, and another 1/3 are fansites or otherwise unreliable (I see a Geocities, Lycos, and YouTube, among others).
3. Famous contestants section is pure listcruft.
4. The sections on the individual incarnations are full of fancruft -- too much detail given to the sets, aspects of gameplay, etc.
Comment. It's best if you first post your concerns on the article's talk page.
Majoreditor (
talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. Agreed. Please stop listing articles on "good article reassessment" to address relatively minor concerns with text and formatting if the issues could be more resolved simply by editing the article or discussing the matter on the talk page. --
carlb (
talk) 04:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Other references include YouTube and heavy usage of To Tell the Truth itself.
WP:RS requires reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How are these personal and hobby sites acceptable per
WP:V,
WP:RS and
WP:SPS?
Seventeen fair use images.
WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal usage. Why is it necessary to see all of these title cards, all of these hosts, multiple panelist images or multiple contestant images? Additionally, several are not low resolution (NFCC#3B), do not include complete rationales (NFCC#10C and
WP:RAT), etc.
ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist, per the unreferenced tags and the above comments.
Nikki311 05:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist due to multiple citation/RS issues.
Majoreditor (
talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I have removed all the unreliable sources, which leaves us with... almost nothing besides individual episodes.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I stand by my delist. Many sections are now void of sources, the bulk of the article has far too many copyrighted pictures, and there's a trivia section. This article would immediately fail a GA review if it were not a GA per
WP:QFC. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong delist per egregious problems with sources and images. NB there must be better sources out there, and
Google suggests that there are. --
jbmurray (
talk •
contribs) 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I was all for everything until Jb made this point above, as a quick look at the listings show that 90% of the books on the first few pages give a one sentence mention of the show in passing. A better source would probably be THIS book. :)
[1]24.186.96.84 (
talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, that would be a start. It might even be enough for GA, depending on how much info it has, though as always, the more good sources, the better. NB that (as always) Google books is only part-useful. Many of the books listed are snippet view only, or even have no preview at all. But some of the other titles look like they could be useful. There's only
one way to find out. --
jbmurray (
talk •
contribs) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment As the reviewer who passed this, unfortunately I have to concede that I fumbled the ball here. Per the talk page, I took the author's sourcing problems into account and was rather more lenient than I should have been (and I don't recall non-free images being so much of an issue at the time). However, given that suitable sources can apparently be found, I'd support a delist. Feel free to throw rotten fruit at my talk page ;)
EyeSerenetalk 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
2. More than 1/3 the sources are individual episodes, and another 1/3 are fansites or otherwise unreliable (I see a Geocities, Lycos, and YouTube, among others).
3. Famous contestants section is pure listcruft.
4. The sections on the individual incarnations are full of fancruft -- too much detail given to the sets, aspects of gameplay, etc.
Comment. It's best if you first post your concerns on the article's talk page.
Majoreditor (
talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. Agreed. Please stop listing articles on "good article reassessment" to address relatively minor concerns with text and formatting if the issues could be more resolved simply by editing the article or discussing the matter on the talk page. --
carlb (
talk) 04:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Other references include YouTube and heavy usage of To Tell the Truth itself.
WP:RS requires reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How are these personal and hobby sites acceptable per
WP:V,
WP:RS and
WP:SPS?
Seventeen fair use images.
WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal usage. Why is it necessary to see all of these title cards, all of these hosts, multiple panelist images or multiple contestant images? Additionally, several are not low resolution (NFCC#3B), do not include complete rationales (NFCC#10C and
WP:RAT), etc.
ЭLСОВВОLДtalk 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist, per the unreferenced tags and the above comments.
Nikki311 05:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Delist due to multiple citation/RS issues.
Majoreditor (
talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I have removed all the unreliable sources, which leaves us with... almost nothing besides individual episodes.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I stand by my delist. Many sections are now void of sources, the bulk of the article has far too many copyrighted pictures, and there's a trivia section. This article would immediately fail a GA review if it were not a GA per
WP:QFC. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong delist per egregious problems with sources and images. NB there must be better sources out there, and
Google suggests that there are. --
jbmurray (
talk •
contribs) 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
OK, I was all for everything until Jb made this point above, as a quick look at the listings show that 90% of the books on the first few pages give a one sentence mention of the show in passing. A better source would probably be THIS book. :)
[1]24.186.96.84 (
talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, that would be a start. It might even be enough for GA, depending on how much info it has, though as always, the more good sources, the better. NB that (as always) Google books is only part-useful. Many of the books listed are snippet view only, or even have no preview at all. But some of the other titles look like they could be useful. There's only
one way to find out. --
jbmurray (
talk •
contribs) 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment As the reviewer who passed this, unfortunately I have to concede that I fumbled the ball here. Per the talk page, I took the author's sourcing problems into account and was rather more lenient than I should have been (and I don't recall non-free images being so much of an issue at the time). However, given that suitable sources can apparently be found, I'd support a delist. Feel free to throw rotten fruit at my talk page ;)
EyeSerenetalk 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)reply