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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Countdown (game show)

This article has recently undergone a massive overhaul at the hands of me and User:JonONeill. We've rewritten the whole thing, sourced every last statement, and added some interesting GFDL images (and, inevitably, some fair use ones). There are no FAs or GAs on game shows at the moment, so it's hard to compare it to anything relevant, but hopefully the article speaks for itself. Soo 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Too many sections and not enough information for each section. QuizQuick 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed two of the subsection headings. I can't see how any more of them are superfluous. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Object. This page is really quite good. I think the sectioning is within reason. I have two issues and a (stupid?) question.
  • Far too many fair-use images. Including an allegedly-fair-use scan of a page from the Oxford Dictionary of English.
    • Now only two. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Three, actually (the lead logo is as well), but it seems reasonable now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Over-reliance on The Countdown Page as a source. There is something about pages with pebbly background images and Comic Sans MS fonts that, somehow, for me, doesn't scream "reliable source".
    • The Countdown Page is to Countdown as IMDB is to movies. It may not be a gem of web design but that doesn't reflect on reliability. You can't record two decades of Countdown results without knowing a thing or two about the programme. Soo 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe. But if an article on a movie, or on the movie industry, were mostly sourced to IMDB, I would raise the same objection. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. Objection stands. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Only about a third of the references are to TCP, which I find reasonable, especially considering its authority which you question on the grounds of it looking crap. In the mind of myself and probably most others, there is no question of its reliability. Jono 21:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked through Spreading The Word again and replaced many of the references to TCP. Needless to say, all the facts agreed, which ought to give you some faith in the rest of them. I'm sure this argument would never have been raised if the site didn't look so awful. Soo 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you. Did you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I did, it made for interesting reading. I'm still unsure of the status of TCP in that respect. A lot of the guidelines make sense in the context of scientific topics, but less so in popular culture terms. There's not much chance of finding a printed source for scores from a TV game show. Nevertheless the site has been extensively fact-checked by fans of the programme, so it's about as good as you could ask for in the field. Soo 15:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And the (stupid?) question. What's up with spelling "role" "rôle"?
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rôle is a legitimate spelling variant in English (the OED lists it too). --Oldak Quill 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. I enjoyed reading that article, great job working on that. I have a few suggestions and comments, although I've crossed out anything I've done.
  • In fact, Countdown was the first programme to be broadcast on the new channel. - Could the 'In fact' be removed from this sentence, I don't think it's neccessary.
  • rôle - Could this be switched to the more conventional spelling? My spell checker doesn't recognise it and I've never seen it spelt like that before. Perhaps if you don't want to use "role" another suitable word could be chosen instead? Just looks a bit weird.
    • Switched it to the more conventional spelling. Rôle is perfectly okay English, and looks cooler in my opinion, but I guess 'role' will do just as good a job. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The letters round example could be taken to mean the consonants and vowels have to be selected in sets. For example, 6 consonants and then 3 vowels. Could they be mixed up a bit to show they can be selected in any order?
    • Sorted. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 10 points a given for an exact answer should that be "10 points is given"?
  • 10 points a given for an exact answer, 7 points for a solution within 5 of the target, and 5 points for a solution within 10. - This could be misunderstood to mean the scores are accumulative. Could that be clarified to avoid confusion?
    • Sorted. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 4,000 has a comma near the top, but not in a section lower down.
  • Contestant One requests two large numbers - They usually say the amount of small numbers as well, I think.
    • It's a trivial truth, but it makes sense to have it there, so I sorted it. Jono 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • However not all games are soluble - Should that be solvable?
    • They are synoynmous. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • crucial conundrum - I think on the show they call it a "Crucial Countdown Conundrum". Yay for alliteration!
    • Yeah, CCC is the convention on TV. Jono 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the examples real? If not, would it be possible to add real ones? I can record it tomorrow and get you some real examples if you like.
    • They're not real; as far as I know the greyhound round was used in the audition and the numbers game is the work of Soo's head. I don't think getting real rounds would change a whole lot, but if you can be bothered to and think that they exemplify the format in a similar good fashion, then by all means go ahead. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In 2002 film About a Boy - Maybe have "the" after "in" to make it easier to read?
  • This was edited out of the programme but has since appeared on many outtakes shows. - What happens when a round is edited out? I think they have a sort of pretend round where it's rigged to get the same score but with a more acceptable word for the time of day.
    • That's exactly what happened, although it's not easy to source and not that interesting, so it was kept out. If you can source it though, you can add it, as I know other people find that sort of thing interesting. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • knickname and occured - Spelling mistakes.
  • superlative forms of one-syllabled adjectives - My spell checker doesn't like that word. Would "syllable" be an acceptable replacement in that context?
    • You can make any noun into an adjective in that fashion, but it does look quite clumsy, so I've swapped it for 'monosyllabic', which I think makes sense and keeps the sentence concise. Jono 22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Cool. Thanks for getting all those things sorted. I've changed my status to Support. Icey 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Abstain:
  • The prose doesn't flow well for me at all. It has too many start-and-stop type sentences (hard to explain). The Character section, for example, is really bad about this. It seems to just be a list of random statements that don't connect with one another.
    • I disagree in general, but you're right about the Character section. It has a lot of true and interesting statements with no real flow. I'll try to revise it. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at fixing this but it's worth checking over by someone who isn't cream crackered. :-) CountdownCrispy 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's better now. Soo 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The number of references looks very superficial. Are all of those really needed? Not to mention your main source, "The Countdown Page", looks like a GeoCities page.
    • You can always just not look at them. Who benefits from an article with fewer references? For discussion of The Countdown Page, see above. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Excessive citations can disrupt flow of reading (too many little numbers). It's not that I mind having a lot of references, it's just that more diversity is nice. Looking at the references and seeing too many cites from the same source isn't good. At the very least, surely there must be something more official than that "The Countdown Page". Also, New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines is a broken link for me.--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally I would rather have a citation for every assertion than an article which is slightly easier to read. Diversity is nice, yes, and wherever possible we have referenced other sources, but TCP really is the only website of its kind; the most official thing you're likely to find is the Channel 4 page, which certainly lacks the breadth of TCP. Is there anything you actually dispute on there? New Oxford Dictionary of English Guidelines seems fine to me. Jono 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Final 8 seconds of the Countdown clock music": My player only says its 7 seconds long. --SeizureDog 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Depends whether your player rounds up or down. Soo 09:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "<8 seconds" would be better then?--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than involving algebra, I just changed it to something a bit simpler.
  • Soo is better than me at these and has promised me he will do it soon. Jono 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dunno how that one slipped the net, but it's handled now. Thanks for pointing it out. Soo 20:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll admit to not having read the entire article yet. I'll give a fully analysis at a later date.--SeizureDog 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn vote due to not having time to fully assess article. --SeizureDog 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; External links should be after refs, but other than that, it seems fine (I'm impressed that you managed to get free images of a TV show). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Jono 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment only:
  1. I feel like there is insufficient information on the overall tournament structure, as opposed to individual games. The manipulation of the structure to ensure higher viewer interest is one of the key reasons of Countdown's success, at the moment "seeded knockout" looks like the only hint of this. Given some of the comments on the talk page on the subject, I suspect more could be written on the subject.
    I don't see what more detail can be provided. The eight players are arranged into the standard single elimination format, e.g. Seed 1 plays Seed 8 in the quarter-final, etc. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    For a start, are they seeded before the tournament begins? Judging from the talk page comments, there is an initial seeding so that projected octochamps don't knock each other out early on. Secondly, look at the link that is given to Single-elimination tournament. That article specifically refutes the idea that seeded knockouts all have 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7 etc. If Countdown is "perfectly seeded" this way, then that does deserve a mention. It would also be nice to be given a rough indication how many games you need to win to get through - do all octochamps end up qualifying? TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thinking about it, I definitely stand by this. There's obviously more to it than seeding at the quarterfinal point (is that based on accumulated points, by the way? Or by wins, then splits decided on points?). And there is a clear need to point out that it's 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc. The article on seeded knockouts points out alternative ways that this could be done, it's not just 1 vs 8 etc. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, good point. This has now been made explicit. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Could the free use images be released on the Commons under a slightly freer license, like CC-BY? One problem with GFDL images is that if a print publication publishes them, it has (in theory) got to include a full copy of the text of the GFDL license, which is one of the problems with using a license basically meant for instruction manuals to cover images too. It's really nice to have free use images of a TV show, and since these photos are therefore quite unusual it would be nice for them to be as freely usable as possible without losing the authorship-acknowledgement requirement.
    Good idea, this has been handled now. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks! TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Unlike many popular British TV gameshows this doesn't seem to have been copied widely overseas (I guess, judging from the absence of any information in the text). I presume this is because it is the original French format which would be copied elsewhere - perhaps some explanation of the international popularity or not of the particular format would be relevant here?
    There is something on the talk page about an American version being rejected for its intellectuality... the quoted source, though, is in my opinion unreliable in this respect... "too intellectual" reeks of bullshit to me. I've also heard of a Spanish version but that was only today; perhaps I will look into it. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. It isn't made explicit just how closely it follows to the original format. Some more information the key differences and why they were made would be good; otherwise a statement that the format was essentially retained identically would be informative. If the format is internationally popular, based on the original French show, what are the distinctive features of the British version?
    It's evolved quite a lot from the original, but it's approaching POV territory to comment on that in the article. There just aren't any sources for an intellectual comparison of the two. This is a game show, after all. Soo 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps if you could mention whether certain key features have been carried over or are original inventions: for instance, the aims of the rounds, the timer, the 30 second period, "big and small" numbers, the random number generator, the vowels vs consonants choice, the final conundrum?TheGrappler 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, I think... a few more sentences in the Evolution section are appropriate and I'm fairly confident of the DCedL format so I will sort this out either tonight or tomorrow. But as Soo says, there's no real way to have a critical comparison unless there is one already knocking about. If you're interested in it you can write an article on it and we will source that. :-) Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh I don't think a critical comparison is necessary :-) But this game is very formulaic - it's the very embodiment of the "formula game show" - and it would be nice to know where some of the individual elements of the formula come from. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, you're right. We've added something on the most glaring differences between the two programmes. They really are quite different now. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot. The only thing that's bothering me is that "Des Chiffres...'s" looks awful! TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've changed it to the perhaps more conventional abbreviation of DCedL, but it's a personal choice really (unless there's some Wikipedian guidance on the subject that I'm overlooking.) :-) - CountdownCrispy 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just for your consideration rather than "criticisms" or "objections" really, but hopefully worth thinking about. Sincerely, TheGrappler 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Also worth thinking about - Carol Vorderman appears to occupy an extraordinary and unusually elevated position in British culture, presumably coming off the back of this show. Perhaps something more needs to be made of the "brain plus looks" approach the show's creators went for when selecting her and the image and media presence she's managed to produce as a result.
    The "brain plus looks" you speak of was developed later, I think, and her cultural significance, I think, is due to her presence elsewhere in the media, like adverts for First Plus and whatever. She has something of a cult following, and I'm not sure if it correlates with her Countdown career, although obviously the former is as a result of the latter. Even so, I think it's moot, because although interesting it's hard to source, and including it unsourced would be unencyclopaedic. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I really don't see it as a moot point. So many gameshows follow the model of having a strong male host and some candyfloss women, yet the creator's consciously employed a Cambridge graduate. That's a distinctive feature of the show. Whatever their intentions were, it's surely not a coincidence. I have distinct memories of her publically talking about how she got the job, and she definitely fitted a profile they were seeking out. I wonder if that ever got into any biographical material on her? An alternative would be to report the early critical or media response. She can't have slipped under the carpet then. Employing a Cambridge graduate as the "glamorous assistant" was a really extraordinary move - I really can't think of any parallels. TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a brief section and a reference about how Carol got the job which hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can build upon. (Oh, and by the way, could this this candidate's section be sorted out so that's it's clear what is being said and suggested, please, including removing the duplicate of this section? I would do so myself but I don't want to accidentally delete what someone else has said.) Regards, CountdownCrispy 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    That's an improvement. Do you think it's worth mentioning that she is Cambridge graduate or a MENSA member? Something to convey the idea that she is pretty smart, at any rate. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've added a reference (in both senses of the word) to Carol's MENSA membership. - CountdownCrispy 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Additionally, the reasons for the show's unusually strong appeal aren't really explored. I appreciate it's probably been a long time since a TV critic took a look at this, but would it be impossible to find some kind of information on the critical response? TheGrappler 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    It's touched upon in the Character section, but anything further is difficult; unless you back it up with strong and explicit sources it's hard to avoid POV, otherwise it is original research. If you can suggest some sources then I will gladly add some more prose, otherwise I can't see how we can effectively add this in. Jono 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate the difficulty of sourcing, but I at least expected to see the early critical reception. TV critics must have reviewed the first outing of the show, surely? TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'll look into this, but realistically it's going to be difficult to find much. Countdown is now so well established that no TV critic really bothers themself with it any more, and early critical reaction certainly pre-dates the days of Internet archives. I'll see what I can find in the university library but realistically an issue of the Radio Times from two decades ago is not easily obtained. Soo 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    I guess the Radio Times is near the definitive place to check for reviews of UK TV. Unfortunately newspaper archives (at least online ones) don't tend to go back this far either, but I bet on opening night they will have reviewed Countdown. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Has it always been on at the 3.30pm slot? Or has it moved about over the past 20 years?
    Made this explicit. I don't think a lot of detail is necessary, but the teatime slot is a key part of the programme. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that was worth doing. Especially since it was raised in the UK Parliament! TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. I've just realized there's an omission so glaring I'm tempted to move from merely commenting to oppose - while viewer ratings might not be completely stable and there's no point updating this article each time new figures come through, shouldn't this article really make include some detail on how many millions of people were thought to watch, perhaps averaged over the course of 2005? And would a similar figure be available for one of the earlier years? Some idea of the scale ought to come across - is this nearer the 500,000 mark or the 5,000,000? (Similarly, is it known whether this is one of Channel 4's most expensive advert slots?) TheGrappler 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Another good point. We're looking into this. Soo 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Found more info than I expected, in fact. Hopefully I've resolved this omission now. Soo 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Hey, that's really nice! I'm impressed. TheGrappler 20:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice that this image: Image:Studiodiagram.png is made up of various shapes. Would an SVG version be any use to you? I downloaded an SVG image creator thingamy and I want to make something useful! Is there anything you would like to be different on it? Like colours, layout and so on? Icey 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought about doing an SVG version of that image, but decided that my skill in Photoshop is unmirrored in any SVG program - by all means, go ahead and SVG it. That would be very helpful. Jono 09:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you haven't already made the image then it might be nice to have the desk area reflect the creamy colour of the 'carpet' in reality, and also the studio floor features a blue arrow on a very pale cream - see Image:Countdownset.jpg. As I say this is only worth considering if you haven't already made the graphic since it's purely aestethic pedantry for me to even suggest it! Regards, CountdownCrispy 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your suggestions. I've created a new image based on the PNG version with your suggestions and a couple of other things I've noticed in the pictures, like the clock on the floor. Here's my current draft. I'm not sure about how the raised floor goes on the left side, because I don't have a picture of that. Perhaps you know? Let me know if there's anything you would like changed on it and I'll get it sorted. Icey 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I think the SVG idea is a good one and you've made a good start, but it's now too realistic and looks cluttered. Its use in the article is to illustrate where the various people sit, but that's now crowded out by excessive details on the floor. The clock in particular is confusing because the article refers to the clock being the centrepiece of the set - a reader who had not seen the programme might easily conclude that this centrepiece was located on the floor! In diagrams like this, less is more. Soo 11:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Aye, you're completely right. I went a bit crazy there! Here's the second draft. I've removed the blue lines, raised area, clock and the gradient on the main clock. Hopefully that is a bit better :) Icey 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Excellentay! Nice one. Jono 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I'll have to agree with Jono - whilst the first was nicer as a piece of art the second is a better diagram. Lovely work. :-) - CountdownCrispy 09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yep, good stuff. Thanks! Soo 11:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Cool! I've uploaded it here: Image:Countdown_studio.svg. Let me know if there's anything you want changing on it. Icey 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's good. My only request is that you upload it to the Commons under a freer licence than GFDL (see the discussion somewhere above). Soo 08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is generally good, and I wouldn't object to it becoming featured. That said,
  1. The article focuses on the mechanics of the game, and barely mentions Whiteley's distinctive style of presentation, nor the alternative style of Des Lynam. The section on "Character" would seem the natural place for a brief discussion of this.
    Yeah, you're right. I'll try to add something on this. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Similarly, the article doesn't mention the filming process at all (unless it's recently changed, one week's worth of shows are filmed in a single day, three weeks worth being filmed over three days in a single week), and the whole series being shot well ahead of time. It might also be worth mentioning that the applause etc is live, not canned.
    Your information is correct, but it's extraordinarily difficult to find references for it, due to the show's insistence on maintaining the pretense of being broadcast live. I'll see what I can do. I'll give the studio audience a mention, too. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. A small thing, but it is described as a "program" in the intro, which is unusual for British English, "programme" being more usual.
    Urgh, yes, a straight typo, and now fixed. Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. The article states "The programme's longevity is often considered to be a consequence of its cult status" without ever explaining why it is considered to have cult status (perhaps the previous line is meant to be the explanation, but if so, the link should be made explicit).
    I've changed the order of a couple of sentences to hopefully make this clearer but, as I always say, these sorts of edit are not my forte so if someone wants to read it through then I've laid the foundations. :-) CountdownCrispy 15:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That said, it's good work, and I hope to see it featured soon. Warofdreams talk 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) Soo 15:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakish Object. Good article, but a citation spot check (results here) on this article turned up enough cases of citing sources that were related to but did not directly support the statements in the article that I'm worried that this may be a systemic issue. Someone needs to go through, check all the footnotes, and fix any problematic ones. --RobthTalk 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the particular problems you highlighted, and I can't find any others, but you might want to get someone else to check those over. Soo 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd have to agree with Soo regarding sources. First of all, scanning the sources there are a lot of sources other than the Countdownpage. Secondly, it is by far and away the best site. Most of the other sites made since (including my own) rely heavily on information from the CDP anyway, so using them as supporting sources is questionable. Thirdly, you can't really compare it to football, cricket, baseball or whatever where there are hundreds of website detailing games. The CDP is not surprisingly just about the only one. Soo's site is also excellent because it's one of the few that's based on viewers written records (via the coutdown webgroup) but those sites are really the only two reliable ones.

As for footnotes, I agree that they should come after external links. If anything, wikipedia should change the page headings to article, discussion, edit, history, follow and sources so you don't get all the little blue links on the main page.

Mglovesfun 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - A few suggestions:
  1. The first reference to Susie Dent in the main text is not linked (although she is later in the text and in the side panel). This was enough to make me search to see if she had an article.
    Fixed. Soo 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. The conundrum section should probably mention that the conundrums are not totally random letter order but normally a combination of shorter words
    Difficult to source, and not always true. For example, see http://www.thecountdownpage.com/final2.htm . There are more recent examples where the conundrum didn't spell any shorter words, e.g. YURICOLUS.
  3. The article doesn't mention whether dictionary corner or Carol cheat or entirely use their own brain power. I vaguely remember reading an interview with a guest some years ago saying that he was fed words through his earpiece. JMiall 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    I remember reading that too, I think it was in the Daily Mail. Would be hard to get hold of now. The truth is that Dictionary Corner cheat (with the aid of the production team) and Carol does it herself. Soo 23:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    See [1] JMiall 12:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with comments, jwandersTalk 14:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC): First off, great job, both on the article itself and on your tireless ability to respond to the concerns and comments posted here. That said, I'm afriad I have a few more nitpicks to add to the list
  1. I too find the "rôle" spelling of "role" distracting and have not encountered it before. I believe someone said above that it would be changed to the more conventional spelling, but there's still an instance of the accented version in the third paragraph of the Presenters section
    That one slipped the net. Fixed. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. All of the information in the Evolution section feels like it should be in the History section. I thought, for example, that the increase in the number of rounds had been omitted until I reached the later section.
    I disagree. It doesn't make sense for the article to talk about, say, the changes in the scoring for the number round before it's even explained what the number round is. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Letters rounds, paragraph 2 reads: "Contestants write down the words they have found during the round, in case they have the same one. If a word is not written down, the player must declare this and reveal their word first, in case it is the same as the one their opponent has written. After the thirty seconds is up, the players declare the length of their chosen word, with the player who selected the letters declaring first." The sentence order here seems to imply that if a word isn't written down, it must be declared before the 30 seconds are up. The second sentences should be moved to later in the paragraph.
    This is awkward to explain concisely. See what you think now. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. The letters example might explicitly state that Contestant One scores no points.
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Conundrum section could use a opening transition, e.g. "The final round of the game is the 'Countdown Conundrom'...", or something similar
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. In Popular Culture, paragraph 2, I found this sentence very confusing at first: "Countdown has also generated a number of popular outtakes, with the randomly selected letters producing the occasional moment that was deemed unsuitable for the original broadcast." Perhaps replacing "moment" with "word" would be clearer.
    Done. Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. There is no mention of what occurs if the game is tied after the conundrom (forgot this one before 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
    You were right the first time; "If the scores are level after the conundrum, additional conundrums are used until the match is decided." Soo 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support obviously ... I'm curious as to why it is still here though. Jono (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jono on the length of time this has been here - I make it six supports to one 'weakish' object, and even that last one might now be considered questionable because the suggested change/check has been made. Soo and Jono have been extremely quick to sort out any problems or act upon any suggestions in the course of this process and have created what I consider a truly comprehensive article.
Given that last statement, I will do what I'd forgotten to and add my support to this article. I've done very little major work to the article, only tidying a few little odds and ends wherever I could, so I'm pretty sure I can't be considered a major contributor. So that's seven in support now. :-)
Regards, CountdownCrispy 11:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)