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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:41, 8 October 2007.

[edit] Countdown (game show)

[edit] Review commentary

User:Bonalaw‎, User:JonONeill‎, User:CountdownCrispy‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject British TV shows‎ notified.

I'm very concerned about the quality of this article, especially the sources. The article cites Amazon.co.uk (once), IMDb (six times) and a fan site named "The Countdown Page" (god-knows-how-many times) as sources-hardly reliable. One citation is not only from a fan page, but it is in French. (I know that this is sometimes seen as acceptable, but suerly and English alternative can be found?) The external links section breaks all boundaries of WP:SPAM. The prose in the Format section is verry bitty, there is no need for so many 'examples'. Also, there is no infomation on response, reception, criticism etc. Dalejenkins | 14:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair points, I'll try to answer them individually to avoid a mess emerging:-

• I agree about the external links section; there are hundreds of Countdown sites around and new spammy links get added all the time. I've pruned it again but more might be needed - I'll let consensus decide that.
• The French link is indeed problematic. I believe wiki policy allows foreign-language links when nothing better is available, and I think it would be very difficult to find an authoritative English-language source for the rules of a French gameshow.
• amazon.co.uk is cited as evidence for the cost of a book, so I can't see how it could be any more reliable.
• Is IMDb not reliable? How is anyone supposed to decide these things? The facts sourced to it are entirely unremarkable so it wouldn't be hard to replace them, but what with?
• To call the Countdown Page a fan site is rather unfair. It's more than 20 years of work and has been cited by the BBC. If that isn't a good resource for information about Countdown then I don't know what is.
• The number of examples is entirely a matter of opinion. There are three types of round and three examples. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

Calr 17:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you fix the MOS breach WRT to the period in the captions? Redundant "also" in the lead. Tony 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  I've tried to improve the captions, although one or two of them could probably do with some fresh ideas. Fixed "also". Calr 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Has everyone involved in this article been notified? See the FAR instructions concerning {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}}. If so, please place the names of the notified persons and projects at the top of this review. --RelHistBuff 06:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.

• I'd like to see the citation templates used, especially so that the references are formatted correctly. Dale is correct in that the IMDb should be avoided as a source. The first paragraph of "In popular culture" is like a list in prose form. Any chance of some context? For example, Grant's character in About a Boy is unemployed... I wonder if the commentary on that DVD has some sort of comment about Countdown being a favourite of the unemployed? (you could leave a note on their talk page: someone there is bound to own the DVD.) As for the others (Father Ted, etc.), are the mentions really of note?
  As far as comprehensiveness, shouldn't the unaired episodes that were recorded with guest presenters while Whiteley was in hospital have a mention? The JPS^{talk to me} 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• No episodes were recorded with guest presenters - this block of filming was due to start on the day after Richard died, and so was cancelled as a mark of respect as well as allowing the team time to work out how the show would progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CountdownCrispy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, it was my understanding that they'd been filmed but not transmitted. [1] [2]. I just thought that something needs to fill the massive gap between the early eighties and 2005. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another referencing problem: the book 'Countdown: Spreading the Word' does not have adequate information. The first reference to it needs author, ISBN, etc. Complete as many fields in the cite book template as possible. Subsequent references can just then be <ref>Author, pg. x</ref>. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is source quality (1c). Marskell 11:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Retain. Another regrettable review nomination. Amazon is not a good source for many things, but for the price of a book, they are experts. The rest of the sources are the major British papers and an MP's official website (and what is presumably the only book on the subject). That leaves the complaint that the book's ISBN is missing; which I will now go to Amazon to supply. The nominator could have done the same while he was checking the references, as I assume he did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  I'm fairly sure this is not the place for voting. You miss the small issue of formatting. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, this is the place for voting. The only formatting issue I see is the trivium about the ISBN, which I have emended; I see Marskell ignored it. If you prefer a different style, go suggest it on the article talk page. If no one cares, or there is consensus, fine; if not: When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delist despite your quotation and WP:MOS#In-line_citations. The formatting style does not feature all of the information that it could, such as dates of publication (e.g. Sky). The JPS^{talk to me} 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Not well-written (not too bad, but certainly below par); MOS breaches.
• It's not a vote, but a consensus-gathering process, something that Anderson knows little about, or regards with gobsmacking indifference.
  • Over over over over at the start.
• MOS breach in "GB pounds". Read MOS on currencies.
  • "Most-watched", yet "first ever".
  • MOS prefers unspaced em dashes. Then there are hyphens stuck in there as interruptors.
  • "Approximately every four series"; pfffff.
  • "The first ever episode of Countdown is to be shown as part of Channel 4 at 25 on 1 October"—oh, which year would that be? Tony (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Always ignore any !vote that says "MOS breach", per WP:AAFD. In this case, the only complaint of any merit is "first ever episode" which should be, and has been, changed to "first episode ever". The suggestion of "first-ever episode" would be less idiomatic than the text complained of. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for airing your pet peeve here, again. Criterion 2 says that MOS should be followed. Simple as that, no matter how much Anderson huffs and puffs here and at FAC. Tony (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you for illustrating why that criterion is destructive to this process. None of these "MOS breaches" interferes with the clarity, neutrality, verifiability, and accuracy of this article; some of them are imaginary even as breaches: "GB pounds" instead of "GB ₤" is not even proscribed. It remains inappropriate to change from one style to another, especially in such small matters. It is doubly inappropriate to reject a good article on such grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to complain about the application of MOS, you may as well get your fact right about what it says about not needing to specify "GB". Tony (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fixes needed. The citations are not formatted; publishers, article titles, authors and dates aren't identified, and it will take a sustained effort to fix all of them (see WP:CITE/ES or, if the regular editors don't know how to manually format citations, cite templates can be used). If someone addresses the citations and MOS breaches, pls ping me and I'll have another look, otherwise, Remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As the main author of this article, I just no longer have the energy to constantly improve/remove/correct the volume of junk that gets added to it. It's not reasonable in the long term to expect editors like me to monitor an article like this for the rest of eternity, and it's ridiculous that all my good work on this will be undone by constant dross edits. This article would barely be harmed by reverting to the version that got promoted. Anyway, keep it or remove it as you see fit, but to me it's clear example of a broken system. Calr 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't get too hung up over badges. Although the article needs fixes, it's still in fine condition. If it (temporarily?) loses its little star, well, so what, really? You've helped get it up to a good condition, and you need to be proud of that. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.