Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/To Tell the Truth/1

To Tell the Truth edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist. Ball fumbled by otherwise excellent reviewer :-) Geometry guy 19:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be delisted for the following reasons:

1. Two sections have {{unreferenced-section}} tags.

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.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- Sorry, minor? He's suggesting a complete rewrite =P weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist per gross failure to meet criteria two and six:
- Personal website: http://members.lycos.co.uk/gameshowpage/TRUTH/Truth.html - what makes this reliable?
- Personal website: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/3140/tttt50.html - what makes this reliable?
- Personal website: http://www.nmi.uga.edu/people/marshall/tttt/TTTT1977-78.html - what makes this reliable?
- Personal website: http://community-2.webtv.net/TamWarner/budcollyer/ - what makes this reliable?
- Blog website: http://classicshowbiz.blogspot.com/2008/01/to-tell-truth-with-guest-william-m.html
- Hobby site: http://www.gameshowutopia.net/ - what makes this reliable?
- Discussion forum: http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12652&st=0&p=149556&entry149556
- 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. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 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]
Delist, severe lacking of sources, reliable or otherwise. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:47, 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. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 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 ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should trout you for that. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The shame :( EyeSerene^talk 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]