Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This has gone on long enough with no end in sight. Regarding BlueMoonset's comments, my relist was supposed to make things quicker and fairer, not drag them on endlessly.

Safeword (game show) edit

(

)

... that game show Safeword involves celebrities berating each other in order to avoid ejection?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 01:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

The article is new (2 days old), long enough at 1865 characters of prose, and there are no copyvio problems. The main problem I have is that most of the content is cited to the TV episode itself, which is a bit weak. I'd prefer a synopsis of the programme or a feature on it, such as the Radio Times or ITV's own website, particularly for the key word "berating" in the hook (and ejection from what exactly?) Without that, the article does give the impression of being "stretched" to meet the 1500 character limit. Can you find better sources for the show? Also, "roasting" could do with a link to roast (comedy) as I'm not sure everyone (particularly Brits) are familiar with the term outside of what happens to chicken and beef in an oven. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I would assume most Brits are familiar with the term (I'm a Brit myself) but I've added a link. Neither the Radio Times nor ITV go into that much detail on it, but UKGameshows.com (as linked in External links) has an article on it. Their Weaver's Week column will probably cover that sort of detail, though they pledged to review Hive Minds in next week's issue and I doubt they'll do two reviews in a week. Nonetheless, I've fixed most of the other issues. (Disgusted to see that this article is apparently the only article on the web to give round names.)--Laun chba ller 11:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A QPQ is needed for this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Done--Laun chba ller 01:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the "Within policy" criteria on the QPQ need to be addressed before it can be considered "done". BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Is that better?--Laun chba ller 10:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging original reviewer Ritchie333. ~ Rob^Talk 17:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Sorry to be a pain in the proverbial, but what makes UKgameshows.com a reliable source? Also, how can I verify the information cited to the TV show itself when it's been and gone from the airwaves? (I'm not saying you're lying or anything, but mistakes can be made). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather be interrogated now than have the hook returned. Safeword airs 10pm on Thursdays or you can use ITV player, though I'm uneasy about providing a link because most broadcasters only hold shows on their servers for so long. UKGameshows.com is primarily edited by David J. Bodycombe, a man who has 25 years experience in the field of gameshows and was responsible for bringing the nation The Crystal Maze. I consider him a reliable source.--Laun chba ller 17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've dropped this on the floor. Do you still want me to look over this or shall we get another reviewer on it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, please do so.--Laun chba ller 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've picked this up again. I'm happy to AGF that the video is an official source that can satisfy everything in the article is verifiable, but could I ask a quick favour and cite the specific times in the video each claim occurs (not for the general concept, I get that from just a cursory look, just the round names, "a swift and nasty exit", and rules specifics. Then I think we will be good to go. Sorry about the wait. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I no longer have a copy of that episode, so I've just replaced it with its UKGameshows.com entry which covers all the bases.--Laun chba ller 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we're going round in circles. Really sorry about the wait, but I think somebody else has to have a look at this. Just to confirm, I think the main problem is the article itself and its verifiability generally, rather than anything specifically to do with the hook. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is new enough, long enough, and what isn't cited is easily verifable. Hook which is catchy and cited. The article is neutral and free from copyright issues. And here, hopefully, ends the debate. FrogmanOfTheSahara (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@FrogmanOfTheSahara: please read WP:DYKR. sst^flyer 05:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think we need to supersede the approval, given the issues with this new reviewer's previous DYK reviews, as discussed at WT:DYK. This needs an experienced reviewer who is familiar with sourcing issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the show a the source for the description of the gameplay as this is the equivalent of using a film or TV programme as the source for the plot, but you have made it quite confusing by citing the UK Gameshows article as the source repeatedly in this section when most of the information (I guess) still comes from the show itself. The remaining sourcing problem is that there are no sources to indicate the broadcasting details; this does need clearing up before this nom can be passed. There also seem to be a lot more sources available (from extensive research I've done by typing "safeword ITV" into Google; go me, Queen of Research! ) Other non-DYK problems: "roulette" is not right, "carousel" could be but I haven't seen the show so I can't say for certain; there's no indication in the episode list of which of the guests were the targets; and it is unclear if the seven episodes are the complete series. Belle (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the episode source with the UKGameshows.com source because ITV take stuff off ITV player after four weeks. (Had I looked, I would have found many of the episodes are routinely repeated...) The rest of the information is offered here, which I'll add in.--Laun chba ller 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what makes a "Created and run by fans for fans" site like www.comedy.co.uk a reliable source for the episode info, but as that information hasn't been added in yet the point isn't (yet) germane. Since that site does have an article that states it's a "seven-part series", I imagine that information is available elsewhere as it looks like a press-release reprint. Belle, further thoughts on what needs to be included and whether comedy.co.uk would be a sufficiently reliable source? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Copied from the same page: "The BCG is owned and run by founder Mark and co-editor Aaron, who heads up all archive comedy coverage. However, they do not work alone, valuing the assistance of a group of regular volunteer contributors, lead by Ian, the main curator of our TV & radio schedule." That's good enough for me.--Laun chba ller 19:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer contributors would seem to indicate the source is not reliable. ~ Rob^Talk 20:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this better?--Laun chba ller 20:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

For the citing the fact there were seven episodes, yes, but the broadcast details aren't in there. Belle (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added references to the dead ITV player links.--Laun chba ller 18:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to check the outstanding issues; Belle hasn't edited in two weeks, and may not be able to get back to this review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Two and half months down the line this nomination seems to be going nowhere, mainly because the article is inadequately sourced to reliable secondary coverage about the programme. One news article does not make a TV programme on a minor TV channel notable. The page is almost entirely unsourced at the moment, suggesting it is more of a fan page than an encylopedic article. I notice there is an edit dispute currently, with an IP editor removing all of the primary sources. The hook is poor too, it should at least say "British television game show" or even "ITV2 game show", but that is minor in comparison with the major unresolved issues with the article itself. Sionk (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of my game show articles have had the same treatment, using inappropriate guidelines. I'll let this one slide but I'm going to have to do something about this systematic assault on my articles.--Laun chba ller 12:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK guidelines (and WP:GNG for that matter) are pretty unambiguous about what is required. If you've experienced similar problems with other nominations then surely you should make sure they meet DYK guidelines before you raise them for closer scrutiny. Sionk (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant having the primary sources removed; DYK requires the existence of a source at the end of each paragraph, and the sources keep being removed.--Laun chba ller 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point. But if there were sufficient independent secondary sources maybe it wouldn't be seen as such a major issue. Sionk (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've readded the UKGameshows source and added a couple of other sources. I'll have another look once I've finished this post.--Laun chba ller 18:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

UKGameshows is a wiki, about as (un)reliable as Wikipedia. Someone has already added this Wikpedia article to its links! Sionk (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a freely editable wiki like this one. Copied from above: "UKGameshows.com is primarily edited by David J. Bodycombe, a man who has 25 years experience in the field of gameshows and was responsible for bringing the nation The Crystal Maze. I consider him a reliable source." I did check YouTube to see if any of the episodes were there - the first episode, the one first used to source the article is there - would you rather I used that?--Laun chba ller 05:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This nomination has been open for three months. As Sionk says, it now has a {{refimprove}} tag at the top and there has been a content dispute with an IP. It would close it as "not promoted" but as I've already made several comments I think it's better if an independent reviewer makes that decision. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's basically what I said over a week ago ...so if Launchballer argues with the next reviewer this could go on forever :) Sionk (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I should probably mention that, at my advice, Launchballer yesterday filed a new request at the reliable sources noticeboard about the UKGameshows.com source in relation to another nomination, but also that it would clearly affect this one as well. (There are, as yet, no responses.) I do agree that so long as an article has an extant refimprove tag, it should not be run through DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com was described by Allen3 as a potentially useful higher quality fan site short of being a reliable source. However, at the time of writing there are six references in the article - yes two of them are to the Daily Mirror but these are reporting on a Tweet and a TV show and can be replaced by these - more than enough, I think, to justify removing the tag. I have pressed him for comment on whether or not using the show constitutes original research.--Laun chba ller 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sionk, since you are the one who originally added the refimprove tag, do you agree that its removal was appropriate? As for me, I am concerned that the "Gameplay" for the entire show is based on one person viewing one episode, based on the sourcing, and Belle's point about the Episodes section remains unanswered; indeed, the Episodes section is completely unreferenced, which is not acceptable for DYK. Finally, this nomination is over three months old, and the issues have been pretty much the same since the initial review from July. This needs to be concluded soon, whether ultimately successful or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with your analysis, BlueMoonset, and I don't understand why we are wasting any more time re-reviewing this DYK nom. If the author can't find secondary sources for at least some of the information in each section, it souldn't be there at all (or nominated for DYK in the first place). Sionk (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason we're still spending time, Sionk, is that Ritchie333 superseded your "no" with a call for a new reviewer, which put us back to square one. Until someone else comes along, or you reassert your "no", we're in a holding pattern here. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd added a link to YouTube for that episode? In either case, I'll have a look at the Episodes section later. Is sourcing the show acceptable or would you rather a website was used?--Laun chba ller 07:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

All the episodes are now cited to links to ITV Press Centre.--Laun chba ller 09:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)