@Bruxton This is a really interesting topic, and I've had a lot of fun both reading the article going through the sources myself. I've made suggestions in the table below. A lot of them to help with clarity. If you have any questions, just give me a ping. I'm going to put the article on hold for now while I wait for your responses. Thank you for your work on this topic! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Bruxton Hi there, apologies for taking a bit of a break from this review. I have striked-through the changes which have been completed to make the table a bit easier to navigate. I have also boldly made some minor changes to help get this article to GA. I have noted where I have done these below. The remaining un-striked comments till need to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
In the article I put a different page number for his recant.<--page 759-->. Also regarding the production company, our article does not say it was enright's any more. In regard to the heading Early life: I think it fits the format of most other articles. The items there were all prior to his actual career and scandal. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
He was born and raised in Taunton, Massachusetts, on March 27, 1922. This sentence implies he was raised in Taunton on March 27, 1922. To make the sentence clearer, and avoid directly copying the source, it could simply be changed to: He was born on March 27, 1922 in Taunton, Massachusetts.
Done
He later remarried to Nancy and took on her two children as stepchildren. This sentence comes a bit out of nowhere, as it reads as if Nancy has already been mentioned in the article. It would be clearer if we used Nancy's surname and specified she was his second wife, i.e. He later remarried to his second wife, Nancy Blumberg, and took on her two children as stepchildren. Ref [3] contains Nancy's full name, so I'd include that citation as well.
Done
Sorry, doing a bit of digging and I have an additional point to make. This source states that at the time of Freedman's death (2017), Nancy had been his wife for 34 years, so since 1983. Please do feel free to review the source yourself. You can find a preview for the same book on Google Books, but the link wasn't working here. It's on p.131. If you agree, I think the details of Freedman's marriage to Nancy should be moved to the Later life section of the article.
Thanks, that works better.
Done
Career
Quiz shows gained popularity: ... You have already mentioned that TV was gaining popularity, so it might read better as Quiz shows also gained popularity.
Done
Dan Enright started a show called Twenty-One to compete. Enright's production company was called Entertainment Productions Inc. I'd suggest combining these into one sentence. I.e., Dan Enright started a show called Twenty-One to compete, produced by his own production company, Entertainment Productions Inc.
Done
Freedman took over producing Twenty-One in 1956. The show Twenty-One had a contestant named Herb Stempel who seemed unstoppable. It may be useful to specify that Freedman inherited the problem of Herb Stempel when he took over producing the programme. Perhaps change to: Freedman took over producing Twenty-One in 1956. At the time, the show Twenty-One had a contestant named Herb Stempel who seemed unstoppable.
Done
The sponsor of the show was Geritol and they wanted a different contestant. Again, a little expansion here would be beneficial. I think it would be useful to briefly explain why Geritol wanted a different contestant. Perhaps: The continuing success of Stempel caused the show's ratings to fall. In response, Geritol—the show's sonspor—sought a new contestant to rival Stempel.
Done
Scandal
In 1956 Freedman found a teacher from Columbia University named Charles Van Doren. Although later in the paragraph you go on to mention that Van Doren was the rival, it would be helpful to also specify this upfront, along with the fact that he would cheat. For example: In 1956, Freedman found a teacher from Columbia University named Charles Van Doren who he thought could be a rival to Stempel. He planned to do this by helping Van Doren cheat.
Done
Shortly after her appearance on the show, an investigation was begun by Manhattan district attorney, Frank Hogan. Useful to state what the investigation covered, I think. Maybe: Shortly after her appearance on the show, an investigation into quiz shows was begun by Manhattan district attorney, Frank Hogan.
Done
When Freedman was previously before the grand jury he had denied that he supplied contestants with answers ... I assume this means that Freedman lied to the grand jury which was convened in November 1958? If so, to aid clarity, I'd suggest moving this sentence, as in: A grand jury was convened in November 1958. Freedman denied to the grand jury that he supplied contestants with answers, and when he was led out of court after his testimony he stated, "Everything I told the grand jury is the truth." On November 7, 1958, Freedman became the first person indicted and arrested in the quiz show scandal, on charges that he lied about the show not being rigged. Does this sequence of events make sense to you? I am not familiar with the case, so I could be incorrect.
Done Clearer now when the jury was convened, thank you.
Van Doren pleaded guilty to perjury. In 1962, von Nardroff pleaded guilty to second-degree perjury. I'd combine these sentences because, as far as I can tell, they both pleaded guilty in 1962. For example: In 1962, Van Doren pleaded guilty to perjury and von Nardroff pleaded guilty to second-degree perjury.
This sentences still need combining—I think it would read better that way.
I have boldly made this change, please revert if you do not agree.
The lead is relatively short but covers the main aspects of the subject. The article itself is also relatively short, so I'm content that this isn't a problem. However, you may wish to add a very short explanation of what the 1950s quiz show scandals involved (i.e. cheating, as opposed to another type of scandal), and what what Freedman did after he recanted (i.e., take some info from the Later life section).
Thanks for adding more info in the lead. The line and he never worked in television again is not backed up by anything in the article. Do you have a source for that? If not, I'd suggest removing that bit.
Done
Layout
Early life
I don't think this section is appropriately titled. Birth, WWII, education, and both marriages probably didn't all occur in his early life. I'm struggling to think of an alternate title. Maybe something like "Life before television career"? That feels quite long. Do feel free to suggest an alternative. In the meantime I'll do some digging and see what other articles have in similar situations.
I think "Early life and education" would work here. I suggest changing the heading to that.
Happy with your reasoning, thanks.
DoneCareer
In the interests on limiting the use of one-line paragraphs, I'd combine the first two paragraphs of this section into one. Also, you might want to reorder the sentences so it makes more sense after this merge. For example, In the early 1950s, television was just becoming popular. Freedman moved to New York and got a job with a Groucho Marx show called You Bet Your Life before becoming a television producer. Just a suggestion, let me know if you agree.
The first paragraph now mentions twice that Freedman was a television producer, and only the second instance is Wiki-linked. You can probably lose the second sentence, and change the first sentence to: In the early 1950s, television was just becoming popular, and Freedman moved to New York where got a job with a Groucho Marx show called You Bet Your Life before becoming a television producer.
I have boldly made this change. Please do revert if you disagree.
DonePopular culture
This section is too short to warrant its own heading. It is also not the best use of 'List incorporation'. I suggest expanding this section out into at least a paragraph, which shouldn't be too difficult. It could read something like In 1994, the film Quiz Show was released which depicted the events of the 1950s quiz show scandal. It was directed and produced by Robert Redford and starred ... You could also include Freedman's reaction to the film, which is included in this source.
Thanks for expanding the section, it's much better now. My only suggestion would be to change the Freedman produced show to "Twenty-One".
At the moment all the images are right-justified. I'd suggest that the first non-infobox image (Twenty-One Barry Van Doren 1957) is left-justified to avoid the images getting cluttered on the right-hand side.
Done
Words to watch
It was discovered that Twenty-One had been paying some contestants to lose. "It was discovered" seems to be a bit passive. Presumably it was the Manhattan district attorney who discovered it?
Done
There were also accusations that Freedman tried to extort $5000 from Van Doren, a charge which Freedman denied. This is also written passively, but the source states that it was Van Doren who accused Freedman of extortion, so it is worth adding that information.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
All sources are properly cited and formatted.
Done
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Career
Enright's production company was called Entertainment Productions Inc. I can't clearly see from the source whether the production company mentioned was Enright's, or if the "show" referred to throughout that section of the source is Twenty-One. Ref [10], on the other hand, states that the owner of Twenty One - and Dan Enright's production company - was called 'Production Services Inc.'. Are they different?
Article no longer says it's Dan Enight's production company,
Done
Scandal
There are a few points in the first paragraph which don't seem to be covered by the citation (Ref [2]): The direct quotation from Van Doren; and the date of Van Doren's debut (the source on states November, not November 28). They are, however, covered by Ref [1] instead, so I'd also cite that source at the end of the paragraph.
I have boldly made this change, please revert if you don't agree.
Done
A standby contestant who had hoped to be on the television show Dotto complained to the New York District Attorney's office about irregularities. The source states that this complaint about Dotto was the cause of the investigation, so maybe add The investigation was prompted by at the start of the sentence.
The paragraph was changed to imply that the contestant was called Dotto, so I have boldly made the correction. Please revert if you do not agree.
Done
A grand jury was convened in November 1958. I can only access p.119, which states that Elfrida Von Nardroff testified on November 12, 1958, not that the jury was convened in November. I can't see p.120 - is the information on that page instead?
Done
After Freedman admitted he had lied to the grand jury he was indicted for perjury. Ref [10] cites p.759 of the source, but the information on p.766 more clearly backs up the information, in my opinion: "Moreover, the two producer, Freedman and Felsher, both of whom testified falsely before the first grand jury ... were indicted for perjury ..."
As the main interest of Freedman's life is centred around the TV show scandals, I'm content that this article addresses the main aspects of the topic. Below are a few suggestions for small expansions to the article:
Scandal
After Freedman admitted he had lied to the grand jury he was indicted for perjury. When was this?
Thanks for adding the date. Could you help me out? I can't find a mention of September 1959 on p.766 of the source.
Changed to p.759.
Done
Popular culture
This section can be expanded to include more about Quiz Show and Freedman's reaction to it (see suggestion in criteria 1b above).
Done
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
I'm content that the article is focussed on the topic.
Done
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
* Article is written in a neutral manner. No undue weight given to any section. Done
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
* Majority of recent contributions have been constructive edits by nominator. No evidence of edit wars. Done
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Image currently captioned Twenty-One Barry Van Doren 1957 should be changed to something clearer. Perhaps Twenty-One host Jack Barry (left) and Charles Van Doren (right) on an episode of Twenty-One in 1957.
Done
To tidy things up slightly to the other non-infobox image, I'd add that Steven B. Derounian is on the (right)
