Talk:Family Feud/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, this is an interesting case. Until three months ago the article looked like this − 22:38, December 2, 2014 version − and was 6,100 words long. Then it underwent a series of reductions for unsourced material culminating in a complete WP:BLOWITUP two months ago. The new article that is being submitted for review is 2,400 words, or about 2½ times shorter. What information about the show has been lost during this transformation?

At a glance, the major things lost include:

• descriptions of the changes over time in the show's rules
• descriptions of the changes in the show's sets
• descriptions of all the show's tournaments
• descriptions of the show's all-star specials.

There are no doubt others that I missed. The question is, how much of what used to be there and isn't anymore is important and how much is excessive detail and fancruft?

In addition, I am concerned about several broad aspects of the current version of the article:

• The lead is hard to follow, with overly exact dates for the show's incarnations in the first paragraph (just year ranges are enough here, the precise dates can be given in the article body) and equal weight being given to hosts and announcers (aren't the hosts more important?).
• The way the sectioning is done now, I found it hard to follow the evolution of the show, because it is broken up across the "Hosts and announcers", "Production", "Broadcast history", and "Reception" sections. The old article took a more chronologically integrated approach and, for me at least, is easier to follow.
• The article never really explains what the appeal of the show is. Is it the ability for the audience to try to guess the most popular answers at home? Is it the personality of the host and his interactions with the family members? Is it interactions among the family members themselves? Something about this show must be unique or special for it to be considered the third-ranking game show of all time − what is it?
• There needs to be more material on Dawson as host, since for many that was the defining era of the show, and more on how he interacted with the family members, especially women. He made a point of kissing each one, and that aspect became so well known that the New York Times obit on him has "Host Who Kissed on 'Family Feud'" in its title. And the Times obit mentions several aspects of the kissing as being popular and/or controversial. Yet the kissing is never mention in this article at all.
• If Harvey as host as revived the show, there needs to be some description of what about his way of hosting that has made a difference compared to the hosts before him.
• The article is sorely lacking in images. The logo at the top is okay but needs a caption as to when it's from. In particular, an image of the gameboard would make the article much more understandable to readers who have never viewed the show. Compare to the Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) articles, which have plenty of images.
• Nowhere in the article does it explain what the announcer does - is it a minor role at the start and end of the show or a more major role during it, like say in The Price is Right?
• The international adaptations are buried in this version of the article, with two unclear links. This needs to be like in the old article, with a separate section and a visible {{Main}} link to International versions of Family Feud and a summary piece of text.

I'm putting this on hold pending some responses from the nominator on these points. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Now that I think about it, I may have nominated this a bit prematurely. I thought the article was pretty close after it was blown up, so I tweaked some final things before giving it a nomination. I also can guarantee that I cannot fix all of these issues within 7 days as I'm currently involved in some other projects. That being said, I've also pinged SethAllen623 to see if he can finish up this project as he is the one who cut down on the trivia and fancruft. To sum it up, I'd suggest failing this nomination unless Seth chimes in and is willing to take this up, as the article clearly has some more work that needs to be done. Thanks again for your review, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Per this, I think it's best for everyone if we fail the article for now; I did not realize how much more work needed to be done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)