Template:Did you know nominations/Celebrity Fifteen to One
- 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: promoted by 4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Celebrity Fifteen to One
edit... that the revival of Fifteen to One has produced 4275% more celebrity specials?
- ALT1: ... that Gyles Brandreth is the only person to have appeared in episodes of Celebrity Fifteen to One presented by both William G. Stewart and Adam Hills?
- Reviewed: 2015 Chattanooga shootings
- Comment: 35/2 = 17.5, 10/4 = 2.5, 17.5 x 2.5 = 43.75. 4375% - 100% = 4275%.
Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 01:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC).
I am not sure I get the math here at all and I am an engineer. So the first show had 2 out of 35 celebrity shows, or 5.7% of all shows in the original. Reviewed show had 4 out of 10 or 40% - Correct so far? I just don't see the leap to 4275%, I mean that would mean it would have to produce 42 times more celebrity shows = 84 shows? Not sure what 35/2 gives us? that there was a ratio of 17.5 to 1 I guess? But that's not a percentage. I don't get the math and the cited hook is not sourced either so it's hard to pass this one on that part alone. If the hook can be explained/supported by facts then maybe otherwise I'm not sure this could be passed. @Launchballer: I would love a few details on this. MPJ-US 03:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)- Reading the two articles just gives me a headache - So Non Celebrity Original series, 2265 episodes, non celebrity revival series 100 episodes? 2 original show Celeb episodes, revival had 10? original 0.08% Celebrity Specials, new one 0.9%-ish Celebrity specials. `I am not seeing how you get the 4275 number at all. MPJ-US 03:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- You've lost me now! The first 35 series contained just 2 celebrity specials. 1 special per 17.5 series. In the revival series, the four series contain 10 specials. 2.5 specials per series. 17.5 x 2.5 = 43.75, or 4375%, minus 100%. Clearer?--Launchballer 18:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- '*but.... 17.5 to 1 is not a percentage, it is a ratio - and why multiply two ratios with each other? That definitly does not turn it into a percentage. To me the math is unclear, potentially wrrong and there is no source for it. Yes it is "synthesized" from facts, but the calculations are not clear at all. MPJ-US 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- by your logic the first show had 17.5% specials and the new one had 250% specials? Since you.went 43.75 = 4375%? I am trying to see the math, but the jump from ratio to percent does not make sense. MPJ-US 20:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 17.5:1 divided by 1:2.5, or 17.5 divided by 0.4, is 43.75. Converted to a percentage, 43.75 is 4375%. 4375% is 4275% more than the 100% of the original.--Launchballer 21:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I get the math until you turn a ratio into a percentage straight up - you basically say that 2 is 17.5% of 32. That math does not check out at all. MPJ-US 23:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually it is wrong right off the bat should be 1/17.5 and 10/4. Which equals 0.05 and 2.5 respectively. If we follow your logic we go to 0.05/2.5 = 0.0228...
- At this point I can fail the DYK for being unsourced and not logical, or you can ask for a second opinion on your math. MPJ-US 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The alternative is for me to produce another hook, such as ALT1: ... that Gyles Brandreth is the only person to have appeared in episodes of Celebrity Fifteen to One presented by both William G. Stewart and Adam Hills? However, try taking the ratios as fractions; my logic is based on 2.5/0.0571428 to find out how much more the revival has in comparison with the original.--Launchballer 00:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- At this point I can fail the DYK for being unsourced and not logical, or you can ask for a second opinion on your math. MPJ-US 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 17.5:1 divided by 1:2.5, or 17.5 divided by 0.4, is 43.75. Converted to a percentage, 43.75 is 4375%. 4375% is 4275% more than the 100% of the original.--Launchballer 21:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Let us go with the alternate hook to avoid head aches, the last appearance table is unsourced though so that needs to be addressed before the hook can be considered sourced. MPJ-US 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a video? I did not even notice that. Yes the video does list him, hmmmm. MPJ-US 13:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- One last thing, what does the colored squares refer to? There is no key to indicate this? MPJ-US 13:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa was just AFD'ed! So this is on hold until the AFD is over, if it is kept it could still have a DYK. MPJ-US 13:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: still at AfD, for those wondering why the nomination has stalled. If the AfD is closed without deletion, then the review will resume. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
AfD closed as "no consensus", so a reviewer needed to start the process going again. Have struck the original hook with its questionable methodology. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, you need to provide an ALT hook, since the original one has been struck. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did, six weeks ago.--Launchballer 22:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see it in the middle of the line there. I've duplicated it at the top where it will be easier for a reviewer to find. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, I began taking a look at this nom, and I ran into a problem verifying that Gyles Brandreth was in fact in an episode hosted by Adam Hills; the souce cited for the table in which Brandreth's name is listed in the article does not mention him as one of the contestants. I clicked through to the page for episode four, to see whether his name would appear in the credits, but could not get the video to play (possibly a region issue). I'm not sure it would be acceptable for me to AGF that Bradreth was indeed in the episode as if it were an offline source cited. This nomination may have to wait for another reviewer... —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Although I've never checked the credits, the contestants' names are given at the start of each episode, set to the theme tune.--Launchballer 09:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Even if I could AGF the contestants' names being given in the videos, there's a deeper problem: the only 'source' for Brandreth being the only contestant who appeared with both hosts is the listings for all the episodes — you don't seem to have a secondary source drawing that connection, but are making the inference yourself. I'm afraid it looks like you again need a new hook. Sorry. You could maybe do something with the "Barry Cryer rule" or the "80s nights" angle? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would it help if I was to point out that what coerced me into writing this article is Brandreth coming out and saying "I was on the original Celebrity Fifteen to One with William G. Stewart". That episode is almost certainly on YouTube, though offhand I can only really narrow it down by about ten minutes and I don't have time to look now.--Launchballer 11:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not, Launchballer, since he didn't say "I'm the only constestant who was on the original Celebrity Fifteen to One with William G. Stewart". (Even if he had, that wouldn't have sufficed, since another contestant who'd been on with Stewart might have gone on with the new host after Brandreth's second appearance.) It really would be best to choose a hook that is supported by a secondary source, I think. I would be happy to review this nomination with such a hook. Or you could wait to see if another reviewer thinks this hook is okay; but I suspect that even if that were to happen, a promoter would likely kick it back due to the hook seeming to be based on original research. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that early episodes of Celebrity Fifteen to One have been described as "fifteen-against-one"? (Not currently in the article, but the site that describes it thus is sourced in the article, and its addition can easily be arranged.)--Launchballer 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I ran your suggested ALT2 by a couple of people, who felt it wasn't interesting enough to make them want to click on... and I'm inclined to agree, I'm afraid. I do think you have other workable options for an appropriately-sourced hook using what's already in the article. If you would rather, I can propose some hooks, and leave doing the review to some other editor? Up to you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that Barry Cryer gave his name to a rule of Celebrity Fifteen to One after becoming the only contestant to miss both of his first two questions? If that'sn't interesting, do please make suggestions.--Launchballer 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, I think that's plenty interesting enough.
I'll get to work on the review later today. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, I think that's plenty interesting enough.
- ALT3: ... that Barry Cryer gave his name to a rule of Celebrity Fifteen to One after becoming the only contestant to miss both of his first two questions? If that'sn't interesting, do please make suggestions.--Launchballer 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I ran your suggested ALT2 by a couple of people, who felt it wasn't interesting enough to make them want to click on... and I'm inclined to agree, I'm afraid. I do think you have other workable options for an appropriately-sourced hook using what's already in the article. If you would rather, I can propose some hooks, and leave doing the review to some other editor? Up to you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that early episodes of Celebrity Fifteen to One have been described as "fifteen-against-one"? (Not currently in the article, but the site that describes it thus is sourced in the article, and its addition can easily be arranged.)--Launchballer 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not, Launchballer, since he didn't say "I'm the only constestant who was on the original Celebrity Fifteen to One with William G. Stewart". (Even if he had, that wouldn't have sufficed, since another contestant who'd been on with Stewart might have gone on with the new host after Brandreth's second appearance.) It really would be best to choose a hook that is supported by a secondary source, I think. I would be happy to review this nomination with such a hook. Or you could wait to see if another reviewer thinks this hook is okay; but I suspect that even if that were to happen, a promoter would likely kick it back due to the hook seeming to be based on original research. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Would it help if I was to point out that what coerced me into writing this article is Brandreth coming out and saying "I was on the original Celebrity Fifteen to One with William G. Stewart". That episode is almost certainly on YouTube, though offhand I can only really narrow it down by about ten minutes and I don't have time to look now.--Launchballer 11:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Even if I could AGF the contestants' names being given in the videos, there's a deeper problem: the only 'source' for Brandreth being the only contestant who appeared with both hosts is the listings for all the episodes — you don't seem to have a secondary source drawing that connection, but are making the inference yourself. I'm afraid it looks like you again need a new hook. Sorry. You could maybe do something with the "Barry Cryer rule" or the "80s nights" angle? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Although I've never checked the credits, the contestants' names are given at the start of each episode, set to the theme tune.--Launchballer 09:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did, six weeks ago.--Launchballer 22:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, here we go! Page was created as a redirect 20 June 2014, but work on the article didn't begin until 4 September 2015, and nomination was two days later, so it's new enough. At 3986 prose characters, it's more than long enough. It follows the NPOV and inline citation policies, and is copyvio-free according to Earwig's tool. The hook is 145 characters, interesting, and cited in the article to a source that supports it; it could be argued that the hook is a bit harsh on Cryer, but the rule has apparently been called that since 1990, and I don't think referencing a true fact about someone missing two questions on a game show is "unduly [focussing] on negative aspects of living people". (If consensus decides that hook doesn't work, though, I would suggest a hook doing something with the 20-year hiatus.) QPQ is done and there is no image.
Launchballer, this DYK is finally GTG! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)