Talk:Emogenius

Emogenius has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 10, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Television: Game shows Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emogenius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I hope you are having a fantastic week. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free.

Opening Comments[edit]

Welcome to the review for Emogenius. I structure my reviews like a trial. My reviews are all about your voice as I will simply post issues and you will do the work solving them. If necessary I will make very minor copy edits to the article if I feel they don't need a whole bullet point dedicated to them. Anyway, I am looking forward to working with you again. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: Update, I am currently finishing up another review and I am having a busy week at work. I should be getting to yours tomorrow. I apologize. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: No worries, I've been busy myself recently. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

Overall, This one will need to be bigger to be classified into "Good". I go by Quality over Quantity but right now the article is a little on the short side.

"premiered on June 14, 2017" More insight on the premire. Give season information and creation dates.

Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"bonus round for a chance to increase their winnings to $10,000." Talk about the bonus round. Expand more on the gameplay a little bit also.

Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"grandson of The $64,000 Question host Hal March." Citation Needed

The citation is given in the body of the article; it would be extraneous to give it again in the lead. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the first paragraph of "Gameplay" give background to team formation and contestants. Maybe even expand more upon the first round. It feels very hollow.

Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third paragraph of "Gameplay" confuse me. Use more sentences and cut down on similar words.

Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

". Again, the team may pass as often as needed, however, they will only switch roles when the receiver successfully solves the message." Sentence needs reworking.

Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" 2017 upfront presentation in New York City on March 17." Where in New York?

The PR only says "New York", so I'm not sure. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, Game Show Enterprises, LLC serves as production company, while executive producers include Craig Brooks and Larry Barron, the latter of whom serves the same role on GSN's Idiotest." Sentence needs reworking.

Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section needs major expansion.

Again, small cable series, not a lot more I can do. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im Impressed that you basically built this from the ground up. Get cracking on those issues! AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Thank you for this. It's after midnight here so I'll look at this tomorrow. Regarding expansion, I'll see what I can do, but I think I've gotten it about as expansive as I can. Think Like a Cat and The Line (game show) are also GSN originals and are on the shorter side; both passed without much concern over being too short. Again, I'll see what I can find though. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: The first bullet is not an issue and thank you for pointing out examples of Short GA's. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: I think we're ready for another run-through. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: All previous issues have been solved. Could you add a picture of the host if possible? And do a grammar sweep. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88:

Done minus the host image; March isn't a mainstream celebrity (at least not yet). I'll keep an eye out for a future image should one surface. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: Thank you, All Issues have been resolved; The review table will now begin.

Review Table[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Check
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Check
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Check
	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).	Check
	2c. it contains no original research.	Check
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Check
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Check
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Check
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Check
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Check
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Check
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Check
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed

Closing Comments[edit]

Congratulations on passing. (This is #3 for us) Your dedication and hard work was fantastic. I hope we can work together in the near future. Have a fantastic day. If you need any help on anything just ask. If you want me to take a look at any other articles you have for review, I will be more than happy to. Thank you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]