Talk:1 vs. 100 (American game show)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 03:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Good day, I hope you are having a fantastic weekend. Due to your fantastic dedication and improvement to "Hollywood Game Night", I am reviewing this nomination as well. I hope we can get through this easy and stress free.

Opening Comments

Welcome to the review for 1 vs. 100. 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) 00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Issues

@Bcschneider53:

• The intro is confusing to me; especially the sentences " The game features a single player (the 1) competing against 100 other contestants (known as "the Mob") in a trivia match. The 1 gains money for every Mob member eliminated, but loses all winnings with an incorrect answer at any point.".

• Reworked. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• The External link is broken(for me). Try to find a 1v100 website that does not require an archive machine,

• Both links work for me and since the shows have been off the air for a while now, the links are no longer live. Nothing I can do here... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• In the "Gameplay" section, talk about the types of questions. It is very vague as it just states the word "questions" use categories.

• There are no categories; the questions could be about anything from the NFL to Kim Kardashian to French history. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The amount of money in the contestant's bank also increases by an amount dependent on the number of mob members eliminated in that question. If the contestant eliminates all 100 mob members, he or she claims a top prize of $1,000,000; if at any time the contestant is incorrect, the game ends and he or she leaves with nothing. In this case, the remaining members of the Mob who answered the question correctly split the losing contestant's winnings."

- An overall mess, instead of using he or she; use the contestant. This section needs to flow better.

- Reworked. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• The "Helps" section is written very nicely but could use some copy editing for grammar mistakes like incorrect usage of semi colons.

•  Not done. Not sure what you mean here. Couldn't find any semi-colons in this section. I also have Grammarly programmed into my computer and no issues are coming up. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• As do I. I meant that it is phrased awkwardly. I apologize, I was looking at the wrong passage for semi colons.

• The tables is "Payout structure" need to be placed better. They need to be more compact as they take up way too much of the article. Try using the "right" tool with the table.

• The first table confuses me as it shows no mob members.

• The format at the time was different. Contestants were awarded money based on how many mob members were eliminated in each question (see this episode. Later, the structure was changed to award contestants based on every ten members they eliminated regardless of how many questions had been answered (see this episode. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• The "12 Days of Christmas" explanation is awkward with the listing of each mob. I suggest not using bullet points.

• Removed the list. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• "The season finale of GSN's 1 vs. 100 aired on January 11, 2011. Inaba later announced that she would not be returning,[26] and the series was eventually canceled." This needs expansion

• Not much else to work with here. GSN rarely announces cancelations period, let alone reasons why. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Done everything except the tables, I'll see if I can format them better when I get a chance. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Everything looks fantastic. All issues have been addressed. The review table will now begin. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Some of the grammar is very basic and confusing. Try to do a run through of the article and fix up the choppy sentences. Once that is fixed, the first two boxes will be filled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs)

@AmericanAir88: Combined the two tables to cut down on the amount of space. I'll do one more final copyedit. Also, neither of your pings of me worked. The first was because you misspelled my name the first time and signed your post then, but when you went to fix it, you did not resign. You must both sign and ping correctly in the same edit for the ping to work. Likewise, the second was because you did not sign your post. Please try to remember to include a signature every time you add to your review pages :) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Hopefully it's  Done now? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect.

Review Table

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.	Very clear and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Compiles
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.	Each sentence has a reference
	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).	All reliable sources
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything referenced
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers all aspects
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on task
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Very Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very Stable
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.	Proper Images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant Images
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed

Closing Comments

Congratulations on passing. Your dedication and hard work was fantastic. I hope we can work together in the near future. Have a fantastic day. If there is any other reviews you need or articles you need help on don't hesitate to ask. Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: Thank you! I appreciate your willingness to review. I currently only have one other game show nomination in the queue, Emogenius. It would be great if you could knock that one out (it's on the shorter side as it's a cable show), but please don't feel obligated. Let me know if you need an assistance anywhere yourself! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)