Talk:The Price Is Right

This article has been renamed from The Price Is Right to The Price Is Right (US) as the result of a move request. The discussion on this topic is contained in Archive3.

Archived Talk: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4

	To-do list for The Price Is Right:	edit - history - watch - refresh

GA Review

Overall, this is a pretty good article. There are a few specific things that are needed in order to improve it further to GA level (and beyond), but I think you are pretty close to GA. First, the quick version. Then, I'll give some suggestions as to how I think the article can be improved.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Suggestions

The following are some suggestions I had as I read through the article:

General

• There are references to TPIR, TPiR, and Price as alternate titles. Firstly, consistency is necessary between the first two: if you are going to use any acronyms, pick one and stick with it. Furthermore, any alternate titles that are used in the article should be mentioned and bolded in the lead as an alternate title (see WP:LS#Bold title for an example).

 DoneTPIR is not an alternate title, just shorthand. All instances spelled out, except Price in other media section header. Should be acceptable since it is a headline.

• There are a number of spelling mistakes that I found in the text: orginal → original; cancelation → cancellation; embarassment → embarrassment.

 Done Got'em—Twigboy 05:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

• "although Barker announced on 31 October 2006, that he would retire at the end of this" remove the comma

 Done

• "began on December 8" of what year?

 Done

• "The current format is based on the orginal 1956–65 US version of the show, which aired on NBC and later ABC from 1956 to 1965 and was hosted by Bill Cullen." no need to mention the years twice in the same sentence. Also, check spelling.

 Done

• Merge the second and fourth paragraphs and place after the third paragraph.

 Done Fixed lede issues —Twigboy 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By article section

Pricing games

• "Six pricing games are played per episode, and a variety of games are played, some more elaborate than others" is a bit awkwardly phrased.

 Done Rephrased.—Twigboy 17:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Other production staff

• Incorporate text in parentheses ("Dobkowitz occasionally appears...") into the previous sentence.

 Done—Twigboy 02:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Syndicated productions

• "It was only when James' contract expired and the long-running Truth or Consequences ended production that Barker added the evening version to his chores." Perhaps duties is a better choice?

 Done Agreed. —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CBS primetime specials

• "The situation with potential audience members before the Vegas show started with confusion, then quickly degraded almost to chaos; as such, another road trip is unlikely." It is unclear to me what the "situation with potential audience members" being referred to is.

 DoneThis very likely did happen, but I can't find anything solid on it. Doesn't really speak to anything about the specials themselves, and it doesn't completely answer why no other on-the-road specials have been done. (Perhaps there are other factors?) To OR-ish for me, so I spiked it.—Twigboy 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Productions statistics

• I think it might be better laid out the opposite way that it is now, in the form "text: number" rather than "number. text". This isn't critical though.

 Question: I did it more as a personal style thing. Slightly nonconventional, but I thought it added a different flavor to the article. Comments? —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode Status

• This section seems to have been inserted erroneously in the middle of the Price in other media section, thereby displacing the Live casino game section. If it is not vandalism, it should be likely moved into Production information.
• According to WP:MSH#Capitalization, the section should be titled Episode status.
• A space is needed between the 1st and 2nd sentences.
• "(as does the syndicated nighttime Price is Right)" -- should this not be The Price is Right?

 Done This section crept in after nomination. I'm not sure what it adds to one's understanding of the program.—Twigboy 02:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

References

• Reference #3: Remove "(US game show)" from the text. Also, the link does not point to the correct IMDB page.

 Done Revised footnote for an "umbrella" footnote for releated sections at IMDB.—Twigboy 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reference #7 is a broken link

 DoneAck! I hate to see this one go, but there is no solid link in place, and it's not in the Wayback Machine. We'll see you another day, perhaps. —Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• References #10-13: convert to use {{cite episode}} template?

 Question: These do use the {{cite episode}} template. Since there are no episode titles, it has to deviate slightly from the proscribed format. —Twigboy 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice that. I think what was throwing me off was the redlinks, and I'm not sure why they're even red -- the airdate parameter should be in YYYY-MM-DD (2007-04-19) or DD Month YYYY (19 April 2007) format, as it is being automatically wikilinked by the template. Is it possible to add in an episode/season number, or is that type of data not available on a per episode level. Also, are there any other parameters of cite episode that can be used? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode numbers and production numbers are not generally known; not to say some show geek (no offense, please) wouldn't be able to dig it up. I'm not sure what the production number would add to the casual reader's understanding of the reference. (Contrasted to DVDs of every imaginable 6+ episode show, where the episode data is available.)—Twigboy 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; it just would be helpful to have some sort of reference point, but if meaningful information is not available, then I guess what is done now will have to make-do. It might be worthwhile at some point (I mean, it's not a GA-failing point) to investigate how other game show articles handle this, if they do. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reference #16: likely a copyright violation

 Done Removed statement until more solid reference material shows up.—Twigboy 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• There are a number of sections that contain no inline references at all: Taping; Production company; the whole Broadcast history section is completely unsourced; most of Price in other media is unsourced as well.

 Done—Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• For the Bloopers... item about exploiting game play, it would be better to add a reference for each event. If anything, move the parenthesized note "(which are explained in each pricing game's article)" into a <ref>, but it would be preferable to have references for each of these on this article, especially since I found it hard to find details on the games' articles, plus, those articles are not necessarily referenced, either (or use Youtube videos, which are copyright violations).

 DoneBest possible reference, outside of Youtube links, is an episode reference itself. Perhaps these references can be shored up, but I was coming up blank. —Twigboy 05:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Some citations possibly unreliable (specifically the golden-road.net cites, which appears to be a fansite?); however, for the purposes of GA they are acceptable.

 Question: If not a GA issue, I would like to hold and start a discussion after GA Review on the veracity of reference sites. Definitely a point that I have wrestled with and changed my mind on over time. —Twigboy 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. Each of the three "fan" sites that have been included for references have some sort of "backstage" knowledge of the program. For example, Golden-Road.net conducts a few chat sessions with the producer, which legitimizes the site's content. I have been pretty judicious about the references from fan groups — these seem to be very reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twigboy (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Follow-up to the follow-up. A discussion about the quality of sources is below.—Twigboy 02:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall

• Could use some copyediting

 Done Read top to bottom. Pretty much each section drops the cow before it gets too long-winded. Lot of extraneous cruft is now gone.—Twigboy 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fix up the references and add some more

 DoneAlways could use more, but I shored up a few weak areas.—Twigboy 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As such, I have put the GA nomination on hold for one week, pending repairing the above, which I think is doable. Once the fixes have been made, I'd be glad to approve the article for GA. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

I have reviewed your changes, and have decided to promote this article to GA status. With this in mind, I still think that there are improvements that should be made to this article. It was still in need of a copyedit, but I have taken care of this for you (see diff). More importantly, however, is the fact that there are still a lot of references that should be added to this article; this is enough of a concern that it almost caused me to fail the article. I have added one new reference for you. What you need to do is read through the entire article, and for any item that is not common knowledge, find and add a reference.

That being said, congratulations for taking this article to GA status! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review and performing some much-needed last steps. (Sometimes is gets a bit difficult to think of ways to clean up the copy when you've looked at it so long!) References are, indeed lacking, and hopefully we can shift the focus to cleaning that up. I appreciate your time and consideration!—Twigboy 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of this statement

"Since the January 1994 cancellation of Caesars Challenge, The Price Is Right has been the only daytime game show airing on any U.S. broadcast television network. "

I'm still concerned about the complete accuracy of this statement. I've modified it to include "broadcast" because of examples like Win Ben Stein's Money which as it won Daytime Emmys for several years in a row, indicates that well, it's considered a daytime show. Since it was on Comedy Central that means it's a cable network show, not a broadcast one, so I suppose the qualifier of broadcast television is enough, but I still think it'd be worth noting the various syndicated programming available in game shows, just to make sure that this statement is fully accurate. Are there any suggestions for how to say that? Mister.Manticore 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have struggled with that statement myself. Showing my age, my brain defaulted to "broadcast network" when I saw "network"; the change you made is indeed required for accuracy. The point being made by the statement was that networks (broadcast, because in this context we are going back before the proliferation of cable) ceased producing game shows for daytime entirely, despite being strong programming and production choices in the previous decades. There are several reasons (all of which are OR, so not article-worthy) such as demographic shifts, production costs, etc.

That being said, it is an unsourced statement, which lost a {{cn}} somewhere along the line. (I think it was excised for lack of source and then reappeared.) While devoted television watchers can say, indeed, this is true, there is not (yet) a source that shows it. Primetime broadcast schedules have articles, but daytime schedules are hard to come by.—Twigboy 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's been a bit hard to find sources for the statement, the best I've come up with have been Usenet posts. Some of them even mention the reasons for the cancellation, and while they're probably true, they're not quite reliable. Maybe there will be something in a TPIR retrospective article. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement about TPiR being the only game show on broadcast network daytime since 1994 is a simple statement of fact. If you want to do a historical fact check of daytime TV schedules, you can check the archives of a newspaper that carries them (which is almost any daily paper, at least on Sundays). The New York Times would have the schedules for the NYC stations, which generally clear the entire network schedule (no local pre-emptions). You could also check the tables in the most recent edition of The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows (Schwartz, Ryan and Wostbrock; Checkmark Books, 1999). But I don't think (IMO) that in order to make the above statement, it's necessary to verify and document that no other game show has been aired by a broadcast network in the last 13-1/2 years. It's something that's easily observable.JTRH 12:45, 29 May 2007(UTC)

To clarify the above paragraph, the Sunday edition of a daily paper usually contains a TV magazine which gives the complete schedules for every day of the week. The way I phrased it above didn't entirely make sense. In any case, the statement about network schedules can be easily fact-checked.JTRH 15:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality of citations

While I am not claiming ownership, I wanted to express a few finer points on the references cited in this article. I feel that this will help assist in the addition of new sources, based on the prevailing opinion of reliability.

• What constitutes the "official page" at CBS: Most of the information presented is true, although some is dated. Fans have noted that some of the more trivial points are not too accurate, for reasons unknown.
• The pages for The Price Is Right at IMDb have been cited heavily, as they are the more detailed source for the television industry.
• The Golden-Road.net is a fansite that has been included here because of its chats with the producer, Roger Dobkowitz [1] [2] [3]. The principle contributors have had extraordinary and exclusive backstage access, particularly during the final episodes of Bob Barker's tenure. This is, in this editor's opinion, a de facto recognition of the site.
• TPIR.tv has also been cited several times for its ability to present clear, concise ad-free references. The site's author is a former contestant.
• Game Show Utopia has a concise writeup (compared to other sources) of the Tom Kennedy-hosted version of the show.
• J-shea.com is cited because of several program "artifacts" (such as staging sheets and announcer copy) and otherwise well-sourced information.
• Episode citations, when known are by episode airdate, as there are no episode names and production numbers (or some sort of season serial numbering system) is generally known. (Production numbers do exist, but they are not cited as this does not give the reader any meaningful information.)
• References for the Price in other media section are the best or only available sources.

Traditional press are cited when possible, but it is typically limited to general overview material. It is my opinion that the sources are the best available and provide the reader with a concise understanding of the program. Thoughts? —Twigboy 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) • updated 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The "official page" is produced and maintained by the network staff, or their contractor; that's what makes it official. However, as you've noted, it's riddled with information which is outdated or simply wrong. I once e-mailed that page a question about the show's history, and they gave me an answer which I knew to be inaccurate. (I still didn't know the answer to what I wanted, but I knew that it wasn't what they were telling me.) I guess editorial judgment is called for in the use of the "official" site.JTRH 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Barker retires as host

Bob Barker has retired as host of The Price Is Right on June 6, 2007. [4]. DragonFire1024 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the submission ... unfortunately, this source doesn't have anything more than what is already here. Most of the articles leading up to his retirement have rehashed a lot of the same points. I'm happy to get your submission, but it was more appropriately summarized in the lede and expanded in the section Bob Barker, emcee. Since this was already sourced, there wasn't much more to add. However, I updated the Wikinews link in that section, which does refer to the source article that you named. Thanks again, DragonFire1024. —Twigboy 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

pricing game trivia

it says in most of the pricing game page histories that the trivia has been chopped off and put in a separate section, but just WHERE IS IT? 24.206.74.247 18:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are disappearing from Wikipedia in general with relevant information being incorporated into the article prose. This is per WP:TRIVIA which is a part of the Manual of Style. So you will find, as an example, that the Range Game, has the running gag about the machine taking 37 hours to restart moved into the article prose (since it happens on just about every playing, editors found that notable). But the fact that the game was played for a range (stove) once was deemed non-notable. Trivia such as that is suitable for fansites, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For further information on how to handle trivia sections, refer to WP:HTRIV. Thanks!—Twigboy 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

but you said that you put it in a SEPARATE SECTION. 24.206.74.247 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)