Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple/GA1
I have failed this from GA for multiple reasons:
- References 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 in this diff were all from fansites. None of these seems to be reliable (one's on Geocities, one's on Freewebs). I have removed these as they do not meet WP:EL or WP:RS.
- Most of the "theming and premise" section is unreferenced.
- Teams: Do the team names really need to be in color like that?
- Main Game: Tighten up the prose here; it seems too wordy. Too many sentences beginning with "if" as well.
- Footnotes such as "...However, studio master evidence shows that new episodes were airing at least through July 1995." and "This is according to Fogg's rundown of the rules before a tiebreaker occurred; it is probable that these are the same rules used in the Steps of Knowledge." smack of original research.
- Sorry, (insert your choice of profanities) Internet Explorer ate my reply, so here's an abbreviated version. Basically, after exhaustive Internet research (including subscription databases), I could only find three print sources on the show.
- The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows has about a quarter page of information on the show. It has a mostly complete list of people involved in production (which is why it is cited in the beginning of the article). However, it glosses over many details of the show's gameplay.
- An article in the Los Angeles Times from July 10, 1994 about the show (Mendoza. "Shows for Youngsters and Their Parents Too: Nickelodeon and the 'Temple' of Treasure Mix History and Games." p.7). The article contains a few producer comments, as well as a little gameplay description (even less than EOTVGS) and a little behind-the-scenes.
- A Variety article from February 17, 1994 about the show's timeslot change and renewal for a second season (Flint. "Stone Stanley Inks for Firstrun with Nick, ESPN"). Zero gameplay detail, but there might be stuff in this article to beef up the broadcast history section.
- These articles gloss over many important aspects of the subject (for instance, not one of them mentions the names of the teams), which is a necessary component of a Good Article. Hence, I believe the two deleted sources, while not the most reliable, can still be used as reliable sources for this article. While they are self-published (which is one strike against them), I believe they are still reliable for the following reasons.
- They are run by a webmaster; hence, the quality and veracity of the information can be attributed to a single person or group of people in each case.
- Those webmasters are considered experts on the subject on the largest forum on the show I've seen (Phantom's Temple). While this is not a reliable third-party certification of the webmasters as experts, it's the best one can get, since journalists have concurred that a show that has been out of production for 12 years is not worth writing about in print.
- The sources are mainstream, do not present fringe views, and mostly agree with each other (most differences between the two sources are additions and omissions, not contradictions).
- Thus, while the sources are not the most reliable one could hope for, they're the best that can be found. Thus, I believe them to be reliable enough for this article. Let me know what you think. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)