Talk:Red or Black?

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red or Black? article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Red or Black? was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 26, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
January 20, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 11, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Simon Cowell conceived the idea for Red or Black?, the most expensive game show ever made?

Current status: Delisted good article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Red or Black?. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Red or Black? at the Reference desk.

Television: British / Episode coverage / 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Television game shows task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

£15m removal

I've restored the line regarding the cost of the show. Rather than remove it in future, could you provide a reference to show that it isn't the most expensive show (or that it didn't cost £15m) as it would be better changed to along the lines of "initial press reports stated that the show was the most expensive game show ever made, costing around £15m, but was this claim was later disproven..." - obviously not those words because they're rubbish, but you get the idea. Miyagawa (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst TV shows in history... a budget like that and they made absolute tripe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.137.31 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until a source disputes the first reports on budget, and is added, it should remain. Btw IP, this is a talk page for improving the article, not a forum.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure chance?

I've never seen an episode, but from the article I get the impression that the contestants win or lose based on pure blind chance, one round at a time. They exert absolutely no skill for the entire game, and have no control over their fate whatsoever except for choosing red or black.

Is this correct? If not then the article needs a rewrite to explain what the players do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.161.14 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, it is pure chance. Their luck just has to hold out ten times in a row.RaintheOne ^BAM 12:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Less skill than Deal or no Deal? Anyone in academia done a mathematical treatment of the odds yet? Would be informative - unless its too close to original research.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not roulette!

Roulette by its very nature has at least one green zero on it. So its a roulette 'type' wheel, but definately not a roulette wheel. Oh and its the most pointless game show ever. Why not just get them to toss a coin ten times, show would cost far less, be on the screens for less time, and possibly more entertaining. 212.183.128.104 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk • contribs • count) 15:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the last episode, but didn't see the rest. Thought it was a bit stupid, personally. Comments to follow. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll stick my comments in among yours. I've gone through and tried to fix the tense as I've gone through - it's what I get for editing an article before, during the airing of, and then after a show. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Celebrities including Jedward and David Hasslehoff have been involved in the rounds of the show where contestants must choose either red or black in order to pass to the next round, while the show has filmed on locations such as Battersea Power Station and the set of Coronation Street." Odd sentence. I'd say it's best to state the premise of the show before talking about celebrities.
There's some real tense issues- you keep batting from present tense to past tense. This is a real problem- it makes the article rather hard to read.
"Out of the first seven episodes, four millionaires have been made." Without an explanation of the nature of the final round, this seems out of place.
"ITV Network (ITV1/STV/UTV)" I've never seen that formatting before. Is there something in the MoS about it?

Not sure, an editor called GMc came in and swapped out all the uses of ITV1 into something more generic. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The current show is a joint production between Syco TV and ITV Studios, and is initially broadcast on the ITV Network (ITV1/STV/UTV) nightly over the course of seven nights from Saturday to the following Saturday with the exception of the Tuesday night." Long, complex sentence
"It it presented by Ant & Dec, while the show has featured several Cowell related music acts." Copyedit? Also, tense switch in one sentence
"Ratings were initially seen as a success" That's a strange way of saying it
"Reviews of the series were universally critical." Shift this down in the lead? Currently between two sentences about ratings

I think I've covered everything else apart from that ITV Network line. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format

"with those that gamble on the correct colour proceeding to the next round." Not gonna be clear what this means to a lot of people
"the independent adjudicator" This person has not been introduced yet. Change to "an independent adjudicator"?
When discussing "duel", I think the whole "points" thing just confuses the issue. Alternatively, perhaps you could change the last sentence to something like "The first player to reach 4 points, that is, to have all 4 sections of their colour revealed, moves on to the final round to play for £1,000,000.[7]"
I think the structure of this section could be improved. How about moving the last para to second place? You also need to make a little more explicit the first eight rounds vary from week to week. It'd also be helpful to say how many stages are in each "section" (arena/location/studio)
"and then the remaining contestant span the wheel to try to win £1 million." Not needed
Are you going to attempt to list every location/game? If so, a table would be good. If not, why mention those ones in particular?
"which was used for filming scenes in the Harry Potter film series.[14]" So what?

I've done a series of edits to fix those issues, including making the episode description more generic. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"Mayfair Hotel, London" Link?
"There is no involvement with FremantleMedia, who created the first pilot in 2003." How about simply "FremantleMedia was not involved" or something?
"was contacted by Cowell to propose the idea" To tell him to propose the idea, or to have the idea proposed to him by Cowell?
"to take the show international" Colloquial
"Other Cowell related acts are due to appear on the show; including Leona Lewis on the first episode,[3] who was given £100,000 by Cowell prior to the show for a makeover as part of an investment for the show.[21]" Clumsy
Para starting "ITV have also signed deals" is a good example of the tense problems in the article

Those should also all now be fixed I think. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"This enabled the main ITV channel to beat BBC One in the primetime ratings overall, 23.3% to 21%, despite the launch of series 8 of Strictly Come Dancing on the BBC channel with Red or Black? individually placed behind both Strictly and Doctor Who, with the overnights for both being 7.6 and 6.0 million, respectively." Hard to follow

Did some copyediting on this and broke into two sentences. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall through the week the main ITV channel has won in the primetime battle on five out of the seven occasions, a turnaround from the previous week where it only won on a single evening." Tense, "primetime battle"?
"Criticism and controversy" Is not a very NPOV title, especially as you open with praise

Hadn't thought about it that way - renamed it to "Media response". Miyagawa (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"overshadowed by stories relating to £1 million winner Nathan Hageman as it was revealed that he had a criminal background, initially being said to a 5 year sentence for breaking into a man's house and assaulting him." If that's not true, we have a real BLP problem- it should be stripped or made clear more that this was not true

Changed to "accused" - does that solve the BLP problem, or should I remove the line entirely? Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"showed who he was" Revealed his identity?

Fixed as per suggestion. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the use of Unreality TV and OnTheBox as sources- what makes them reliable, especially considering these are critical of living people?

I've dropped OnTheBox from the article. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References, external links, images and so on

I'm seeing fairly heavy use of Unreality TV- I've written a number of articles on reality stars and avoided it, personally. Why do you believe it is reliable?

I did a little research on it before using (which I admit, I failed to do with OnTheBox), and found a couple of interesting bits of coverage that made me believe it was reliable: Belfast Telegraph article, Belfast Telegraph article about Lisa McGarry, Lisa McGarry being quoted on independent.co.uk. Additionally, I tried to only use it for episode synopsis. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Monterosa Creates Live Play-Along Game For ITV’s Red Or Black" Decap?
"The Sun Demand Red or Black Winner Give Back His Prize. Double Standards?" If it is reliable, decap?

This one got removed. Miyagawa (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jackpotjoy's suite of four Red or Black? games" Italics? Formatting?

As it was selling something, I felt that it failed WP:ELNO and removed it. Miyagawa (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The graphs could do with some refs on the image pages

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you took the arena image- did you take part in the show? Don't feel you have to answer, just me being nosey.

I was just in the audience at the arena for the show that was aired first. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources not mentioned and the images check out. There's potentially a very good article here, but the prose is a little choppy and the use of some references is questionable. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing, I'll come back and address the rest of the issues in a while. Miyagawa (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second look through

I'm taking another look through the article, noting your previous comments.

It'd be good if the first paragraph noted the premise of the game, before launching into the specifics of the rounds. Or perhaps something like "split into 8 rounds; in each round, the player must choose either black, or red, with those who choose incorrectly being eliminated".

Added to the lead and re-phrased in the text. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ratings were initially seen as a success" This is a strange phrase

Re-worded that sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviews" The link isn't needed

Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and additional criticism was leveled at the show when it was found that the first winner of the £1 million prize, Nathan Hageman, had a criminal record and on further investigation by the British media was discovered to have lied to the makers of the show about the nature of the offence" Part of a long sentence, the writing isn't great

Removed the second half of the sentence, I felt in the end that it wasn't needed in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The current show is a joint production" Again, tenses

Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The show consisted of 10 stages, with contestants having a choice between red or black in each stage before a winning colour was chosen for that round.[2] The rounds were split into three stages." Round/stage

Funny enough, I noticed that myself and had already fixed it whilst sorting out one of the other issues. :) Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contestants then" Only the winning contestents

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second paras of the "format" section seem to say the same thing in different ways

Removed the second paragraph, it was a duplication in it's modified form. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duel para still has some tense switches

Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for the para on the final round

Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Social TV company Monterosa were contracted to create a play along game that could be played by viewers online whilst watching the show, and compete with Facebook friends." This needs rephrasing

Streamlined the sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"in despite of" I don't think that makes sense

Reworded it. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"primetime battle"?

Reworded it. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The writing's still a little choppy in places, but it's coming together. This is approaching GA status. I've made a few more edits. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and your edits, we're getting there. :) Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J, is there anything I've missed? Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, this review completely slipped my mind- been a busy week! I'll get back to it ASAP. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been another couple weeks. Is this review set to be concluded soon? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third look through

I'm sorry, it's really not OK that I've left you waiting on this for about a month. I've just found myself incredibly busy; Wikipedia's sadly taken something of a back seat.

"Red or Black? is a British television game show that is broadcast on ITV. Developed by Simon Cowell, it is the most expensive game show in television history, with a £15 million budget." Why present tense here?

Switched it to past tense (also switched the following sentence as well). Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and the final round where the winner chose a colour on a giant wheel similar to that used in roulette. During the first series, four millionaires were made." Link these to mention that choosing correctly in the final round gives you a million?

Changed to "During the first series, four finalists guessed the colour correctly in the final round and became millionaires." Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"that the first winner of the £1 million prize, Nathan Hageman, had a criminal record." For BLP reasons, can we please have a cite in the lead?

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to say how it is decided what the "correct" answer is earlier in the article.

Moved it up in the lead, and dropped the Simon Cowell line to the end of the first paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"of at the The Herald,"

Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you make these small fixes, I'll be happy to promote. If you're willing to go for the slog, I reckon this one actually has a chance at FAC. Three thoughts in that regard:

The prose is a little choppy in places. It's good enough for GAC, but getting a thorough copyedit would hopefully ready it for FAC. Alternatively, leave it a few months, then take another look.
Double check the references- there are at least a couple where the formatting is very slightly off, or more Wikilinks could be given, or something
Consider expanding the episode-by-episode breakdown to list the six unique tasks in each one. Alternatively, consider adding a new table to "rounds", or listing in-prose every round.

As I say, these last three are ideas for if you're sending this FACward. For GA status, the five notes above will be enough. Thanks, and sorry again for taking so long to get back to you about this review. J Milburn (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the FAC notes - I hadn't really thought about taking it through there, but I'll give it some serious consideration. Going to take a little Wiki break after the cup through November (although knowing me, it'll be limited access rather than none!) and then I'll come back to it fresh in December. Miyagawa (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts and patience; I'm now promoting. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious updating

The format has been changed a LOT for series 2. I've done a bit already but much more updating needs to done on this article. Unreal7 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red or Black?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Red or Black?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Delisting as not meeting GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Red or Black?/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is very unsourced, with concerns from as far back as 2012 not addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.