Talk:Around the Horn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Around the Horn was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-02-06

Changed the fact that winners dont get 40 seconds. That might have happened a few times but Adande got 20 seconds today.

Recommendation to add to guest panelist list: Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe has been on their AT LEAST once, though I can not find a link to prove this, I know I have seen him on there.

Recommendations to change Michael A. Smith's link to since it now links to the guy who spat in Jane Fonda's face?

• Done and done. I used Michael Smith (sports reporter) to correspond to the link on the disambiguation page. ESkog 17:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this show is rigged?

The showdown is often rigged in the interests of time. I've heard Tony say "Good point, but I need a sweep because we're out of time..." Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 16:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Disambguation 2 Old Format 3 Baseball reference 4 All Time Wins 5 Showdown 6 Jay Mariotti article 7 A cancelled win. 8 Running gags its own page now 9 Win counts/percentages 10 Featured article status 11 Tables 12 Failed GA nomination 13 Is the show always fixed? 14 Statistics tables

[edit] Disambguation

I can think of other instances of Around the Horn:

• The baseball term: going from third to second to first as in a 5-4-3 double play (on which the name of th show is no doubt based)
• The navigational term: going from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean around Cape Horn (on which the baseball term is no doubt based)

Neither of these has an article right now, but isn't a DA page warranted? Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Format

Does anyone remember when this show first started that it had a much different format. Every panelist stayed on until the very end and then they all got face time. I don't quite remember exactly how it worked because quite frankly the show was awful with that format and I almost never watched it.

Yes I remember it.

The old format went something like this: Mutes were worth -3 (or was it -5?), and Max gave many more points for a topic (5-8'ish), but muted people more often which often resulted in massively negative scroes, usually for Woody. The rounds were also called different names, although I don't recall what they were. People weren't kicked off, but at the end of the game the top 3 people got face time, one second for each point they had amassed (as well as a medal). The fourth place person would be introduced as getting face time and would be promptly muted when they started to speak.

Overall I was a big fan of the old format and never have truly liked the new one.

I also remember people asking the voice over the loud speaker??? to be added points for various reasons. Also I think they sometimes changed the amount of face time for time reasons.--Skroha 22:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball reference

Isn't "Around the Horn" a baseball reference of some sort? Specifically, after a strikeout or groundout, the ball is passed around the infielders until it gets back to the pitcher, and this was called passing it "around the horn." Or am I shockingly mistaken? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why it was called this, and is it a reference to Cape Horn ("round the horn" being a common expression in sailing)? — Johan the Ghost _seance 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Time Wins

Is it possible for the all time wins list to be updated? If it's possible to be updated now, I will try my best to update it daily. AWBricker 16:34, 11 April 2006 (CT)

[edit] Showdown

Does anyone know whether the panelist have preplanned which sides they will be on during the showdown?--Skroha 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this happens a lot, but I doubt it's an every-topic-during-every-Showdown type of thing. For example, there was one topic a couple of days ago (it was Monday, but I can't remember who was in the Showdown) where both panelists agreed. I absolutely do think the preplanning does occur rather frequently, since there are few times when the panelists actually do agree, and because there are some topics in which I simply can't imagine either panelist taking a particular side. -- Kicking222 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Mariotti article

I thought this was the best place to ask this question. What happened to the Jay Mariotti article. I know he isn't exactly the most liked person around, but did something happen that warranted the deletion of his article? ErikNY 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A cancelled win.

I remember one incident (it couldn't have been too long ago if i remember it) where Reali muted somebody during their face time and gave the other panelist the win instead for talking about NASCAR. Does anybody else recall this, and it should be added if I'm not insane. --TopGear 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was definitely Tim Cowlishaw talking about NASCAR, and I believe Reali gave the win to Bill Plaschke. You could probably find more information about it in the ATH Yahoo group that is listed on the article page; just search for some key words. Bmitchelf 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running gags its own page now

Like PTI, the Running Gags was getting massive, so it deserves its own page -- it can be found here: Running gags on Around the Horn. JAF1970 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Win counts/percentages

What is the source for this? Is someone updating the page after every show? As it stands, all of this info (unless it's included in one of the external links, in which case, that should be noted in the article) is completely unverified. -- Kicking222 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not being updated after every show, but no less than every few shows. I believe some of the information can be found at the Around The Horn Yahoo group. It's almost like saying the episode count is unverified since shows like this one do not keep track of their episodes, except internally at ESPN. bmitchelf•T•F 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, appearance counts are off by a few and win counts are off by three right now, so this must be fixed. It was correct last time I check a few months ago. bmitchelf•T•F 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article status

it seems that it's been cleaned up a bit and isn't just a bunch of lists any more. how does one go about nominating this for featured status? Skhatri2005 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we start a little smaller and see if it can pass GA first, I just nominated it, but I am betting its not ready yet, but with the comments back from it can be made GA. EnsRedShirt 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

I put the panelists into a table. If it's unliked then I'm completely fine with someone reverting it. I will go ahead and place the stats into boxes, too. Unless someone objects. Chickenmonkey 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Added the wins tables, too. Will add other stats now.

The only table that doesn't look good is the one for the panelists because of the different lengths of the columns making it look messy. I think that section would be best served as lists. However, I like your idea of tables for the statistics! Thanks for the good work. bmitchelf•T•F 06:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I thought the panelists table might be over complicated, anyway, and you're right, the uneven columns was messy.Chickenmonkey 06:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Finished placing stats into tables. I'm sure there's a way to put the tables next to each other, but I'm not good with alignment. So, someone else could do that or it could be left as is. Chickenmonkey 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the "Wins by City" table, is the amount each panelist has won really neccessary? The same information can be found right above in the "All-time wins" table. Chickenmonkey 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Bjewiki 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article has a good intro, but other sections need expansion or cleanup. The Rounds section should be elaborated on with more detail for the various rounds. For example the "The First Word" could be fixed up with some examples. I would recommend working on improving statements such as "Reali is now much stingier in awarding points."

2. Factually accurate?: There are no references, so nothing can be verified to accurate. I know there are fans of the show that contribute details about the scores and various inside jokes, but these can be cited by the appropriate episode and outside sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is not very broad, it would be better for the article if there could be information about how the show's production, ratings, any possible DVD releases, any awards for the show, etc.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article looks mainly neutral, but it may be more focused to people who already know the show, so using less jargon and more wikilinks could help improve it.

5. Article stability? The article appears stable and I don't forsee there being any problems with that in the future.

6. Images?: The current images are okay, but they both need fair use rationales. Look to similar TV shows for fair use rationales or look to already promoted GA articles. If you can, attempt to add screenshots of some of the rounds in play or some of the regular panelists (again with fair use rationales and sources).

This was my first GA review, so I'm apologize if I was a little harsh. I see above a few sections in the talk page that this was nominated to get a review, so hopefully I brought you some suggestions. Even though I pointed out a lot of things to improve, it will be more likely to pass GA with these suggestions being met. I've seen the show a couple of times, but the editors' expertise here will be able to provide details to improve the article. Keep up the good work and just begin adding references and further expanding the article before trying again. If you have any questions let me know, and I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not too harsh. Good job on the review. Chickenmonkey 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are all good points and reasons I don't think this will ever be a GA. It's just basically facts about the show we've learned from watching it and a bunch of lists and tables. It's hard to provide citations for a sports talk show such as this. But we'll see… bmitchelf•T•F 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the show always fixed?

How often do you think the winner is determined before the show? Is this talked about on the Yahoo site? Some shows it is obviously fixed, perhaps to give the face time to someone who has an important topic to discuss. Thoughts? EagleFan 17:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics tables

I like the look of the statistics tables at the bottom of the article, but is there any way to group some of them together so readers can look at two or three tables in a row rather than all of them on top of each other? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I nested some of the tables, to show 2 in a row. I could do the first 3 all in a row, but I was worried about making it too wide, for users with a lower resolution. Bjewiki 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks good, what you've done should be sufficient. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)