# Talk:Arthur Chu

The criticism section doesn't make any sense. He jumps from category to category seeking Daily Doubles? Jumping across categories in no way increases a contestant's probability of uncovering a Daily Double.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 

"So when Arthur Chu bobs and weaves around the board, he’s chasing those game-changing Daily Doubles. (The Jeopardy! contestant coordinators recommend playing the game in top-to-bottom order, mostly to make life easier on Alex Trebek and the techs who run the game board, but it’s not a requirement.) Hunting is possible because Daily Doubles may be hidden, but they’re not distributed randomly. For example, they’re much more likely to be in the fourth row of clues (36 percent of the time, in recent years) than the second row (just 10 percent). Roger Craig even discovered that Daily Doubles are distributed nonrandomly by column as well, and played accordingly. " According to Slate.com -  14:06, 12 March 2014‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.69.178 (talk • contribs) 

I'm perplexed by this recent revert[1]. We have two sources following the text, one (salon) is a list of articles which on our own we can attempt to distill to define his career. The other (daily beast) is an about blurb which does that for us and which the previous text accurately reflected:

An actor, comedian and sometime culture blogger, he somehow captured national attention for becoming an 11-time Jeopardy! champion in March 2014 and is now shamelessly extending his presence in the national spotlight by all available means. Additionally, the previous text accurately reflected the article's "After Jeopardy!" section whereas the updated text doesn't appear to be repeated or supported anywhere in the article (see WP:LEAD.) The choice best supported by policy seems clear. Policy also dictates WP:BRD which has not been followed in this most recent revert. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure the Daily Beast 'About' blurb is Chu's own words and an attempt at self-deprecating humor. Many writers write their own sections in their 'about' bios. It's silly to insist that must be the main descriptor. Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The "main descriptor" is: an American game show contestant and columnist. Rather the text we're discussing summarizes his career path after Jeopardy. Let's dismiss the Daily Beast blurb entirely — the previous text is still well sourced in the relevant After Jeopardy! section: [2]. The updated text however has no source support and is not reflective of information presented anywhere in the article. I don't see how one can argue it's an improvement. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It accurately reflects his subsequent career. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
And what sources support that claim? Find a better one than the existing source, which supports the previous text, and I'll drop my objection. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, the list of publications in Salon speaks for itself. The lede accurately reflects what the article says: "Chu has become a columnist and Internet commentator, writing on issues of racism and sexism in technoculture for The Daily Beast and Salon."  That’s what ledes are for. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
More publications: Polygon: [3]  Daily Beast (lots) [4] Ravishly [5]. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I can only repeat what I've said above. I ask that you self-revert and observe the correct WP:BRD procedure. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't find a single reference to "technoculture" in any of the listed sources; your changes are WP:OR.  The previous text, meant to summarize the article's final section, did just that; the new text does not. Either improve the final section with proper sourcing to match your desired lead change or leave the lead as is. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Technoculture is a perfectly reasonable description of the field of discourse, but if you dislike it, we'll avoid it. A much simpler edit restores the neutral tone,  MarkBernstein (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with the latest edit by DD2K. Thanks. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arthur Chu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 12, 2015, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
NOTE: Please respond, below the entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Personal life = suggest change sect name to Early life and family.
Per WP:LEAD, please consider adding just a tad bit of info about his early life and family to the lede intro sect.
Perhaps add See also sect for other notable game-show contestants of similar shows or just from the same show that aren't mentioned already in article body text.
External links = you could add links to his authored-article links (usually they have one link to see all articles by same author) and/or profile page at those sites, for Salon and The Daily Beast.
2. Verifiable?:
A few issues here = please format the refs properly, for major publications use work field instead of publisher field. One example = Mother Jones is cited as if the work is Motherjones.com and this is inaccurate. Please correct all of these. Especially for notable works (that should be wikilinked), no need to use publisher field at all here.
As it's a smaller article, please go through using fields archivedate and archiveurl and archive all hyperlinks to Internet Archive, to increase posterity over time.
Second and third place contestants of each game earn only $2,000 and $1,000 regardless of their final score. = please add in-line cite to back up this assertion of fact.
 Chu defeated Collins on the January 30 episode. = please add in-line cite to back this up at end of this sentence.
Notes = please change title of this sect to Footnotes and then make it its own level-2 section.
References = please make this its own level-2 subsection.
Please wikilink notable works in citations like The New Yorker, for example.
3. Broad in coverage?:
What year did he get married?
Parents names and maybe some brief info on each, place of birth?
Mother's occupation?
What year did he receive his B.A. in History?
What type of stuff has he done as a voiceover artist? Anything interesting or noteworthy?
4. Neutral point of view?: Both my inspection of the article edit history, and talk page discussion, shows a prior concern was in the end successfully addressed to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The article works the criticism of his gameplay style directly into the article body text in a matter-of-fact manner that is indeed neutral in tone to the reader.
5. Stable?
Inspection of article edit history shows one (1) stray IP edit that was handled promptly by GA Nominator on 22 September 2015. Otherwise, stable for at least a few months.
Talk page shows back-and-forth discussion about wording that was amicably resolved to all parties satisfaction in March 2015.
Therefore, no ongoing issues with stability.
6. Images?:
File:Arthur Chu vs. drone, March 2015.jpg = Y = from Wikimedia Commons, originally from Flickr, reviewed okay on image page.
File:Arthur Chu and Eliza Blair, March 2015.jpg = Y = also from Commons, from same author at Flickr, no problems here.
#NOTE: Please respond, below the entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: Thanks! I'm busy with other things at the moment, but give me a week and I'll find some time to do some more research I'm sure. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, but please keep in mind you have Seven Days. After the time period of Seven Days I don't know what could happen. We could all go back in time and become chrononauts or something. Just so ya know. And please keep me posted back here at this page once you're all done with above, with a ping if you like. Good luck. — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
One last note: Please, consider reviewing two (2) WP:GAN candidates, for every one that you nominate. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I want to thank you for your work in reviewing; I'll try to pick up a couple soon, it's just that I don't really enjoy reviewing as much because I'm always worried I'll miss something important (clearly, as you can see, I've missed a lot here). Regarding the article at hand, to update, I believe I've fixed all the problems under section one and two, except for archiving the links, which I'll get to as soon as I can. I'll try to answer as many of the "broad" questions as possible, but again, it's been a while since I looked at the refs so I'm not sure I'll be able everything. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no worries, my idea was only to give a suggestion as an option to consider and think about as a suggested notion only. It's enough if you've gone to WP:GAREV and familiarized yourself with actually how to review and read over the instructions, you don't have to actually do any, that's up to you, as a way to think about paying it forward -- sound good? — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, could not find his mother's occupation but expanded the information as much as I could. It looks like his voice over work has mostly been minor; supposedly he had a (very) small role in Cleanland (Bang), a film that doesn't even have a WP article to start with. Let me know if you need anything else; all the links are archived except for the Washington Post refs, which cannot be crawled due to robots.txt. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


### Passed as GA
My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

72.65.103.5 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please state your suggested changes. — Strongjam (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The article lists Chu as writing for The Daily Beast and Salon. I checked and the latest article I can find on the Daily Beast is dated 04.01.16 and the latest on Salon is dated August 17, 2015 11:00pm
Chu's own website doesn't list any articles past April 1, 2016.
In short I don't think he currently writes for either of those organisations any more.
I'll leave it for someone more up on editing and appropriate terminology to decide if the article needs to be edited, and if so, how.
119.18.15.193 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Today, Chu has a large profile in social-media political discourse, raising controversy with tweets such as "Ashley Babbitt feeding the worms is one of the few good things that happened as a result of the Capitol 'protest'". 

https://cnsnews.com/blog/rob-shimshock/ex-jeopardy-champ-ashli-babbitts-nazi-feeding-worms-good-thing
This social media presence might not make an otherwise non-notable person notable, but given that Chu has a Wikipedia page for his Jeopardy career, should his current notoriety be mentioned here? 68.9.181.144 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Paragon Deku, without any substantive explanation, has repeatedly added {{fanpov}} to this article. I see no article content which is non-neutral. They seem to think that some of the article content is "fluff", but I don't see anything which looks in appropriate. Therefore, I am removing the tag and seeking the opinions of other editors here. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that specific instances of "fluff" need to be cited, if the tag is going to be added to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)