Talk:Bad Girls Club/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 08:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am starting review. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have completed reading the article. It seems to be well written article! See more comments below-Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 09:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it currently on hold? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I did not get any response from any editor, so, waiting for a reply! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who nominated it lolz. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... will take up to two days. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, take your time. Actually I was preparing to fix those dead refs myself (a reviewer can make minor corrections during review! Also add few (more citations) in the lead section of the article (see below "citations" section)! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First look

Basic problems	Comment
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability	N No problem!
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}	N No!
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars	N No!
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.	N No problem

First look assessment: Y Ok! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations

• Reference 67 is a dead link and there is an error 403 problem in reference 95. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • All done! Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

Lead section

• Bad Girls Club is an American reality television series created by Jonathan Murray for the Oxygen TV channel. - the name of Jonathon Murray is mentioned in infobox and lead section. So, it needs citation!

 Done Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Bad Girls Club is broadcast in five countries.

 Not done Not needed, the article body itself has sources indicating that the show is broadcast in five countries. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Add the name of the countries in bracket and add a citation (eg. The Bad Girls Club is broadcast in five countries Country A, Country B, Country C...) . If you tell me the show is broadcast in five countries, I'll immediately ask you in which five countries? And it is not easy to understand that you have created a section on it "International broadcast" which is actually contains the explanation/details of the sentence in lead --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Section Season 5 Quote box
  

I had no idea where I was and [I] had to go to the ER over night. They later discovered someone put PCP in my drink. They can't show it on the show because then that guy could sue for slander.
--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Age of Christine Moon

In a recent edit an (anonymous) editor has changed the age of Christine (Moon) from 23 to 21, I am not very sure, verify this! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

According to this she is 21. Would you like me to cite it with the link? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Review status

Does anything else need to be done/is the review complete? It started well but has stalled the past month. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominator told (s)he will inform me/post in this review page after doing the edits asked here. Need to contact nominator! Will do!--Tito Dutta ^Message 05:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do this week. Sorry for the delays :( Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 12:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay!--Tito Dutta ^Message 14:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now  Fixed all remaining issues and have updated, removed vandalism and added a few more sentences to the lead (with sources). Is there anything else that needs to be done? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wondering about the lack of action on the nomination; it seems to have stalled again after some criteria were checked off on April 10 as having been satisfied. Are there problems in the other areas? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Will be done in next few days! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope you'll be back soon to finish up! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there something holding up the final steps? How long do you think it will take to finish? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not Stable?

The article has just failed the "Stable" category, and I'm at a loss to figure out why. The criteria are: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I see no evidence of a content dispute going back a month, and no edit warring. Only the usual too-frequent bad IP edits and vandalism followed by reversions that tend to hit any article involving a popular show or performer, especially those with regular editors who want the article to remain clean. Tito Dutta, could you please explain the reasoning behind your grading of this section? It would be a shame for the article to be rejected due to this one failing grade. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It can be suggest to GA editors to clarify– IP edits/vandalism. IP edit is a serious problem here. And if you see article history mainly anonymous editors are editing this article. So, naturally there is not any talk page discussion on content disputes etc, I discussed with nominator and suggested to request protection. It can be done. If you think the grade should be pass, be WP:BOLD go ahead and change the grade below!--Tito Dutta ✉ 22:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there really serious, prolonged content disputes? I honestly don't see them. IP edits can be a problem, but if the bad ones are quickly reverted, I don't see what the problem is. I'm on a task force where we get literally dozens of questionable IP edits a week on some GA articles, but reversion is fast and painless. These IPs don't seem to persist, and if there are helpful edits mixed in among the reversions, protection can be very hard to get even if the bad edits outnumber the good three or four to one. If this turns out to be the only thing holding back approval of the GA, then I'd ask you to get a formal second opinion on the issue before failing the GA. I'm not an experienced GA reviewer, so it would be inappropriate in the extreme for me to change your grade. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not like that. Feel free to change the grade and add a note! I did not plan to fail the article for this reason. If you see article history– anonymous users (who are primary contributors of this article) are changing content (important information) continuously (changing age, home town of participants etc). Not all edits are being monitored. And I know I once again need to review that article for WP:OR and prose style now! I have requested an indefinite semi protection. --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And can you tell me what is happening in 6b of assessment template? Are they helping us in nomination? I can not understand properly! --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a disagreement between them on images. Since you're neutral on the subject, I'd suggest you make your own review, put it in the boxes as the official reviewer, and if your conclusion is different from theirs, change the grade as necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, this article attracts vandalizing IPs. This article has been edit-protected countless times. But just because the IPs are vandalizing the article, doesn't mean that because of them it should not be made into a model article. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 02:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection request: This is the protection request, you can add comment there (or withdraw the request if you want). --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was given a one-month protection (since last time was two weeks), with an invitation to ask for more if necessary after that expires. That should ensure stability from IP vandals. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Template

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I have read the article multiple times, and yes, the prose is clear and concise. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) There is not any problem with the WP:MOS in the article! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, I have carefully checked this multiple times, it provides references to all sources of all necessary and important information. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	True, the article follows the guidelines! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Reviewed it once again. There is not any original research! --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass!--Tito Dutta ✉ 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Since unfortunately it took long time to complete the review, today I have revised this criteria again and there is not any problem! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Does not pass! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC) After revising, I am changing to pass (see comments of Bluemoonset etc) above! You can request page protection once again if you anonymous edit vandalism problem continues! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are only two image, one in lead, Bad Girls Club logo and another is image of Tiara Hodge. Both are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There is only one image that of the logo in the infobox where it should belong. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC) The second image, that you removed but I have restored, is also relevant to the topic, and has a suitable caption. If we're going to list names and careers, why not illustrate, if possible, by images? Unfortunately only one is freely available so far. 99of9 (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC) There are only two images, those are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions. Can anyone add one or two more images in the article (eg. screenshot of a scene of the show etc). Please note I have not given "Pass" grade here, but I agree with it (so not going to change it), but, editors can think to add one or two more images in the article! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	The current version of the article is a good article. Congrats! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)