Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has waited long enough for a review. I'll grab it now and come back with some thoughts in a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I move forward with this review, there is a pretty major issue here with large sections of the article being unsourced. The episode summaries are fine as the episode table inherently provides citation information, but prose such as that in the format section needs to be supported by references. Also, the copyvio tool is returning a potential copyright violation that needs to be addressed. I will put this review on hold until you have sorted these issues. Let me know when you are ready for me to take another look and I can give a full review of the article then. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Adamstom.97: Sorry for taking a long time to get to this, I've been rather busy this week, but I'll get on this (as well as the other review) now. I'll start working on the references for the format section and other sections starting tomorrow. I took a look at the copyvio, and it only highlighted very commonly stated Big Brother phrases, such as "by a vote of [number] to [number], [contestant] has been evicted from the Big Brother House" or competition names stated in the episode summaries. These common phrases should be a problem for potential copyright violations. Again, sorry for taking so long! Jayab314 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Pinging TheDoctorWho, Alucard 16, and NintendoGeek. Jayab314 19:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayab314: So I skimmed through the original copyvio report and noticed the CBS recap source was the main issue. All the other sources (like the LA Times article) were combing back with "Violation Unlikely". [1] So I focused on the CBS source and rewrote the lead based on Love Island (American season 1), in the episode summaries removed a bunch of "from the House" bits and when possible tried to use participate instead of competed. By making these changes it took the 44.4% "Violation Possible" to a 35.5% "Violation Unlikely". (Here is the full updated copyvio report as of my last edit.) A lot of what is now flagged is not a copyvio concern such as the names of contestants back to back like "David, Ovi and Kemi", the names of the competitions ("Path to Redemption"), results like (a time of 10:58) and common phrases (i.e. "from the", "the competition", "a trip to", etc.). Also show specific terms such as "Power of Veto", "Head of Household", "Big Brother House", "HouseGuests" are not a copyvio issue. I would recommend someone who has a bit more free time to go through the episode summaries and remove any weasel words/phrases. I know I removed two like "obviously" and "not surprisingly" while fixing copyvio issues. Here is a comparison of all the changes I made to reduce the copyvio level. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 and Alucard 16: I added references to the prose sections that were lacking sources. Jayab314 02:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

adamstom97, Jayab314, it's been over four weeks since the most recent post here; the article was updated at that time. Is there something delaying the continuation of this review? It would be nice to get things moving again. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I'm waiting on Adamstom.97 to respond. Jayab314 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I got caught up with some other things. I have added a full review of the article below with some outstanding issues. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review

The lead could do with a summary of the reception info, and could probably be broken up a little more rather than being one big paragraph.
It is usually recommended to have the Episodes table closer to the top of the article, as it can provide context for the production and reception info.
I think there can be some clean-up done with the article's references, especially to make sure web sources are archived and available for future readers.

I don't have any other major concerns with this article. I think the coverage is looking good, especially for reception info, and the article makes good use of visuals and charts to break down the season. Have a go at these points and let me know if you have any concerns or questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayab314: Hey, making sure that you are aware of my comments here. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: I'll help Jayab314 out here with this GA. In regards to the placement of the Episodes table it is currently nested between the Production and Voting history sections. The Reception section is right below the voting history. This follows a similar format of Love Island (American season 1) that recently passed. I'm personally not sure where a good spot would be for the Episode table. Any ideas? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 00:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For fiction shows I would generally expect the episode table to be the first section of the article, but I could understand having the format and HouseGuests sections first for context. I do think it should go before the production section, but I'm happy to discuss this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a great idea Adamstom.97 and brings the article more in line with MOS:TV. I do think in this case having the Format and HouseGuests sections first for context is beneficial to the reader then moving Episodes third then production would be best. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayab314 and Alucard 16: Hey guys, another week has passed without progress on the review. I would like to get a result in the next week if possible, so hopefully you can address my concerns within the next seven days or I will have to fail the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another week has passed with no further activity, so I am going to have to Fail

this review. Sorry guys. I do think the article isn't far off and if you wanted to address the rest of my concerns and renominate then I would be happy to help complete the next review attempt. Best of luck, adamstom97 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: I understand the reason for the fail. Jayab314 already moved the Episodes section and appears to have been working on the lead. I'll check in with him on that. I've been away from the wiki due to unexpected RL issues I started work on cleaning up the references and got the first 63 completed however I noticed more issues than just the lack of archive links which is going to take a bit of time since there are 100+ refs. My days off are Friday & Saturday so I am hoping to have the refs cleaned up by then. Sorry for the late reply this somehow slipped through my watchlist and I didn't notice your previous comments. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]