Talk:Sister Wives/GA1

GA Review

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

Images The lead image of the title card is fair use. The other one is not working, it may have been deleted from commons.

Second image box deleted. --Ktlynch (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure there appears to be overlap in the description of the series between the 1st and 3rd sections.

Minor fixes (Here I intend to post a list of snags.)

1. The first section needs to be re-titled. "Conception" is too close to "development". I think "Concept" is what was intended, but some other term, analogous to "plot synopsis" in the article of a fictional work would be preferred.

For now I've changed it to "Concept", although I'm open to other names. I'm not a big fan of "Plot synopsis" because that to me sounds like a scripted show, not a reality show, but if you feel strongly about it I could go with it. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. From the "Legal Issues" section, the first sentence: As polygamy is illegal in the United States, attorneys and legal experts have claimed even before the show debuted that the Browns could potentially have opened themselves up to criminal prosecution through their involvement in the series
It is unclear whether the lawyers claimed this before the series was broadcast or that the family was already at risk of prosecution.
Although it also came later, here I meant to convey that it was expressed before the show debuted. I reworded it a bit to try to make it more clear, let me know if that works. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~It works fine now. --Ktlynch (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Stability - no vandalism or edit wars are apparent. Intelligent discussion of issues on the talk page.

Scope. The article strikes a good balance between description of the content, the broadcast dates, and both legal and critical reaction.

NPOV, to my reading the article is not blatantly biased, and this is a sensitive topic to write about. An issue here is avoidance using smaller, partisan website and sources, and strict adherence to WP:RS. However, the article, in tone and opinion, seems to be in line with most reviews and mainstream coverage of the series.

Future issues/Current event. In two months' time the second series will be broadcast so the scope and content of this article is likely to change significantly. Editors should be sure to follow WP:Summary style, and allow this article to turn into an overview of both series, with links to episode lists for seasons one and two which describe their content in greater detail. Secondly, if there is a swing in opinion for or against the programme be sure to separate it by episode.

Overrall this article is very impressive and clear. A big congratulations to all involved.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review! Yes, the second image was recently deleted, so I've removed the photo box. As far as your other comment, are you saying that all the letter "L"'s have been replaced by explanation points? Because I'm not seeing that here. Are you sure it isn't your browser? (I'll try to get on another computer to take a look at it soon, to make sure it's not on my end...) — Hun ter Ka hn 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The problem was on my browser, I've deleted that comment now. --Ktlynch (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]