Talk:Big Brother (U.S.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Brother (U.S.) article.
Article policies
Big Brother (U.S.) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 26, 2007
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Fix the Prose/MoS issues. Use active voice for clear prose.
  • Fix grammatical errors, punctuation errors, etc.
  • More secondary sources needed.
  • Elaborate more on how the show was created. (i.e. How the show is based on Orwell's novel)
  • Source "Live Shows" and "Live Internet Feeds" sections.
  • Rewrite "Competitions" section so it isn't original research and source information.
  • Fix headings that don't follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
  • Remove unnecessary details from "Criticisms and Controversy" section.
  • Fix references that are not formatted correctly.
  • Make note of the shows origins. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother (U.S.) has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (June 2004 - September 2007)


[edit] Good article nomination failed

You have a good start here, but the article needs several fixes before it will be ready for GA status. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Specific critique
  • Too much use of passive voice - almost the entire article. Use active voice for clear prose.
  • Many awkward constructions such as, "The live show is broadcast live on Thursday nights.", grammatical errors, punctuation errors, etc. Work over the entire article with a copy editor who is interested in the topic.
  • Entirely too much reliance on primary sources (episodes or official web sites). Many more reliable, secondary sources are needed.
  • The lead contains a statement that the show's name is based on Orwell's novel, but that is not discussed in the article or backed up by a source.
  • There is no discussion about who developed the series, how, why, etc.
  • The "Live Show" and "Live Internet feeds" headings need sources
  • The entire "Competitions" section is original research.
  • Some headings do not follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings).
  • The second paragraph under "Main series" is awkwardly written. It speaks of "the announcer" before we know who or what the announcer is.
  • The "Format" section is hard to follow and introduces terms that are not defined for the reader such as "HouseGuests" and "Diary Room", "power", "silver", etc. Readers who don't watch the show will not be able to follow this. See Wikipedia:Explain jargon.
  • In the first paragraph of that section, it is not necessary to put a citation after every sentence when they are all the same source.
  • The heading "Shows" needs a better title and more context, such as a lead paragraph describing what this section is about. Related shows? Spin-offs?
  • The "Criticisms and Controversy" section contains unnecessary detail about events on the show and no discussion of how the show is received by critics.
  • Some references are not properly formatted: extra brackets around links. See Wikipedia:Footnotes.

Thanks for all your hard work on this article; I'm sure you can make it to GA status in the future. --Bloodzombie 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concept

It might be helpful to briefly mention how the concept was from by the Dutch Endemol. Currently, it sounds like it was a Endemol US concept Nil Einne 13:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)