Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sister Wives/1

Sister Wives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	see several pertinent edits I made in the lead section and elsewhere on 5 December 2022‎ between 06:38 and 08:27 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	same as above (1a)
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.	see edits I made (see 1a, above) for examples of unreliable sources
	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).	same as above
	2c. it contains no original research.	I removed some original research, but the article might contain even more
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	for a television series of 10 years and 17 seasons, the article is short - it seems to lack both breadth and depth of coverage (I have never watched the show, thus my use of the verb "seems")
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I guess.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Maybe - I tried to remove opinions, but I could have easily missed something
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I didn't notice any edit wars
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	not even close to satisfying Good Article criteria

Discussion

I used the table above to explain my reasoning for listing this article for good article community reassessment. Please discuss here. Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 09:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Markworthen, apart from the trivial divorce section, I honestly don't see anything that unforgivable with the article. Keep ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke, Chipmunkdavis, any thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't that bad, at least from an initial viewing. Maybe it's not broad enough but I don't have enough knowledge to tell. though I would like for

"As polygamous marriage is not legally recognized in the US, there are no divorce documents to date the end of relationships. The end of a relationship is instead reckoned by announcements, and events such as moving away."

To be cited before I say keep. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs fixing. The second paragraph is totally unsourced and doesn't appear anywhere in the body. The first paragraph doesn't appear in the body either, although there is a source. The lead simultaneously needs expansion to summarize the body, it doesn't touch on most sections. CMD (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.