Talk:Bad Girls Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bad Girls Club has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 25, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
September 22, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
June 6, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Television / Reality (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reality television task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Grammar and Sentence Structure[edit]

I really think that if anyone has time to go through this article they should, because it needs much help in improving sentence structure and small grammatical errors. RELBlack (talk) 09:06, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute[edit]

I recently reverted countless additions of fancruft, unreliable sources and statements and unverifiable last names of the contestants on this show. However, it was reverted by AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs). The article is as of now not a good article like it once was. As the nominator who helped it achieve GA status, I would like to revert the undue weight here on this article added by vandalizing fans of the show. If the article stays as it is, it may be removed from the Good Article's list. Best, jona talk to me 14:28, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the issue here to discuss; however, please do not refer to countless good faith edits of countless editors in the last four months as all being vandalism just because you may disagree with it. Keep in mind that GA status article, while an opinion in high regard, is all still just an opinion. Moreover, GA status versions can fall out of date. Apparently numerous other editors in the last 4 or 5 months, myself included, thought there were needed revisions to that version. Quite frankly, I thought the version you rolled it back to was not GA status.
For one, why were the bad girls described as "rebellious" and "mischievous" of all things in the version you rolled it back to??? Rebellious and mischievous, more accurate descriptions of a disobedient child, hardly describes the bad girls. Mischievous you might be able to get away with as a supplementary description for some of their sexual antics, but the bad girls are full-on aggressive, quarrelsome, and unruly girls. They are constantly engaged in violence. In fact, every season by the reunion special, the finalists brag to lasting in the house despite all of their hostilities and violence.
By the way, you complained of lack of sourcing to the new version. But "rebellious" and "mischievous" were unsourced in your GA status version of the article. While there was a source in front of it, it was misleading. This was the source used in your version and it states nothing about rebellious and mischievous: [1].
As yet another problem with your old version, there's a lot of information as provided that's now out of date and no longer even applicable. For example, your version reads:
They try to cope with one another and change their promiscuous behavior to become role models for young women. Some cast members try to accomplish specific goals.
But that is not what the show is about any more. Anyone who watches the show knows that these girls are anything but role models and are not trying to be when there's violence and ambushing in practically every episode. The most previous season ended with a girl getting jumped and everyone saying vile things about her when she left the house. This might have been the case in early seasons, but it's simply info that's now out of date and needed the updates that were provided in the last 4 months by the slews of editors. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:51, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
Pretty slick: [2] [3] AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:26, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
What is this? --Tito Dutta (contact) 02:32, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from biting users to join in this discussion. Everyone, including the GA reviewer, has the right to discuss improvements for this article. Secondly, I didn't say all of them were in bad faith (let's not get into the number of times the article was protected since its passing of GA status). In fact, the majority of those edits were minor ones fixing grammatical errors which I encourage, however, according to the article's edit history it has been brought to my attention that several users and IPs have engaged in edit wars and ownership problems are among those few. The revision I reverted to (and updated it per WP:Revision), were accepted reliable sources and offline sources accepted from the GA reviewer (User:Titodutta) and the WP:GOCE member User:Stfg. I simply removed content (such as the last name of the many unsourced cast members per WP:BLP) and sources that were not claimed to a ref to those unreliable ones such as blogs and YouTube videos which are generally discouraged. The rebellious claim are in fact sourced, per WP:LEAD the lead section does not acquire sources for claims that are most likely never to be challenged by users. Another thing, just because it is out of date (which many FAC, GAN and PR reviewers dislike) doesn't mean it is no longer valid. You are assuming that the information is no longer valid and have taken upon yourself to remove it and replace with an unsourced claim. Unless there are sources to back up the claim that the show is no longer a way to achieve goals and become role models, then the GA-accepted source would remain intact or removed by consensus. Lastly, we need to come up with a decision to fix this article before it falls to WP:GAR. Best, jona talk to me 23:47, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor who received the RfC, I'm more than willing to offer my input on this, and, as a Wikipedia editor, I know that I need to thoroughly look through the history before rendering an opinion; however, if both sides could please send me some diffs demonstrating the alleged vandalism (or good faith reverts) and their respective opinions on it, that might expedite the process - it looks like this dispute goes back a ways and that you are at risk of falling to WP:GAR. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:21, June 23, 2013 (UTC)