Talk:Big Brother (U.S. TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Big Brother (U.S.))
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Big Brother (U.S. TV series) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 26, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
August 25, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

WikiProject Big Brother (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother (U.S. TV series) 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-Class article B  Quality: B-Class
 Top  Importance: Top
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States.
B-Class article B  Quality: B-Class
 Low  Importance: Low
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Mid-importance).

Good article nomination failed[edit]

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)

There is a book from Fox Reality Channel "The Encyclopedia of reality television : the ultimate guide to over twenty years of realityTV from the Real World to Dancing With the Stars." if someone can find it at a library or even a bookstore. It covers many shows which can improve many articles on here. Although some of the rating information is incorrect (big brother hasn't aired regular on wed. nights) Season 1 could you this the most with concise ratings information and a great summary of the show as well.--Cooly123 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

I am going to re-do this article to make it GA the re-assessment. I was going to work on Big Brother 12 (U.S.) but this is a higher important article. This will take some time to make sure everything as adequate sources, the lead needs to be re-worked, etc. This article should be a general overview of Big Brother and the individual details like the America's Vote and Pandora's Box tables should be removed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


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)

Jury house[edit]

It says in the article that: "As each member of the Jury is evicted from the House they are sequestered in a separate house." This is false, as far as I know. In BB9 the evicted houseguests were shown together in the Jury house.--Agnaramasi (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say "each sequestered in each one of their own separate houses." Therefore it's fine as is. --luckymustard (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Contestants article[edit]

Can you please create the article of list of Big Brother (U.S) contestants page? Just like the contestant lists of Survivor, The Amazing Race and America's Next Top Model. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea but I don't know how! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings[edit] --Cooly123 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)--Cooly123 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Could this please be listed in the appropriate are? --Cooly123 (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't use fansites or forums as sources. If you can find reliable sites with that information then it could be included. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Winner Adam "Baller" of season 9 was arrested for possession of illegal drug and had confused to using his winning on drugs, this should be mention in the controveries section overall and in the season 9 page.--Cooly123 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

2010 season[edit]

Will there finally be a celebrity big brother to premiere after the superbowl or in early 2010?--Cooly123 01:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

HOH spy screen[edit]

In what season was the spy screen started? 4 or 5 and can that be place within its season article.--Cooly123 00:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

Yes Dear[edit]

There should be mention of the big brother themed episode of Yes Dear which had actual contestants from prior season and used the actual house.--Cooly123 18:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Big Brother (U.S.)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Initial Reason For Reassessment[edit]

This reassessment is because this article failed Good Article Nomination over 3 years ago and since has been improved significantly. --Joe Gazz84usertalkcontribsEditor Review 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Complete Reassessment[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    As in the To-do list may want to improve grammar in minor areas.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    As long as the facts are also in an episode where they can become verified they just need to be cited to be OK.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article could expand in the sections of each season.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Major fix in focused section and MoS minor fixes. --Joe Gazz84usertalkcontribsEditor Review 16:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am working on fixing the issues in my sandbox, it may take some time for me to find all the necessary sources and fix MoS issues. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. When you are done, please tell me on my talkpage, I will then re-review the article.
I am still working on the article but due to real life events my progress has slowed. You can see my progress via my sandbox. I am revamping the article to be more in line with other good articles and featured articles of TV series. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to this, this is stale and still needs work,  Fail for now.  JoeGazz  ▲  23:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How's the new season table working out?[edit]

I've made a new season table; what do you think about it?

Lamp301 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Season Details Table, season 14, currently has a fake winner listed. (The show hasnt progressed that far yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Big Brother (U.S.)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Big Brother (U.S.)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A userpage draft for this article[edit]

Does the content at User:Llibllib have a place at this article, or is this account using his userpage as a webhosting service? Please advise/delete. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, last chance. This will probably be deleted soon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What Happened?[edit]

Before Big Brother 16 had ended this page looked awesome, it was displayed ina way where it was easy to read, easy to find what you were looking for, and now it's just a big mess, all the seasons are in one paragragh (mind you a long one) but it seems way too messy! It was much better when it was sperated season by season! It looked nice and not messed up like how it is now! Really hope it switches back, cause this is just too messy and all over the place!

Looks like no cares? Oh well, I'm pretty sure this page will be getting a notice for evaluation. I may just hand this article in as a high school essay, as thats how it's written, I'm sure to get an A+ on it right? Since it's "proudly" posted on this site, I'll see what my high school teacher thinks, if I get an A+ I will apologize to you, but I'm pretty sure the grade I would get if I hand in this mess of an article! I do not mean to offend anyone (much) but seriously. look at this page, it's cluttered, all the season details are shoved in one very long paragraph and an extremely messy one as well. But if whoever wrote/posted it this way is happy the way it is, again, I'm sure my high shcool teacher will feel the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)