Talk:Sister Wives

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sister Wives article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sister Wives. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sister Wives at the Reference desk.

Sister Wives was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
January 18, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
January 16, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 6, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the TLC reality television series Sister Wives follows a polygamist family of four wives and 16 children living in Lehi, Utah?

Current status: Delisted good article

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Reality Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kody Brown and family was copied or moved into Sister Wives with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

GA Reassessment[edit]

IMHO, this article no longer merits Good Article status. I used the table below to explain my reasoning. Please discuss in the reassessment page's Discussion subsection. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Wives[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 08:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The show in retrospect[edit]

The Browns set out to be the poster child for functional polygamous families, but became the poster child for polygamy not working. Season 1 opened with the question of "how will Robyn joining the family impact the family?" and 12 years later we've got our answer: it ends with favoritism and everyone else leaving. How do we talk about that? Wikipedia isn't a media analysis site, but still it's very jarring to have the "Critical reception" section with 2010 quotes of reporters calling them functional, and then bam 2020s "now they're all divorced". I would like to make it less... segmented or delineated, I guess? Something about the slow downspiral? How the nature of what the show was changed over time? But I don't even know where to start with that. Eievie (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cody is a piece of s*** he needs to be put out of his misery because he is a unperson that don't care about nobody but his self I feel sorry for him[edit]

Cody is a piece of s*** he needs to be put out of his misery because he ain't nothing but a person that uses everybody for his use only reason why he haven't divorced Robin yet is because he's got underage kids 50.110.101.233 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TWO PIECES OF SHIT[edit]

Kody and Robin. The two deserve each other. The others all deserve REAL MEN. LET ROBIN HAVE THE LIMP DICK!!!! 2601:183:4A80:4580:7501:43E4:7120:E08 (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]