Talk:The Real Housewives of Atlanta

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

there's no way kim was a nurse in 1999 if she was born in 1978 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.244 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So funny these editors who want to re-write everything and pretend that they have done something. All they are doing is writing fan-fiction and in doing-so creating "derivative works". Take a look at some of their pets like Greys Anatomy or Star Trek etc. Give yourself a barnstar! You know where to put it! FYI copyrighted material that is made available for promotional use is the preferred NONFREE material.(big hint for all you wannabe fan-fictionados who have made a disgrace of Wikipedia24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)HBIC

Could this and other such wiki pages related to this type of show please add a "point" section which describes the point of such programmmes. I would genuinely like to see some description of the purpose and goal of such programmes, e.g. what what the programme aims to achieve or show as often such programmes just seem to be real life observations of people put together. I dont see why these people would interact and get upset with each other if they are professionals with separate lives why would they be put together in the first place. Confusing and seems to be just to make new TV programmes for the sake of it. This justification would give auch programmes some purpose for me. I don't mind this type of programme, but without justification it all seems a bit pointless.

Reliable Sources

I understand due to the nature of the show that finding reliable sources to produce a decent wiki article could be tough but I don't believe this is excuse enough to simply ignore the policies on reliable sources because there is a desire to have an article on this subject. Perez Hilton, twitter feeds, blogs, and gossip sites are not sufficient and alternate sources need to be found or the information removed. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand all of this and I am working to improve this article. I would happily prefer you to not revert the article until. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Until?? Not sure what are you asking here. In order to try and work together, I'll review in more details and remove only items that could be potential BLP issues and or over-the-top gossip. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say but the quotes keep being deleted so I have taken them somewhere else for safe-keeping. If Wikipedia wants them back they are going to have to ask for them nicely24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nene is fabulous

she deserves her own page, so hilarious now on Celebrity Apprentice. El duderinski (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Real housewives of atlanta season 3 to 4.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Real housewives of atlanta season 3 to 4.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Witness the ruination of Wikipedia

I have been. It was nice while it lasted. imo anyone with admin. status who has edited any of these Real Housewives pages needs to be deleted. All you have to do is look at what they have done here and abused admin. power and bully editors who are acting in good faith. Maybe this topic is stupid but in that case they should leave it alone. But Noooo. Yes I am ranting because I am done baby-sitting this topic and I will be remembering it as the topic that convinced me that all anyone needs to become admin. on Wikipedia is an maintain IQ of 40 or less.(more will disqualify anyone from admin.). For every barnstar-deduct 10 IQ pts. OH-don't forget to sign your posts!24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Real Housewives of Atlanta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: WikiRedactor (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (NFC with a valid FUR) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. The prose quality in particular is meticulous and engrossing. Thanks, WikiRedactor, very much for your conscientious contributions.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Real Housewives of Atlanta

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 The Real Housewives of Atlanta'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 "Season6Cast":

• From The Real Housewives of Atlanta (season 6): "The Real Housewives of Atlanta Season 6 Cast Info". Bravo. NBCUniversal. Retrieved April 22, 2014.
• From The Real Housewives of New Jersey (season 6): "The Real Housewives of New Jersey Season 6 Cast Info". Bravo. NBCUniversal. Retrieved May 18, 2014.

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⚡ 23:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline also contains guest stars, who have never appeared in a recurring or leading capacity and they keep getting put back on the page. Lena and Tammy never appeared in a recurring capacity and are not listed on Bravo's website as part of the full cast. It was rumoured that both were filming in a lead/recurring capacity but on final cut neither we're part of the full cast and shouldn't be included.78.19.51.227 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• As stated previously, they appeared frequently and took on the role of recurring but weren't credited as such hence why they are simply a "guest." The same thing has been done for the other series- Victoria Gotti, Brynne Baylor etc. They must take part in the drama, contribute significantly an possibly partake on the cast trips. I do agree, since the first episode Lena hasn't played a role in the series much, but follows the criteria of having a reference to sustain it being mentioned on the timeline. Lena is subject to removal depending if she continues to appear or not. Kelege (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414025808/http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-atlanta/season-5 to http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-atlanta/season-5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417110143/http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-atlanta/season-6 to http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-atlanta/season-6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019

Another spinoff for the Real Housewives of Atlanta is, Porsha's Having a Baby. 74.116.58.26 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 18:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Friends

If Demeteria McKinney is listed as a friend, then Lawrence & Dwight Eubanks should also be listed...

You are basing this on? Demetria McKinney actually was part of the cast pictorial and even got her biography page on Bravotv.com. Just because Dwight Eubanks attended the reunion, it doesn't make him an official friends of the Housewives. No cast photo,no confessionals. This article is backed up with official info from Bravo, not personal assumptions from viewers of the show.TheHotwiki (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you even watch the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.189.241 (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse you, do you have a reference? I watch the show and I know how to post references and not just use my "personal opinion" in Wikipedia. Comment back when you have references (or receipts) to back up your claims. Thank you.TheHotwiki (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Drew Sidora as a guest

I noticed that this was added plenty of times. Drew Sidora was only introduced in the show in the ongoing current season. If she was caught by the camera for the previous season, that didn't make her as a guest as she was never mentioned before season 13 or invited to the show as an "actual guest". Lots of people are accidentally filmed by the cameras due to being in a reality show, but doesn't automatically mean they were "guests". The correct term would be an "extra".TheHotwiki (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Eva as a guest in season 13

She still hasn't appeared in the ongoing current season. Please provide a reliable source that she would appear in the current season. Thank you.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Porsha Williams Emmy Awards 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lisa wu h rhoa.jpg
• Phaedra parks rhoa.jpg
• Shamari devoe rhoa 1.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Porsha Williams 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Current Cast section

What is the purpose of the current cast section? It looks messy and there’s already a more visually appealing and detailed chart below that does exactly the same thing. 2A02:C7E:56CD:6E00:F5E8:23E4:4EB4:1EF7 (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The Real Housewives of Atlanta

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This 2014 listing is very out of date. Having now reached fourteen seasons in total, the storylines section only reaches the tenth, and is near-completely unsourced from the seventh onwards. GA criterion 3a not satisfied. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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.