Wikipedia:Peer review/Guiding Light/archive1

Guiding Light
Right now some good soap contributors have started writing a detailed history of the show. However, all soap contributors have some POV or another regarding actors, characters, and most importantly, WRITERS. I've found words such as "obnoxious" and "sleazy" to describe storylines and characters, which isn't exactly NPOV. Can any of you pinpoint things you felt were bothering you during your casual read-through, and tell me what you would do about it (assuming you're not that much of a soap viewer...that would probably be best for NPOV). Mike H 15:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I put the "obnoxious" but I did put "sleazy" to describe the storylines of 1996. Several of them were panned by the soap press (specifically the one about Gilly lusting after her own father) and drove the ratings to such low points that GL was nearly canceled. I don't think it's a POV violation to consider this "sleazy" - it's a broad opinion of many GL viewers and soap magazine writers at that time. If you look at the entire article I think it is generally restrained and balanced, and not any sort of horrible POV violation. I hope you reconsider this because it seems like a lot over one or two words. If you don't like the words then just take them out. I don't think removing them or slightly altering them will change the tone of the article. If you want me to reference some of the soap critics (such as the editors at Soap Opera Digest, and former Soap Opera Weekly columnist Marlena de LaCroix) who criticized these 1996 storylines, I will. I think Marlena went as far to call them "lurid". --JamesB3 00:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * GL has been on the "nearly canceled" block since about 1990 so I think it's unfair to say one year nearly made them get canceled. Mike H 02:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a horrible thing to have a peer review. I think it's a good thing to have the article looked at by different eyes, especially eyes who don't watch soap operas and go to the article wanting to know about the show, without any previous initiation. Mike H 02:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got that about 1990, but the show was still doing fairly well until 1994. That's when the ratings crashed and the cancellation rumors picked up steam. The show improved in 1995 but 1996 was a very low point and that was when the rumors about "Bold & the Beautiful" becoming an hour and taking GL's time were at their highest. Since you have said yourself that you haven't seen any of the 1996 episodes, then I don't think it's unfair for me, who watched the episodes and who read the press comments from the time (at that time there were rumors about GL and ATWT, I think even in TV Guide), to say that 1996 nearly got them canceled. And while a peer thing isn't horrible, I would think that people can read the article simply by looking at the article, instead of being pushed into a peer review based on one or two words that could have been easily edited out. If you tell me all the parts you object to, I will go back and edit them in a manner that you feel is less POV.--JamesB3 03:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's just it...I don't want YOU to edit it. I want other people who don't watch soaps to give us their opinions. Not that you aren't a capable editor...it's just that I think it needs new eyes. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been over a week and no one has made a suggestion or a comment. Apparently no one is interested in this topic, or have not been so far. So I will request again, if you have any concerns about the article, please just make the editing changes you deem necessary. --JamesB3 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)