Talk:Chartjackers/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

This is the first review I have done, so I may not be as comprehensive as I should be.

I read the article and did a light copy edit to correct a few punctuation mistakes and awkward sentences. IMO this is a good article that covers the topic clearly and in appropriate detail and doesn't aspire to be anything other than what it is. I saw only one fact tag, under critical reception. It is refreshing to read a pop culture article in which information is presented clearly without being crammed with obsessive details that nobody really cares about.

Reviewer: Tom Reedy (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall this is a good article, however the following issues need to be fixed:
 * "The boys" feels a little informal. That being said I'm not sure what would make a good substitute.
 * I guess there are a couple of alternative available, e.g. "The leading team", "The vloggers", "The group", "The guys", "The teenagers?"... Although, as you say, I'm not sure which would be the best substitute. What do you think?


 * The original research tag needs to be addressed.
 * I've had a look and can't find any sources to verify that info, so I'll just have to remove it.


 * I'm a little confused in the reception section as to which reviews are for the series and which are for the show itself; it reads as if all are for the former.
 * Do you mean "song", rather than "show"? If so, I've split the reviews up so that it's hopefully clearly which are concerning the song and which are about the project in general.

I'll put the GA on hold and pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the feedback, Wizardman! Vobedd731 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had to pick a choice for the first issue, I'd probably say the group, though I won't necessarily force a change. The other issues are fixed, so I'll pass this as a GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant, thanks very much Wizardman! I've taken your advice and removed most of the uses of "boys" in the article. Thanks again! Vobedd731 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)