Talk:Hi-5 (Australian TV series)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So very sorry. I took this on and then got busy with real life issues. Have not forgotten about it. Thank you for your patience (you had to wait long enough for a review without more delays). AIR corn (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, I appreciate the attention regardless. Please let me know if you have any questions during the review. SatDis (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I generally do reviews in three parts. The first is related to the criteria and what I feel needs fixing to pass as a good article. The second are general comments I have. Some relate to the criteria while some are area I feel can be improved (and sometimes they are just questions so I understand the topic better). Finally I chose some random and not so random sources to check for accuracy and non-plagiarism. Feel free to question any comment I make here, I am happy to be convinced that you have it right the way it is.

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria To be honest this was a lot better than I expected. For an article about a preschoolers TV show it was interesting and well written.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Few minor issues in the comments section
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Not terrible comfortable with the you tube source, but have no reason to think it is not genuine
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Few issues with the source check that need to be cleared up
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Copyvio check tool results. Manually checking those above 10% showed most similarities were due to attributed direct quotes.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Some repetition between sections (especially between the Format and Educational theory sections)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * One overly promotional sentence identified
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Lot of recent activity, which I am guessing is due to the revival. Note too concerned about this. No current disputes on the talk page
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Only one image. The licensing says that it has been released into the public domain. However I am a little skeptical as logos are not usually released to our standards. It is the uploaders only edit at commons and there is no link to where this license is applied. Either way I think it would fall under fair use for this article, but that would require some rational. Will think on this or seek advice if you can't assur me it is in the public domain
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Some more images would be nice (maybe some cast), but not necessary.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Main issue is with some information not being supported by sources
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Main issue is with some information not being supported by sources

Comments

 * Each episode features each cast member present their own individual segment Ungramatical. Also each is used twice close together, which is not the best prose.
 * I feel there should be some introductory text for the cast. Even something simple alluding to the leads mention of the cast (i.e. cast of the program, who became a recognised musical group for children outside of the series, known collectively as Hi-5).
 * I would also consider moving the cast section below production (or putting some dates beside the original and revival series) so that the time frame has some context.
 * By 2005, a studio audience for the songs of the week filming would typically consist of 200 children, and one episode would cost an estimated AU$50,000 to produce. Found this sentence a little confusing
 * The thirteenth and final series of the original Hi-5 premiered on 17 October 2011, in which the rich musical history of the program was recognised by reintroducing classic songs of the week to a new generation of fans. A bit promotional
 * following Nine's ongoing financial difficulties. Ongoing seems to suggest we should know of these difficulties already. Would suggest either a quick mention of the difficulties first or rewording to remove ongoing.
 * What system are you using to decide to italicise Hi-5? Some are and some aren't.
 * The cast are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them. Repeated in Format and Educational theory
 * Harris intended for the themes promoted to be accessible so that the series would appeal universally, as she believed children were essentially the same around the world Same with this
 * Harris and Graeme-Evans based the series around an underlying educational structure, primarily using Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences. And this. Might need a rethink on organising the Format and Educational theory sections. Personally I think these fit better in the later section.
 * The program generated debate about what is considered appropriate television for children This is interesting. Can we expand on it?
 * Critical reception is a bit sparse for such a long running show.
 * Harris stated that of the group, the music itself has the ability to stand alone, describing them as "a part of Australia's music history." Confusing sentence
 * Spin of series section is a little repetitive too
 * a rare category What is meant by this?

Source check

 * Hi-5 Singapore Special
 * Youtube so not a great source. It is over 20 minutes so not keen to watch the whole thing to verify it. It also appears very primary (it looks like an episode) so not sure it would be useful for supporting statements like:
 * the cast are intended to act as older siblings of viewers, rather than adults teaching children
 * The name of the series was derived from the high five gesture
 * The cast are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them which is a repetition mentioned above
 * Dancing is featured, with a focus on movements that increase the integration between the left and right sides of the brain.
 * If you can give me the time ranges on the video that are used to support this information then I will look at them, otherwise I am not liking this very much
 * Australian TV history timeline
 * Supports statements, not plagerised and reliable enough
 * Channel 9 buys stakes in Hi-5
 * Reliable. Supports it first use but could not find where it supports The change of production company saw Harris and Graeme-Evans end their involvement with the franchise, which was placed under the direction of Martin Hersov and Cathy Payne, also Nine and Southern Star executives.
 * This children’s TV favourite is making a return to screens
 * Fine
 * Hi-5 is a unique UK success story
 * Good
 * "Hi-5 for edu-music show"
 * Can't find any mention supporting The program generated debate about what is considered appropriate television for children.

Reply

 * First up, thank you for the praise on the article! As an adult with a passion for a preschool program, it's good to give the show some credit and receive positive feedback!
 * I have addressed all of your comments in some way, so I hope you will be able to find the changes as you look through the article. Most issues were fixed without any problems (as far as I can tell). Please let me know if any of the changes were not ideal or if I missed something.
 * Some of my comments:
 * Italicising Hi-5: When I refer to Hi-5 as a musical group or a brand or franchise, it remains as normal. When I explicitly refer to it as a television program, that's when it appears italicised, as Hi-5. It's a very fine line but I have ensured that every appearance is correct.
 * I have removed the repeated content in and placed it all where I think it fit best - mostly in the Education section. I have tried to limit the "Format" to a brief summary of the segments in the show, so I hope you will agree with my decision to leave that specific information there.
 * With the section on the spin-off series - as the information also appears earlier on in the "History" section, I'm considering just removing the "spin-off series" section altogether?
 * To address both the limited critical reception issue, and the "generated debate" issue, I have added a new paragraph which focuses on the discussion of the show's quality.
 * have also tried to fix the referencing issues. As for the Youtube clip, it isn't actually an episode of the television series, but rather an externally produced special. It is quite "promotional", but I have identified key time frames and included this in the citation:
 * High five gesture: 1:30
 * Dancing: 4:20
 * I have also replaced one of the uses of the reference with a more suitable citation.
 * I have added images, but as for the logo image in the infobox, I'm afraid I didn't add it, and I do not have much knowledge about the public domain. From what I can tell, the website it was retrieved from has since been removed. I am not sure about any further details.
 * Thankyou for the review, I appreciate it! SatDis (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am going to assume good faith with the uploader on the image being free. If someone more knowledgeable in this area decides it is not then I think you could use some non-free rational to keep it. Happy with the you tube source now. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using promotional sources as long as we keep it in perspective here. Everything else looks much improved. Going to pass this. AIR corn  (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much !! SatDis (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)