Wikipedia:Peer review/Chartjackers/archive1

Chartjackers
This peer review discussion has been closed. I have been working on this article for some months now, and was recently fortunate enough to have it listed as a GA. I'm not sure that the sources exist to have it be comprehensive enough to reach FA quality, but I still welcome any and all feedback from the community on how it could still be improved. I'm particularly unsure about some of the prose, e.g. I'm not totally happy with my use of the word "while". I also hope that if someone unfamiliar with the subject looks over the article, they'll be able to say if there is anything that's not well-explained. Thanks very much in advance! Vobedd731 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. I think it needs some more work before it would be a safe bet at WP:FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * I have never seen this show, not have I heard of it. Just looking at the lead, left me with several questions. Is it fictional (are the characters we follow portrayed by actors) or is it a reality show (the characters we follow are real people essentially playing themselves)? I would also say that the episodes were only 5 minutes long, except for the last one, in the lead.
 * Yes, that's something I really should've had the presence of mind to include.


 * I would spell out video bloggers on first use as I had to click the wikilink to be sure what a vlogger was


 * I am also a bit confused as the infobox says the series was 11 episodes, but the lead says it covers 10 weeks. If it was in real time, I am not sure how this works.


 * I would watch WP:OVERLINKing and only link terms that either add to the reader's understanding or are likely not to be known by many readers. I do not think in the lead, for example, that lyrics, melody, singers, and band need links.


 * I would also make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article - I would at least mention the negative critical reaction to the show itself in the lead (not just the reaction to the single).
 * Although I worry that the lead is now looking a little long.


 * In the Synopsis, try to do more to provide context to the reader. For example, I would add the year to 5 September (I know it is in the lead, but this is a new section). I would also say that the events described in the first paragraph took place a week before the show premiered, and would probably repeat that it is a YouTube channel they established.


 * Since this was a televison series, the synopsis should be written in terms of episodes of the show, instead of the current structure of weeks. So the second paragraph would be something like "The first episode, which showed the events leading up to the first week of the project, ..." I could not write more as it was not clear what the first episode showed.
 * ❌ (yet) I had a crack at rewriting the series overview so that it discussed what happened each episode rather than each week of the project, but something about it seemed a little clumsy - it seemed sort of inelegant to essentially put: "This happened in episode six, and then this happened in episode seven." I agree that the synopsis needs a rewrite, so I will try to redo it so that it is a more concise overview of the series as a whole.
 * Okay, I have now rewritten the synopsis so that it talks about "episodes" rather than "weeks", but I think I might have used the word "during" far too much.


 * In Production, do we know the actual names of the people at BBC Switch who came up with this idea? A channel or brand can't have ideas, the people who work for it do.


 * I also worry this would run into comprehensiveness concerns if it came up at FAC. Is anything known about licensing and copyrights of the single and video - are they free or copyrighted and if the latter, by whom? Did the people who wrote the melody or performed the music get paid? Did the four vloggers get paid (assume so)?
 * ❌ (yet) Yeah, there seem to be very few, if any, sources on this issue. I shall try to find and include more later.


 * I also worry about the media files used - there are five and they are all fair use on Wikipedia. Per WP:NFCC, this seems like it might be be a bit excessive. The infobox image is OK, as is the single cover (these are pretty standard for articles on shows and singles). The sound clip of the single is probably OK, but could there be more discussion of the song itself? The still from the video is possibly OK, but again more discussion of the video would be better. I fail to see the usefulness of the image of Stylist Hannah Sandling.
 * I have replaced the image of Hannah Sandling with a free use one. More discussion could be needed to describe the song itself, so I will try to add some soon. I feel that the discussion of the music video in this article justifies use of that particular still, but I will try to make that clearer in its named rationale. I wonder whether this would be clearer if the image were moved down the article, nearer to the section that describes it, but I can find no appealing way of arranging the article in that manner.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow - not sure what would be a good model here, but there are many FAs on TV shows and also many on music that may be useful.
 * Thank you very much for your feedback Ruhrfisch, it's been very useful! Vobedd731 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)