Wikipedia:Peer review/Hi-5 (Australian band)/archive3

Hi-5 (Australian band)
This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed two Featured Article reviews. I have also applied for two Peer Reviews but unfortunately did not receive any feedback. I have been working on improvements over the past three years and am willing to work together with editors to improve the quality of the article. I've listed this article for peer review because, as the sole editor, it is sometimes challenging to move the article forward without outsider opinions.
 * Previous peer review

I have identified some key areas of the article which have been noted as needing improvement. Most of these relate to the quality of the references. If contributors could focus their attention on these areas while reviewing the article, it would be greatly appreciated.
 * Validity of sources: I am seeking advice on finding more high quality sources to complement the article. For Hi-5, a children's band, there is a resounding lack of suitable sources. For years, I have intensively searched the internet to find the best references, so they are all most likely being used here already. Some low-quality sources are used as there are no better options.
 * Overuse of primary sources and quotes from key figures: Continuing on from the previous point, there is a lack of available reviews or professional opinions for sections such as "Educational theory". I am seeking suggestions on finding higher quality opinions of the band's work. I have also tried to remove many of the quotes from key figures, as they do not add much to the article. If you notice some that are definitely not suitable, please direct my attention to them, as I am still in the process of actively improving. I have used a university thesis in the article; I am seeking advice on how to use and quote this work as a professional opinion.

I look forward to hearing from other editors soon.

. Thankyou for agreeing to be involved.

Thanks, SatDis (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Just a few general comments:
 * All of the quotes from people associated with the band should be critically evaluated. If they are explaining why something happened the quote might be OK. If they are a self-assessment (especially positive) they're probably not worth including.
 * As a bit of a big job, I'd suggest checking that the references do in fact support the cited text, including all of the details. This was my main concern, and is likely to be the first thing people consider if this goes back to FAC. As another example of where there are problems the statement that "The tour received positive reviews, described as a "children's masterpiece in entertainment – slick, funny, and amazingly well-choreographed and performed" is not supported by the reference - it is only a single review, not "reviews", the reviewer is not named (which makes me doubt how good a review it is, especially as it reads like PR material) and the text in the quote is slightly different from the text in the "review".
 * Make sure that the article clearly describes how the act peaked and has since slipped in popularity and critical success. This is somewhat obscured at the moment (as but one example, what looks like an unsuccessful attempt to have a fourth iteration of the act is labelled a "revival"). Taking a step back from the blow by blow coverage of the group's membership might help. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the directed feedback. I will take this on board. One question I have about your final point (and I am interested in describing the decline in quality) is how do I detail the decline without the references to support it? I am concerned that it might begin to sound like original research. For example, the newer generations have only a few reviews which note their lesser quality than the originals - what else would support the argument? In addition, "revival" was a term used by the press; would I change it to "failed" or "attempted" revival or is that an opinion? SatDis (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with the sources here. You could note things like "the group has not released an album since 2014" and "the Group last won a major Australian award in 2012" on the basis of the current sourcing. "Attempted revival" as a heading title seems supported by the sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Could I please get your feedback on this addition to the lead? ''The newer iterations of the group did not experience the same popularity or critical success as the original line-up. Hi-5 were last nominated for a major Australian award in 2012 and have not released an album since 2014. The brand was sold by the Nine Network to Malaysian-based group Asiasons in 2012, who shifted the band's commercial focus to the Southeast Asian market. After an attempted television revival in 2017, the group's production company relocated to Singapore and began employing a roster of temporary performers for touring purposes.'' Thanks. SatDis (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks very good Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Progress

Hi I have made progress on the article and I believe I have addressed what has been brought up in the peer review. I am wondering if you could please take a look at some of the changes I have made. I am wondering if the article is any closer to the standard of a FAC? Thanks in advance.
 * I have checked that the references support all of the details of the cited text; have checked reference 1 up to 165. This involved removing some statements which were unable to be supported. I believe every sentence has a citation now.
 * I have made edits to include further discussion of the popularity decline of the newer groups; particularly the sections "Second generation" and "Third generation: Shift to Southeast Asia". I tried to focus on the work of the line-up and step away from the cast-by-cast changes. This has involved re-structuring the paragraphs to express what was unique to each group.
 * I have shortened sections such as "Educational theory" and "Musical style" to include less quotes and praise; only presenting essential facts. I have tried to remove quotes from key figures; and reevaluate what their purpose was in the article.

SatDis (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing Comments

Just wondering if you have any further comments before I look to have the Peer Review closed? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been rather lax here (the previous ping was when I was out of town, I think) - I'll look in on the article over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, didn't mean to sound demanding. I appreciate any help and will leave the review open a little longer. Many thanks! SatDis (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I know you coordinate FA reviews; but are you also able to close this peer review? I don't think I will be getting any more comments. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for asking but it's normal practice for a nominator to close the review themselves -- see Step 4: Closing a review under the Instructions tab. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Further comments I've chosen to focus on two sections selected purely at random (closing my eyes and poking the screen!): "second generation" and "reception": Second generation Reception Overall: the thematic sections look good based on the above, but I suspect that the sections on the act's history might need some more work. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "the line-up known as the "new generation"" - who called them the new generation? Their management, or commentators? (was this also an official name if it was their management?)
 * "Burgess revealed" - avoid the term "revealed" unless something had previously been deliberately hidden in a dodgy kind of way. He appears to have said this.
 * "and establish a connection with more regional locations throughout the country" - this is PR language
 * "and in 2011 reintroduced a number of the group's original songs to the newer audience" - ditto
 * "The new line-up did not experience the same reception" - this is a bit unclear
 * "and were criticised for their vocal abilities" - by whom? (a single reviewer?)
 * "a network representative" - which network is being referred to here?
 * "Maddren described Zheng as having a great energy and being a "perfect fit"" - I'd suggest cutting this, as it's an example of members of the group talking the group up.
 * "following Nine's ongoing financial difficulties" - bit unclear (it's hard for something to follow an ongoing issue - I'd suggest tweaking this to "as a result of Nine's ongoing financial difficulties" or similar)
 * "Datuk Jared Lim, Asiason's managing director, revealed" - as above
 * This is good. I'd suggest tweaking the coverage of financial issues though given that there's a good sub-section on this above.
 * "jokingly expressed concern about the nature of the group which allows the membership to change over time, suggesting "I think the thing that should most worry parents is the ever-changing ensemble that makes up Hi-5"" - from memory, he cracked this joke as an attempt to divert attention away from an unpopular or unsuccessful policy.


 * Thanks, I have addressed all of your points. and
 * Would you suggest removing this line completely, "The new line-up did not experience the same critical reception as the original members, with one reviewer finding fault with the group's vocal abilities."? and removing the line about Mitch Fifield? The idea was to build up the conversation that the group changed members a lot.
 * I would just like to thank you for taking the time to read. I know it's tedious but I get a lot out of your comments. Honestly, would you provide further comments or prefer that I close the review? I apologise for being so forthcoming! SatDis (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)