Talk:The Voice UK/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

Images pass. As part of ongoing development some more images from Commons could be added. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References. Article appears to be suitably sourced. The sources tend to be TV gossip pages, but that is the nature of the topic, and the show is new, so more robust sources are not yet available. There will be points here and there which will need either closer citing or removing, but we can deal with that during copyediting - essentially I don't see a cause for concern in this area. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No original research. Article seems to appropriately use material from sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unbiased. Article seems neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Is the programme a "competition to find new singing talent" or is it an entertainment show? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major aspects. Much of the detail of the article appears to have been constructed as the show has developed, and has then been grammatically adjusted as the show has been broadcast. However, the broadcast detail has not increased, so we mainly get informed about the coaches being selected, and their thoughts on the future show, rather than comment on what has been broadcast. We have little information on what has happened on the show so far. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focus & Prose. This impacts on criteria 1(a) - "the prose is clear and concise" and 3(b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". There is a lot of detail, and some of it is very questionable. The aim of the article should be to provide a clear and concise overview of the topic - sections that become too big can be broken out per summary style into standalone articles, if the material is notable enough; however, if the material is not notable enough, it should be trimmed back to the essential points. The first paragraph of Production, for example, could be summarised as "In June 2011 the BBC won a "bidding war" with ITV for the show, paying £22 million for the rights to broadcast the show in the UK for two years." All of the material regarding ITV's feelings in relation to X Factor are from an unnamed source (an "insider") used in a TV gossip column in The Sun, a tabloid paper, and so can be regarded as dubious speculation, and are anyway just outside the main topic. Material on why the BBC paid so much for it, and questions surrounding that, are, however, pertinent and encyclopaedic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

There is a good gathering of material from TV gossip pages about the development of the show, and the article contains a lot of words, and is well structured. Much of the material is from the development of the show, and there is less information since the show has been broadcast.

Put on hold for an initial seven days to allow issues raised above to be addressed or discussed. The main work is to reduce the material so the article becomes more focused and easier to read. A lot of the gossipy quotes in each coaches section could be reduced considerably. Develop more detail on the show since it has been broadcast. And build the lead per WP:Lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three minor edits in the past five days, and no communication. The three top contributors, including the nominator have been notified of the review, and all three have edited Wikipedia since notification. This GAN will be closed as a fail in two days unless the concerns noted above have been addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

Closed as fail due to lack of response. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]