|
This is a placeholder. I will be read through the article sometimes later in the week and provide my commentary below. I have never seen this series and I have actually never seen any of the films so hopefully my more "outsider" perspective will help here. The only thing that jumps out at me right now is I believe the "Release" section could be formatted to be read more cohesively. The shorter paragraphs, particularly the last, one-sentence one, reads rather choppy to me. Please ping me if I have not posted comments by the end of Friday. Best of luck with this one! Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking on the review - I hope you find the topic interesting! I've just combined the one-sentence paragraph but let me know if that section can be further fixed. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing this point. Since the "Viewership" subsection is so short and only covers information on the first episode, I would fold this information in the "Release" section. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thanks for the suggestion. I have done this. SatDis (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comments below are focused on the lead and infobox. I will try to go through the article section-by-section to make sure I read everything thoroughly and I do not burn myself out as this article is rather long (and understandable so since I'd imagine this show is popular and has received at least a decent amount of attention).
- Is the citation in the lead necessary? The show's genre does not seem particularly controversial enough to warrant a citation and it does look odd to have only one source in the lead. I have a similar question for the citations in the infobox.
- You're right - I've removed from the lead, but I've kept in the infobox. This was requested to be referenced during the Good Article review. I can remove if necessary.
- I am not sure if the infobox citations are necessary, but I leave that matter up to future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is hidden because she will be added for the fourth season. Some editors will try to add it before the season airs, so a hidden note is a good compromise.
- Thank you for the explanation. It is probably best to keep that hidden as even if Segura is confirmed for the new season, it is best to wait for the season to air with her in it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think the specific dates in the following sentence are necessary: In October 2019, before the series debuted, Disney+ renewed the series for a second season containing 12 episodes, which premiered on May 14, 2021. The important is the series was renewed prior to airing and the "October 2019" bit is unnecessary.
- I have removed the October 2019 - am I correct to assume the season premiere dates should stay?
- I would honestly cut it down to "May 2021" as I do not believe the exact date is notable enough to warrant a specific mention in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would avoid the following sentence construction, with critical reviews highlighting. The "with X verb-ing" construction is highly discouraged in FAs so I would encourage you to look through the article to revise any additional instance out of the prose.
- Have fixed that instance and will look for more.
- Have there been any negative reviews for the show? I have seen some discussions on forums and the like about the show getting worse or something along those lines, but I was wondering if anything like that was picked up by critics?
- There are some negative reviews in the reception - I've added a summary of these to the lead. I've written "The series has been positively received; critical reviews highlighted the performances of the cast, particularly those of Bassett and Rodrigo, but found that the series did not capture the same appeal as the film." but I'm curious to know if I should now remove the "positively received" phrase?
- I would remove "The series has been positively received" as I do not see that supported in the article. With that being said, I have not done a read-through of the "Critical response" subsection yet. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would encourage you to archive the source link for File:HSM The Musical The Series logo.png to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death. I'd encourage you to do the same for images used in the article itself.
- Have checked that all of these are archived.
- The infobox image should have WP:ALT text. Please make sure all the images in the article have appropriate ALT text.
- Thanks. Had done this for all of the images except the title logo.
- Absolutely no reference to this! I think filming in Salt Lake City is purely a financial decision (at least why the original movie was filmed there).
- That makes sense to me. I had a feeling that was the case, but I wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that this is a helpful start. Let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I am glad that I could help. I have left some responses above. I will try my best to get back to this tomorrow, but considering I am in the path of Hurricane Ian, it may be later in the week. I will let you see and read my responses, but either tomorrow or later in the week, I will collapse them to avoid scaring off any potential reviewers with a wall of text. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Have made those amendments also. Feel free to collapse the comments. Oh, no - stay safe and take care. SatDis (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the kind words. It is not too bad, but I'll just be happy when it is over. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for jumping back to the lead, but why is the GLAAD Media Award win the only award mention in the lead? Just mentioning this award puts undue weight on it.
- I have added extra awards to create a balanced view.
- I would update the image caption for File:Salt Lake City East High School 3.jpg to include the year the photo was taken. I know it may seem silly, but I think context is important especially if the school gets any major renovations in the future.
- In the "Premise" section, the first paragraph's final sentence is not cited. Since it is the only sentence without a source, it stands out and looks odd.
- Have added a citation and reworded some details so that it is correctly supported.
- For this part, the musical production is filmed, I would think it should be "the musical's production" unless the documentary is about the actual production of the music and not the production of the musical as a whole.
- Understood. I have changed it to "a documentary series about the rehearsal process is filmed over the summer."
- I find that this part, a fictionalized addition to the franchise is being filmed at the school, a movie entitled High School Musical 4: The Reunion, is overly wordy and awkwardly phrased. I'd encourage you to look at ways to tighten the prose and conveying this information in a different manner.
- I have changed to "a fictionalized movie sequel entitled High School Musical 4: The Reunion is being filmed at the school, and that they will become extras in the film."
- I have a question about this part, East High's STEM teacher. What does he teach? A teacher does not teach STEM as it is a broad term used to encompass many things. So is he a math teacher, science teacher, physics teacher, etc.? The current phrasing is inaccurate unless the show breaks from reality and uses this title for him.
- You raise a very good point. However, I have checked, and yes he is referred to as the STEM teacher. Possibly we can imagine he teaches several different subjects within that umbrella term.
- Thank you for explaining this. I do not think this is a real thing in real life but shows do take creative liberties. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Belle is linked twice in the article (i.e once in the "Main" subsection and another time in the "Recurring" subsection).
- Thanks for picking that up.
- I would be curious if either the "Cast and characters" section or the "Episodes" section could be spun off into their lists? I am not an expert on lists, especially since my last FLC was back in 2019, so I would trust a more experienced editor's opinion on this. I just wanted to raise this question to you.
- You are right. I have been preparing to split the "Episodes" section into a new article.
- This is a clarification question about the "Cast and characters" section. Would I be correct in assuming all this information is sourced through the series? That is 100% okay, but I would just like to clarify this without assuming anything.
- Yes, it is all sourced through the series. It feels "strange" not to source the information, but I know this is acceptable.
- It is acceptable. I believe this kind of sourcing is allowed because at the end of the day, it helps the reader understand the show's story and characters in the most comprehensive and clear manner. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are my comments for the "Premise" and "Cast and characters" sections. Apologies for the amount of comments. I have noticed anything major. A majority of comments are either nitpicks or clarification questions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Once my comments are addressed, my next batch will focus on the "Episodes" and "Specials" sections. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the above addressed. SatDis (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the characters like Gabriella and Troy be linked in the episode summaries? It seems like an example of overlinking to repeat them twice in the article.
- Fixed. Thanks for picking that up.
- This part, warns Miss Jenn of the need to be professional while at work, seemingly came out of nowhere. Could you provide additional context?
- Have changed to "Mr. Mazzara, East High's STEM teacher, is bothered by Miss Jenn's nonchalant attitude and advises her to remain professional in her teaching job."
- Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The second-to-last sentence in "The Auditions" summary uses "auditions" twice in the same sentence. While that is understandable, I would try to avoid such repetition.
- I have reworded to avoid repetition.
- I would shorten this part, revealing Ricky and Nini in the lead roles of Troy and Gabriella respectively, to something like the following, revealing Ricky and Nini in the lead roles. We already know who they tried out for so saying it again here is repetitive and unnecessarily wordy.
- I would combine and condense the following two sentences as they seem repetitive and unnecessarily wordy: Nini tries to avoid Ricky, as she is unimpressed that he auditioned to get closer to her, rather than for the benefit of the production. Nini criticizes Ricky for not taking the production seriously, which leads him to contemplate quitting. I would say something like the following as it gets all the information in a more condensed way: Nini avoids Ricky and criticized him for not taking the production seriously, which leads him to contemplate quitting.
- Perfect, thank you. Done.
- I was confused by this part, rebukes Miss Jenn when he discovers she was merely an extra in the film. Did she say she was one of the main characters? Wouldn't that be an obvious lie given all they need to do is look her up online?
- Yes, so you're starting to see some of the "issues" that lie within the writing of the show. What makes it even more confusing is that Kate Reinders, or Miss Jenn, makes no such appearance in the film in reality, and this is all meta retcon.
- I see. Thank you for the clarification. I do not stories do this kind of retroactive stuff and since it is a part of the series, there is really nothing you can do about it. You've already done a good job explaining it and it does make sense with the context of the article as a whole (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part, he expresses his belief that, I would just say "he believes that" to be more concise.
- I have raised this in my comments about the lead, but the following part, with E. J. stepping in for his understudy role, has a sentence structure that is strongly discouraged for a FA.
- Fixed, thanks. Please let me know if you find any more.
- This part, but Nini call blocks him, reads awkwardly to me. I would say blocks his call or something. I have never seen or heard someone say "call block" but that could just be me.
- Done. If I recall correctly, I was trying to link to "call block" without changing the wording.
- I understand that. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is more of a clarification question, what is the difference between being indefinitely suspended and fired?
- "Suspended" is meant to be temporary, so not completely fired. I have left "indefinitely" in there to avoid confusion that she was not actually fired.
- Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was confused by this part, after he continues confessing to his immoral behavior. E. J. apologized to Nini, but how would other people know to the point that it affects his social media following?
- Good point. I have added "online" to "confessing to his immoral behavior online" - as in he did it through a live stream.
- Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for adding yet another set of comments. Just wanted to try to get a better handle on the article. This is for the first season of episode. I hope it is not too much. I usually go on the side of caution when editing an article up for a peer review/FAC so I have tried to raise my suggestions here instead. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: Thanks so much for the comments - it is not too much at all. As I mentioned above, I am planning to split the "Episodes" section into a new article. I will most likely do this once you've finished the peer review. And since I am splitting the episodes, I am glad that you are going into detail with those before I do so. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing everything so far. I will try to make more progress with my review over the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For "the beginning of the holiday break", would a wikilink to winter vacation be helpful? When I first read the article, I was uncertain of which break was being referenced.
- I do not believe Counselor-in-Training should be in all caps.
- I have chosen Counselor-in-Training as the wiki page formats them in capitals (and it lends itself to the acronym CIT).
- For this part, implement the formulas of reality television, I think "conventions" would be a better word choice than "formulas".
- Corbin Bleu is linked in the "Specials" section even though he is mentioned earlier in the episode summaries. I'd look to make sure there are not any other duplicate links like this one.
- This is more of a clarification question, but did any of the cast or crew discuss the plans for the show's longevity? I was just curious if there was any discussion on how many seasons they expect or want the series to go for as I would imagine that it cannot go for a long period of time since the cast members would age out of this kind of show (unless they want to replace them with younger actors).
- Yes the creator has expressed hope to keep the show running for multiple seasons. The upcoming fourth season will likely see some characters graduate, and if the show continues, I'd expect new cast members for the fifth season.
These go through the "Episodes" section as well as the "Specials" section. If you make these separate, I would make sure to relink character names and the like as my previous comment was more applicable to how it is present here if that makes sense. I will look through the "Production" section tomorrow or Sunday. Since it is a longer read, I might do only half of it at a time, but I will see if that is necessary or not. Best of luck with this peer review again! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Aoba47: all done. Now that you've finished the "Episodes" and "Specials" sections, I will split these. Thanks for the tip to remember to link characters. Feel free to take your time with the rest of the article. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Anytime. I am glad that I could help. I would be interested to see how this series handles transitioning to a new cast. I feel that is one of the major stumbling blocks for this kind of series. The CIT comment makes sense to me by the way. I hope that all of my comments are not deterring any potential reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would revise this part, On November 9, 2017, it was announced that Disney, to say Disney announced. It is better to go with a more active voice and according to the citations provided, Disney was the one to announce it on that day and media outlets reported on it.
- I would remove this sentence entirely: The company had planned to adapt the franchise for television and approached creator Tim Federle to develop an idea for a series. It does not add any new information. We already know Disney has picked up the series at his point and Federle is described creating the idea in the following sentence. I would just move the Tim Federle link to the next sentence and remove this one as it reads like filler to me.
- Fixed, but slightly reworded. I wanted to ensure the part about him specifically being approached was left in (as this was months after the series was announced).
- I would avoid saying "revealed" in this kind of context, it was also revealed that the show would be of the mockumentary genre. I just do not find it to be the best prose and I would instead say something like "the show was described/promoted as a mockumentary". I would find ways to avoid the "it was revealed" sentence construction because again, I just do not think it is an example of FA writing. Another instances is "it was revealed in February". However, this could just be my personal preference so you could always wait and see how other editors/reviewers feel about this structure.
- No, you are right. Thank you for picking up on the "it was revealed", I'm quite guilty of overusing that.
- I think I know the answer to this question already, but was there any further information about Goldstick's departure beyond "creative differences"?
- I actually did not remember that the original article stated the suspected reason; I have added this in now.
- Was there any reason for the production moving to L.A. in the third season? Was it specifically because of the camp setting or were there any behind-the-scenes reasons?
- There has been no official reason reported. However, it's also possible the move happened due to COVID restrictions, or possibly to accommodate Olivia Rodrigo.
- I find "the queer storyline" phrasing to be weird. The previous sentences mentions multiple LGBT characters and storylines and the wording just reads off to me.
- I have changed to "this had been suggested", referring to the previous clause "Ashlyn and Big Red come out in the third season".
- For this part, such as divorce, I would just move the citation to the end of the sentence as I find that it cuts the prose off awkwardly to have a citation followed by two words and then another citation.
These are my comments for the "Development" and "Writing" subsection. It is not a lot as a majority of my comments are yet nitpicks and clarification questions. As I am sure you are already aware, it would be important in the future to keep up with this article as the series progresses (and that entails more than just adding more information, but also making sure everything is balanced and the article does not just grow and grow in size). Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In the beginning of the "Casting" subsection, the phrase "was announced" is repeated twice in a close proximity.
- I would be wary of overusing "expressed" as I find it can read rather awkwardly. For instance, I would say "said" or something along those lines for "He expressed that he was". Another instance of this is "expressed that the season would see a return to songs being performed live by the actors within the episodes".
- I have a question about this part: Some actors accompanied their own performances on instruments such as the guitar. Would it not be clearer to say something like "Some actors played instruments such a guitar in their performances". The "accompanied" part seems odd to me. I would also say "a guitar" and just say "their performances" to make the prose more concise.
- For this sentence, "the second season features songs from Beauty and the Beast", should it be noted the series uses music from the musical and not just the film?
- A bit of clarification - the article only ever refers to the musical in its links. So, this indicates that the music is all from the musical. However, I can add "musical" if you think that needs clarification
- That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification and apologies for missing this point. It should be fine as it currently stands for the reasons you have provided. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there any commentary on how the music sounded? While I understand that a majority of these songs are covered, I would be curious if there was any coverage on the production, etc.
- There are a few comments in the reception section but nothing too technical.
- I have a question about this part, "expressed that the season would see a return to songs being performed live by the actors within the episodes". Unless I read over something, did the article ever address the songs not being performed live? This part just seems to come out of nowhere to me because it is not clearly set up in previous sentences (again unless I missed something).
- No, you are correct - it wasn't mentioned. I have added ", which had not occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic."
- Could you describe to me how the "Critical reception" section is structured? I am just not seeing a clear structure here and I think it would benefit from further revision. I would use WP:Reception as a guide for this kind of work. I will look through this section again in more detail once our conversation about the structure is resolved.
- Below is a brief summary of each paragraph in the "Critical reception" section. I understand this section may suffer from the "A said B" problem - as I wrote most of the section about 3 years ago. However, I'm willing to try to fix it.
- 1 - The review aggregators (I'm not a fan of this part but other editors added this).
- 2 - Comparison to High School Musical and comments on the format
- 3 - Cast's performance
- 4 - Themes (music, drama) and comparison to Glee
I have added some further comments. I have stopped at the "Critical response" subsection as I am just not sure about the structure and since that is a major concern on my part, I do not want to proceed further until that is cleared up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: All done, thanks! SatDis (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing this point. I greatly appreciate your explanation of the reception section. I would like to take some time to really read through that part in particular. I would be curious if there was a way to use topic sentences to clarify the structure for readers in a more apparent way, but I understand that is not possible. I would like to sit with this more just so I can provide the best feedback (at least to my ability) if that makes sense. I always find that this section is the hardest to write (along with the lead) so I want to make sure I do not mislead you or anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for repeating myself, but I think these paragraphs would greatly benefit from the addition of topic sentences. The Glee paragraph does a wonderful job of that, but on first glance, the structure of the second and third paragraphs are not immediately made apparent.
- I would clarify that the Metacritic average is for the series as a whole since it is following the Rotten Tomatoes score that is only about the first season.
- I could see Hypable being challenged at a FAC. What makes it a high-quality source? i hate being the person to ask this kind of question, but it is best to be ready for that kind of thing now rather than in the midst of a FAC. I would similar questions for Tom's Guide and Laughing Place. The prose specifically mentions Laughing Place as a blog, which are rarely high-quality unless the writer is notable on their own.
- Thanks for bringing these up. I completely understand about the blogs - however, because they are reviews, can they still be included? Yes, it seems like Hypable is an independent fan-site of sorts, however, I found that editor-in-chief Andrew Sims employs 30 paid writers. Is this reliable for a review? If needed, I will remove these sources.
- Just because something is a review, it does not automatically make it a high-quality source. I would find evidence that there is at least some level of editorial oversight (so find an "About" page or something that lists editors, etc.) and evidence that the site was cited and discussed by high-quality sources. Both of these options are usually strong ways to determine whether or not a source is high-quality (or at least a start). Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Glee gets an entire paragraph here, it should be briefly mentioned in the lead.
- I would be mindful of one-word quotes such as "overzealous", "cautious", "impeccable", etc. as they are not particularly useful and can take away from the impact of the other quotes.
- I have not looked this up and apologies in advance if this has been done already, but has there been any scholarly coverage of this series? I doubt it as it is still new, but you would be surprised on what attracts this kind of attention. I would check through databases such as Google Scholar.
- The only thing I could find was this source which sounds interesting, but I can't read the whole article.
- I would not use that as it is a dissertation and I would honestly avoid using theses and dissertations for a number of reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for looping all the way back to the "Premise" section, but I think it would be beneficial to include a brief sentence or two that summarizes or better introduces the films as the article seems to assume the readers have at least some familiarity with them. While I'd imagine a majority of readers who look this up would, I think it would be best to help those who randomly stumble across the article. A clear introduction to the films would be helpful.
- I have added a couple of sentences and would appreciate a read of those. The extreme meta concept means what I have written might be confusing.
- I think the prose for this can be improved, but I will look through this part more thoroughly sometime tomorrow. I just think it is important to establish that High School Musical were a series of musical films and just provide a brief background. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For the citations, I would be consistent with using work and publisher or just work as it is not entirely consistent. For instance, the Variety citations do not have a publisher, while most of the others have them. I personally do not find the publishers to be that helpful, but it is up to you either way.
- Thanks, I have fixed these. I plan on doing a deep-dive through the references and ensuring they are formatted correctly before putting this article up as a FAC.
I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies for jumping back to previous sections of the article. I have added these notes as they were on my mind while looking the reception section. Please let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Aoba47: they have been helpful. I feel like I will need to give the "reception" section more attention before reaching FA quality. SatDis (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping and for your responses. I have responded to your points above. I will do a deeper read-through of the reception section either tomorrow or this weekend. I think the prose for the first paragraph of the "Premise" section has become rough and would benefit from further revision, but I will do a read-through of that part tomorrow for sure. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoba47: I think I may have misinterpreted your comment about the "Premise". I added more of a plot summary, whereas I think you were indicating it to be more of a summary of the film's background. I might need some more guidance on that one. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually indicating both. To be clear, this is just my recommendation so take it with a grain of salt. I would structure this section in the following manner:
- I would say the series is set in the school where the High School School Musical films were made (i.e. East High School) and then transition into a brief sentence or two to provide background on those films (i.e. a series of Disney Channel original films about high school). After that, I would go for a broader overview of the franchise as a whole, not just the first film. And then, transition into Miss Jenn staging this production and how the first season focuses in on the rehearsal process and the students's relationships.
- I believe the first sentence is trying to cover too much. It has the setting, the meta element, and a new character. It is a lot to take in, particularly for readers unfamiliar with the source material. This can all be done in a concise way that still provide context to new readers. However, and I want to stress this, this is just my suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
