Hi. I'll be reviewing at some stage over the next day or two. There's a child running around me right now, so there's a chance you won't get the full review until tomorrow. I'll do another source review given that there were some problems with the last one, and a prose review. Best wishes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ImaginesTigers: I'll draw your attention to the two thesis used, as those were the only remaining problems (see above). Haha, maybe your child would like Hi-5! Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers please see my post above in the Ealdgyth section, lest you are able to sort those portions as well. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a thorough source review. I haven't found the time to devote exclusively to this right now, but knowing that the scope of my source review will have to expand a bit, I'm going to need some additional time. I estimate Sunday, but it could be Monday. I'm still going to be carrying out my prose review; that might follow the day after, or be the same day. Sorry for the delay. — — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ImaginesTigers: and @SandyGeorgia:. I have addressed the comments above. Thank you for your time, I just ask that you allow me the opportunity to correct any mistakes, as I am very devoted. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance for the big wall. I've included a summary at the bottom, but I won't tease; I don't think I can give the article a pass right now because my time is limited and I've found problems with most of what I've checked. I have such a mixture of wiki-work + IRL stuff right now that I can't afford to do more than this right now because of how long it took. I was hoping it would be quicker. I'm hopeful that someone else can pick up where I've left off and do more spot-checking. If not, and the FAC is still open next week, I should have some more time. I don't think this article is too far away from passing on a surface level, but the problems below really do jump out at me if they continue to appear.
"We don't want it to be in-your-face educational, although every single segment has an educational aim and that is reflected in the theme of the episode."
Source doesn't mention accessibility, or give examples of themes (animals, family).
Doesn't pass
That source 6 is published across two pages and this is noted in the citation; the information comes from page 2. Animals and family are specifically mentioned. Broad appeal is a paraphrasing of "Hi-5 appeals universally". Accessible themes comes from "all of those things that appeal to children everywhere."
Article
Harris was inspired develop a show with broad appeal and accessible themes such as family and animals
The double reference is necessary. Source 33 covers the fact that her maternity leave took place from April onwards, however, it was published after the baby was born. 32 covers the earlier pregnancy announcement.
Article
In early 2006, de Leon Jones announced she was pregnant, and would take maternity leave from April onwards.
The troupe had just one week of training to master trapeze, juggling and tightrope walking before heading to Singapore.
Paraphrasing is fine, but isn't information being needlessly omitted here? They had one month of training; some members benefitted from prior experience.
Also, "The group toured the Hi-5 Circus Stagesshow in 2007"... Is this right? Not, they did this tour, or such and such?
Omission?
Thanks for the suggestion. I have added They had only one week of training; some members benefitted from prior experience. In regards to the second query, I do not understand. I have mentioned that they toured the Circus Stageshow in 2007 and this is supported by the reference.
Article
The group toured the Hi-5 Circus Stageshowin 2007; the show adopted a circus theme and incorporated tricks such as trapeze, tightrope walking and gymnastics.
The group behind the hit television show are already in the early stages of planning a feature film while negotiating a single release as well as foreign-language franchises in India, South America and Germany.
As above, it just feels like there's a lot of missing information. One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness—in addition to the planned film, this article mentions plans for a South American and German franchise extension. It mentions the S. American as if it'd already been reported.
Omission?
I would like to explain this. If you scroll down to the "Brand and finances" section, I extensively covered the international versions that were made. The ones cited here did not eventuate; however, I have added it to the paragraph By 2005, franchises local to India, South America and Germany were planned, but these did not eventuate.. I have also expanded to It was reported in 2005 that a feature film starring the group was in early development, as well as arrangements for a single release. I'm sure you can understand that I didn't want to weigh down the article with information about plans that never occurred. In regards to South America, no, I don't think it had been reported.
Article
It was reported in 2005 that a feature film starring the group was in early development.
This sentence is just constructed really weirdly for me. [30] supports that they were regulars at this event, but not that they entertained the event's younger viewers; this is editorialising, even if it seems obvious.
I'm also really unclear on whether Gill and Bear were both playing Santa? I don't really understand how it’s relevant to this article.
Editorialising, irrelevant (and confusing) info
I understand your point. In a previous review, we had worked at making that sentence coherent, but seeing as you struggled to understand it (and that it is editorialising), I have decided to remove the entire line. While it seems irrelevant, culturally, it was merely a significant point to Australians who annually viewed the event.
Article
The group performed a short selection of Christmas songs to entertain the event's younger viewers; Santa Claus, who was played for many years by Terry Gill, and Humphrey B. Bear, joined them
Just thought I'd mention: Please note that some of the reference numbers have changed, as I have removed some citations from the article while answering above queries.
Article
She expressed an interest in proving herself as an actor for an adult audience and said she would help find a replacement member.
Neither of them responded to these reports, but Park denied the industry rumours, saying that there had been no pressure for any of them to resign.
The second source [54] is a re-print of the first interview [53] from a less reputable outlet. It’s about here that I finally noticed, because of the reprint, that the source is misidentified. Although the website is News.com.au, the publisher is the Telegraph (on the right hand side of the page); you can see the original article here. You're going to need to go through all instances of news.com.au and keep an eye out for these. I notice there's a few others which are flagged as news.com.au, but aren't from that site. For instance,
Go looking for other websites misidentified as news.com.au. I think these are being aggregated by that site, but do not come from that site—the writers are not employed by news.com.au, but by the publication you will see named on the page. There's a lot of them in the article, and I'm sorry about that.
I have started by removing the re-print from less reputable source, 54. Thank you for pointing out News.com.au, as somehow, I had completely missed that!
I have reformatted 47 as from The Daily Telegraph - this has led to prose to change, now it reads The Daily Telegraph 's Sydney Confidential reporter alleged...
I have searched through all News.com.au citations. This has involved changing 4 to The Daily Telegraph.
One was credited as AAP, so I have kept News.com.au as the work and added Australian Associated Press as the agency - this is 50
Two were written by the same national music writer, listed directly for publisher News Corp Australia, so I have kept the work as News.com.au - this is 67 and the first dot point of 69
Whole article is relevant.
Park denied there had been any pressure for any of the members to leave and that it was entirely her decision.
Article
Neither of them responded to these reports, but Park denied the industry rumours, saying that there had been no pressure for any of them to resign
I really don't have time to do much more. Based on what I've seen so far (and I'm not that far into the article), I'm not comfortable giving this a support. I think that there are likely to be issued beyond what I've seen here. I've looked at 11 citations, supporting 8 statements in the article. I've had issues with all except two of them. Because of the issues, I don't have the time to look through more of them, but I have really serious reservations about the article as a whole.
On a prose-level, too, it just isn't working for me. I won't harp on about style because style is so hard to articulate, but it really does feel strange to me that the group is consistently referred to as a "band" by the prose, but as a "group" by every reference that I've looked at. More of the sources call it a franchise than a band. This problem extends even to the title. A 'band', to me, confers a certain level of independence, when the members of Hi-5 seem to be contracted employees. Does the title need to change...? Maybe...?
I'm sorry. I can't support but I won't oppose right now. Have a look at the problems I've noted, and then check through the article really carefully for other instances. Feel free to score through the table as you work through issues (or just take a new line and reply in italics within the table); you can also reply to me (with a ping!) if you have any questions. Once you're confident that the article has none of the problems I've noted in the table, summon me back with a ping, and I'll find the time to finish the review. If none of the above problems exist, then I'll support. Wishing you the best. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
PS. The three items in Reference 71 are broken. Install this script and you'll be able to see them. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: Thank you so much for your comments - they have helped me immensely. I have replied to each in a new column in the table above (I hope you don't mind me adding a column). SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all instances of the word "band"... and I am in agreeance that the title of the page needs to change. The "band" was something I inherited from the early origins of the article. What would you suggest the page be changed to... Hi-5 (Australian musical group), Hi-5 (Australian group), or Hi-5 (Australian children's musical group)? I am confident this change could be made without discussion (no other editors to consult). SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found that the items in reference 71 (now 69) are not broken for me and working fine. SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so eager to continue fixing any errors and I thank you so much for taking an in depth look (no one has made the effort to look this deeply before). I'm hoping I can work towards a support. SatDis (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Hi there! I haven't forgotten; just give me a couple days and I'll be back. Dealing with the first round of posts on my nom. Won't be long, promise!
You've replied very clearly and plainly, and that's all I can ask you to do. Being not as close to the subject, I don't know the ins and outs—what matters is that you can explain to me that you know this shit way better than I do (and you do!). Tomorrow I have to drive 300 miles, so I'll devote time to finishing this on Tuesday. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to just leave some more notes without the table, which will only slow me down. As for the title, I don't know—simplicity is good, so I'd just go "Hi-5 (group)"? Take a look at policy on naming articles. My main problem with the article is that I don't think the prose is quite there yet :/ Here's a hodge-podge of feedback. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
[64] I don't know what this is supporting
It is used 5 times, and supports the franchise being sold to a Malaysian equity group. It also refers to Greene being appointed as the brand's executive creative director. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[104] seems to be talking about the TV show, not just about the band; "their work" feels misleading
Fair enough. In the interest of keeping this article just about the group, I will remove this source. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception needs some work. I recommend trying to draw out overarching criticism and condescending, rather than "A said 123, B said 456". There's an essay on this that might be useful (I also struggle with this one). There's some clunky writing that isn't there yet, eg: Sarrah Le Marquand criticised Brant's performance, claiming "for all her sweet enthusiasm, Brant cannot sing a note". It’s weird to me that the group's commercial success isn't separated formally from their critical reception (which, itself, is also a bit muddled—there's a politician in there)
Thanks for highlighting this. I have formally separated into "Commercial performance" and "Critical reviews", however, I feel that it makes the section look messy. The first paragraph is positive reviews, the second is negative reviews. Again, this is hindered by the limited sources available. What I have been able to do is follow the linked essay to rewrite; I have removed frequent quotations and tried to group the information into prose with a better flow. I have really spent a lot of time working on this section... I would appreciate specific feedback if any issues remain. Please alert me to spelling/grammar mistakes, as I have only just rewritten this. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Am I right in saying there's no information about the poor performances of their later work? A significant amount of the article is about the band beyond their successful period, but I acknowledge, yeah, you're working with what you have. I've read through Reception's rewrite, and I think it’s just minor prose issues. I'll just copy edit it myself after I finish writing my responses here (should be done by the time you read this). PS. I'm signing all of my new posts so they stick out, so just look out for my bold, italicised signature. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
My gut instinct re: the awards section is negative. WP:VG's MoS says that awards should be written out in full to provide some context, but there's nothing in the music MoS about it so it’s fine... Maybe remove the TV awards; they seem better-suited to the article about the show
Towards the later portions of the group's history, it often just feels like a list of members leaving and joining. I realise you're working within the limits of sourcing, though
Yep, there's not much else to cite or talk about. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[62] I don't think this is a high quality RS. See Ealdgwyth's review cheatsheet for how to work that out
Have removed and replaced. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[69] this reference is still broken; see the last line of my original post
Yes, I did respond to this above. For me, it is working fine - could it be a regional difference? Could you please tell me specifically which aspect is broken? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look here. There's another one broken, too, but leave it as is and I'll investigate :] — ImaginesTigers (talk)
[105] is absolutely not a high quality RS, and it shouldn't really be here as a primary source
Have removed and replaced. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes stuff.co.nz a HQ RS?
I have reformatted this reference. Stuff Ltd is a media company which also runs reliable newspapers, has been described as "New Zealand's leading media organisation", Stuff is their main website. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, all good!
Writing is a bit off in some places: They recognised that each child learns differently, so each group member targeted a different aspect of learning. Try being more precise, and give an example
Have reworded to The producers recognised that most children have a preferred style of learning, and structured the group's work to have each member modelling skills in a specific area such as kinesthetic learning and musicality.SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bit about them targeting kids 2 to 8 is repeated twice in the article - in history and educational theory
Have removed duplicate. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike their peer entertainers, the Wiggles, the cast of Hi-5 did not hold equity, but were employees of the brand. I'm sorry, because I can't remember where, but I definitely recall seeing very similar wording to this in another source from the earlier portion of my review
Yes, it is this source here. The source states "Unlike the members of rival kids' group The Wiggles, who own their franchise and merchandising rights, Hi-5 members are on salaries paid by production company Southern Star". The article reads In contrast to their peer entertainers, the Wiggles, the cast of Hi-5 did not hold equity, but were employees of the brand. I believe that has been paraphrased enough. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Brand and finances" feels a bit confused. What does the group's charity work have to do with their brand and finances? Was it part of their brand—do the sources mention that?
I have moved this to the group's history - fits in with the timeline of the second generation. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Harriott was the primary composer of the group's music, having written and produced thousands of Hi-5 songs—including feature "songs of the week" and shorter "songlets" I don't like nitpicking about words because I feel that isn't the proper part of a review, but the writing just doesn't feel right to me across it. Why take this many words to say what can be expressed in less? Chris Harriet was the group's primary composer, writing thousands of their tracks. I don't think the "songs of the week" and "songlets" is necessary; I don't know what it means as someone unfamiliar with the music
Good pick up. This pertained more to the TV show. SatDis (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See advice re: copy editing reception for what to do about the last sentence of Musical style. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aoba47
For the lead, I'd move the sentence on the Hi-5 show right after the lead sentence to group the information on the show together. I'd focus on making these parts on the show flow a little more as it reads a little off to me.
Moved.
This sentence, Five performers who entertained and educated preschool-aged children through music, movement and play made up the group, reads a little awkwardly to me. I think something like, The group were made up of five performers who entertained and educated preschool-aged children through music, movement and play, sounds more natural to me even though it swifts to a more passive voice.
Fixed.
I am not sure why Kathleen de Leon Jones' maternity leave is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead since she was not the last of the original members to leave the group. I would remove it.
Removed.
For this part, released music albums, why do you specify "music albums"? I would think most people associate albums with music unless it is specified otherwise.
Fixed.
For this part, placing in the Business Review Weekly 's annual list several times, I would give an exact number if known. I have a similar comment for this part, They collectively starred in numerous television series. I am guessing that an exact number would be known.
There is no exact number available. I can only cite two to three times they appeared, but I'm sure there are more.
Have actually found 5, but there are definitely some missing so I don't want to put a number on it. SatDis (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also stated seventeen television series, but I am referring more to seasons. Is that what you meant? ... But that is for all of the groups, does it sound like the paragraph is referring to solely the original cast? SatDis (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarifications. If the exact number Business Review Weekly 's annual list appearances is unknown, then the current wording is fine. I'm American so series to me means separate shows not seasons, but I know that series is used to mean a season outside of the US. That's where I got confused so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about the 2017 revival in the lead, I would add a link to Hi-5 (2017 TV series, series 1). I would also add the link to the body of the article. Also, why do you call it "attempted"? The revival did run (even if it was only for a single season).
Have linked in both places, and changed it to "short-lived".
That seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hi-5 (Australian TV series) article mentions that the group was named after the high five gesture. While that is fairly obvious, I think it is still worth stating in the body of the article.
I did have this in previously, but I only just removed it in the peer review, as the citation was not from a verified source. I could not find any other reference and figured it was obvious information.
Understandable. If a high-quality reference for this cannot be found, then it should not be in the article. I am guessing that articles just assume everyone can deduce this by themselves. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some comments mostly on the lead. I am trying to go through the article slowly to be as thorough as possible and since it is rather long (which is not bad), it will take me some time. Here are some comments to start with. Aoba47 (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Aoba47: I have left replies above after each point. SatDis (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replies. I will try to finish up the review sometime later this week. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be beneficial to link preschool in the lead and the first instance in the article. I noticed you linked it in Bluey (2018 TV series), and it may be helpful for readers who may not be familiar with the preschool age range for instance.
Done.
For this part, Kellie Crawford (née Hoggart), the maiden/family name is not needed so remove it.
I have included this for Crawford because she was mainly referred to as Hoggart for the majority of her tenure. So older fans reading the article may only recognise her maiden name. Please let me know if I should still remove.
I see your point. I will leave this to other editors as I do not have a strong opinion about it. It was just something I noticed while reading the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part, After being commissioned and filmed beginning in October 1998, is not grammatically correct. I would change it to and filming began in October 1998 instead.
Fixed.
This part, with their releases consistently receiving album accreditations, uses the "with +ing" sentence construction, and that is discouraged in FAs. I do not have a strong issue with it, but this is a common note I have received and see in FACs. I see it in other places like, with a circus theme incorporating tricks such as trapeze, tightrope walking and gymnastics and with one reviewer finding fault with the group's vocal abilities, so I would check the article as a whole.
Have fixed these three instances.
Thank you for addressing this. Here are other instances of it: with Nine Network representatives saying she would leave to explore "other career options", with new member Gabe Brown taking his place in February, and with groups touring and producing local adaptations of the television series. I think those are the only remaining instances in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why useful this sentence, Crawford described the band as "a pop group for kids". really is since at this point I think it is already clearly established they are a pop group for kids. This quote is repeated in the "Musical style" section, where I think it makes more sense.
Have removed and kept only in the "Musical style" section.
I would avoid having two sentences in a row with "performed". I am referring to an instance in the first paragraph of the "Early success" subsection.
Fixed.
Would you consider adding years to the subsection titles to make the chronology easily understood at glance? This is something commonly done in biographies like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Lorde for instance.
Yes, I have considered this before. Have added these in. Could you please comment on how I've changed Fourth generation: Short-lived television revival to 2016–2019: Fourth generation, short-lived television revival with a comma? I already had to colon and am not sure if it should be used twice.
I think the commas are much better than repeating the colons. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, Robinson (by then Delaney), I am not sure the parenthetical information is needed.
Noted. The only reason it was there was because all of the sources referred to her as "Delaney" and this might be confusing information, seeing as it was her married name and she's since changed back to her maiden name.
This was not immediately clear to me while reading the article so it came across as rather random, but I will leave this matter up to other editors as this is pretty minor and I do see your point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link equity in the body of the article. It is linked in the lead, but not in the actual article.
Done. I have also linked equity group on a separate occasion to avoid confusion.
Thank you for linking this and the link to equity group is very helpful, particularly for someone like me who has very little knowledge (embarrassingly so) on this topic. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there is a far bit of repetition between the "History" section and the later sections. For instance, both the "History and "Education theory" sections both talk about the group being the audience's older siblings rather than adult teachers and the music video inspiration. I'm not saying it is wrong, but I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
Okay, thanks for noting. If a reviewer sees it as significant that I remove the duplication, I will do so. For example, I think both of these would suit the "Education theory" section more effectively.
I just thought it was worth noting. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed in your sandbox, there is a fair bit of new information on the group that is not used in the article. What are your plans for that?
Yes, that is all drafted information for projects that were upcoming... for example, an animated series. These didn't eventuate so they will just remain as drafts for now.
Thank you for the explanation. I was just curious about this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful to include an image of the logo (File:Hi-5 hand logo.png) in the "Formation" subsection?
That image was actually non-free which was tagged as public domain, incorrectly (it should actually be deleted). I had to reupload the image for the TV series article, and that is only licensed to appear on that one page.
That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. I am not sure how to do anything with images and I would tag it for deletion if I know how to do that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
