Wikipedia:Peer review/Big Brother 7 (UK)/archive1

Big Brother (UK series 7) edit

I want to get this to featured article status, or at least a good article, and any suggestions would be great. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Triangle e 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "chronology" section is revolting. It needs to be cut by at least half, if not a quarter. Perhaps a paragraph for each week would be ok. Otherwise, it's a good article, and has the potential for good article status. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree the chronology is horrible. I've no idea where to start with it though. --Alex (Talk) 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, chronology has got to be chopped up a bit. Just keep the basics: a task, a twist, the nominees, major events, and eviction. I'd like to see some more images if possible, but that doesn't seem likely. Other minor things: "This series ended up being the third most watched, along with the first series." What was the other series in there, we know first and seventh, but what was next? Third, Sixth, Fourth? I don't have many qualms with this article and have worked a bit with it over the course of the Summer, and would like to see WP:BIGBRO finally have a large accomplishment. FireSpike 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comments. The chronology is now approximately half the size it was before. Tra (Talk) 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well done Tra, you cut it down well. I think the next thing to do is the criticism section... --Alex (Talk) 21:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few criticisms originating from the (premature) FAC. These aren't comprehensive; I can't face reading the article in it's entirety as it's simply bad from the start and (sorry, but opinion was invited) dull.
- FAs should be brilliantly written. That means compelling prose and a great read. I find this piece dull and it doesn't captivate me. It doesn't really even answer the question "why should I care?". Remember that an FA is an example of our very best work; it has to reach out to a wide audience not just fans of the subject.
- Sloppy writing and bad structure abounds:
  - This series saw the largest number of housemates to leave without eviction, with three exiting the House. This beat series 3, where there were a total of fourteen housemates and two people walked;" Is is a contest for how many leave without "eviction"? "Walked"??
  - "This series ended up being the third most watched, along with the first series." Huh?
  - "Pete Bennett was the successful housemate, and won the prize money of £100,000." At the end of the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Aren't these two unrelated facts (the prize money was 100k, Bennett won) a tad more important than that?
  - "Fourteen housemates entered on launch night, but over the whole series there were a total of twenty-two, more than in any previous series." This isn't FA class writing.
  - "should move into the 'House Next Door', a separate smaller secret House" seperate smaller secret??
  - "This year, Big Brother was criticised in the media for both its choice of housemates and its practice once the housemates were inside."
- FAs and GAs should provide context, either explaining "technical terms" or linking to relevant articles. You need to add a "Format" or "Background" section to explain to readers what the show is about, how this particular series was structured, what the contestants are actually trying to achieve, and to map out to the reader what you're about to tell them.
  - The first occurence of the word "task", for example, is "Sam and Aisleyne, were introduced[2] as part of the Meal or No Meal task (see Week 2)", and then (Week 1) "The first task was "The Big Brotherhood"". I know the BB format, but assume your readers don't. A high quality article doesn't start talking about it's subject matter without at least introducing the basics and setting the scene.
  - "All the housemates (with the exception of Bonnie, Dawn and Glyn) became members of "The Big Brotherhood"." (what the hell's that?)
  - "On Day 23, Susie entered the House as Big Brother's lucky Golden Ticket winner." What Golden Ticket?! You haven't mentioned any stinking Golden Ticket! (Again, I know about this but a reader from another country or who didn't watch the show won't have the slightest idea what you're on about.
- The article is sourced almost entirely from the Channel 4 website, which is hardly a fair selection of sources given the huge media coverage this show generates.
- The Chronology section is like a list quickly converted to prose, replete with stubby paragraphs. Replace each paragraph with an asterisk and it would be clear that what we have here is a list. It's this section in particular that is also mind numbingly dull. As somebody stated above (not the "positive reviews" you claimed on FA), this section is horrible. Vile. Trim it mercilessly or get somebody else to help with the writing so the reader doesn't fall asleep.
- The lead contains facts not mentioned in the body (such as, grabbing the first likely offender and yep, it's not in the body) Big Brother's Big Mouth. The lead is poorly structured and doesn't act as an adequate summary of the article (see WP:LEAD).
I was reticent at first to go into such detail at the risk of causing offence, but since you insisted on a detailed review and seem convinced this is FA material, here we are. I hope this helps. I suggest restructuring, copyediting, severe trimming, finding more sources, improving the lead. Then try your hand at GA. FAC is some way off.

--kingboyk 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can perhaps put the above points more in an alternative fashion, more succinctly. This article is obsessed with chronological narrative. It would be a better read and more helpful if it had a greater focus on themes. What is the BB series about and what are the contestants aiming for? What was BB7 all about? What was special about it? (the extra house, the golden ticket, the high number of contestants, the media controversy). How did the contestants get picked? Why will this series be remembered? Right now you have a chronology and a detailed media piece (the media piece should stay, by the way, it's essential, although I haven't actually read it yet). You're expecting the reader to understand the show and it's significance by giving them a rehash of what happened. It's like sitting through the whole show but on Wikipedia. Do more of the work for them; compile the available sources into thematic sections packed with fascinating and brilliant prose, don't leave us to read through a wrist-slashingly dull blow by blow account of what happened on every single day. --kingboyk 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this page, and have decided to pass it. It is well sourced, sectioned & over all, well done to all the editors of this page, you've done a fine job.--Hiltonhampton 19:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]