Talk:The Voice UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee The Voice UK was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 12, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

The 'Format' Section[edit]

I have found my way to this page in an attempt to find out more about the format of this show. The section regarding this topic is factually accurate, but poorly worded which makes it quite difficult to follow. If somebody feels confident in their abilities to fix this then I would suggest that a revision is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.56.200 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Could the contestants be in alphabetical order please? 92.20.142.67 (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Voice UK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments[edit]

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)
  • Article is stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • No original research. Article seems to appropriately use material from sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Unbiased. Article seems neutral. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)

On hold[edit]

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)

  • 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)

Fail[edit]

Closed as fail due to lack of response. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Judges in infobox[edit]

Hi, shouldn't it be Coaches in the infobox not Judges but I don't know how to change it (I tried to change it but it didn't work) --MSalmon (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's done from the {{Infobox television}} I originally put 'Judges' field in due to the large number of shows now having them. I think you need to ask on the templates talkpage for any changed to the template now. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

yeah i tried to change it but it didn't work Frogkermit (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

It is Becky Hill, not Becky Hall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.18.205 (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is fixed --MSalmon (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote under Tom Jones[edit]

Could we find new referenced text under the picture of Tom Jones? Having the words musical legend in quotes makes it seem as if Wikipedia doubts it, especially as the wordage is stuck on its own. 92.20.166.85 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

2014 results?[edit]

Really? The 2014 results are on wikipedia, even though only the first episode has aired? Even if this is correct, I think ti should be removed, to prevent it being spoilt for anyone. Spockyt (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Series overview[edit]

Series 2, incorrect winner[edit]

Can someone please fix the series overview for series 2? Leah McFall/Team Will is listed as the winner, whereas in reality it was Andrea Begley/Team Danny. I'd do it myself but I have zero experience in formatting tables in Wikipedia and don't want to screw it up. Thanks. Rwintle (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually the result for every series had been vandalised. It wasn't a simple revert either, as nobody seemed to have noticed the vandalism. I've fixed it now. –anemoneprojectors– 21:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Series overview table[edit]

I would like to edit the table a little bit, to make it similar to the U.S. "Voice" wiki page. I just want to re-arrange the coaches' column, so we can see which coaches sit on which chair order. the current column does not include the info(rmation) of the chairs' order. Can I do that, so that there is no more edit war?? Andimuhammadrifki (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC+8)

Unfortunately, I am in agreement that it is a bit of overuse of colour, and don't see the necessity for use of it. The way it is, currently, is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the table. livelikemusic talk! 20:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If you say that it could not be done because of color overuse, can I do it without color overuse?? Andimuhammadrifki (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC+8)

It's an unnecessary change that makes the table more cluttered and confusing. And whether you make it or someone else makes it does not matter, because that would be an issue of owning the page for you, as it appears that's the stance you might be taking. livelikemusic talk! 22:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

ITV in the infobox[edit]

Please discuss here instead of reverting and counter-reverting, thanks! anemoneprojectors 09:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS[edit]

Wikipedia's Manual of Style on accessibility says:

  • "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"
    • In the table here, colour is the only method used to convey the information.
  • "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information."

However, I thought this was a much better way of conveying the exact same information without the need for colour. I have no problems with colour but I find it distracting when there is so much of it, and WP:ACCESS should be adhered to. An IP seemingly attempted (but failed) to restore colour so it was reverted to the version I made with colour and symbols. So I'm here to discuss which is better:

  • Colours and symbols
  • No colours and text
  • Colours and text would also be an option - I like the text instead of symbols as it makes each series row the same height.

Thanks. anemoneprojectors 13:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a version with colours and text. This keeps colour for those who want it, but the text satisfies those using screen readers. I like the row heights being the same and the text also means no need to look up the key to see what team someone was in, though the colour is a quick way of seeing how well each team did for those who can use/see colour. anemoneprojectors 15:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Voice UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of third place[edit]

Hi, in the series overview table third place has it's own column when there has never been a third place as there has always been two artists eliminated at the same time during the final so we never know third place. MSalmon (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The table should be reverted back to how it was before, so I have done so. anemoneprojectors 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)