Wikipedia:Peer review/Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy/archive1

Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for WP:GA, and eventually WP:FA. Please give general comments on the progress of the article, and what needs to be improved. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am reviewing this article. Here are some comments on the lead and first main section. Other comments will follow shortly.

Brianboulton comments: I am reviewing this article. Here are some comments on the lead and first main section. Other comments will follow shortly.

• The article begins "This article is about..." Please see WP:BOLDTITLE to see how an article should properly begin Done

• Consistency required on use of forenames or surnames. The lead contains the sentence: "Shetty later told the media that she forgave Jade". Done. I looked over the whole article and standardized it to first names, as that is what used in all Big Brother UK articles.

• The Basis of accusations section is written in bullet-point format. It should be in prose, with a proper paragraph and sentence structure. Done. I also tried rearranging it to make more sense. I would like a recheck for WP:PROSE

• Phrase needing attention: "Jackiey pronounced it properly, although a bit agitated". Poor grammar, and "a bit" is not encyclopaedic. "Agitated" is a POV word. Also, please confirm the "Jackiey" spelling which is unusual and looks wrong. Removed the last part, as I could not find a reference for that. Also, the spelling is correct (see citation in the paragraph)

• Name inconsistency again: "Lloyd also referred to Shilpa as a dog". Done. See comment #2

• POV – "Danielle made an awkward attempt to apologise". Delete awkward, or cite it. Sentence reorganised

• "Diary Room" needs explaining – not everyone knows how Big Brother works. Part removed.

• Final sentence in the "Basis" section has two problems: use of surnames, when forenames have been mainly used until now, and a sudden change of tense: "...that they feel Shilpa is a fake..." Done, see comment #2. And done, tense should be fixed.

More comments later Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments! I will be looking at the new ones shortly :) Z1720 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some further comments:-

• Reaction section
  • Indicate what the 50,000 complaints were about, and give a timescale, e.g. over x days
  • The words "after transmission" are redundant
  • Suggest second sentence revised to read: "Channel 4 itself received a further 3,000 complaints..."
  • What was the substance of the on-line petition? What were people signing it demanding should happen?

• Media reaction
  • First sentence: "Various media outlets..." is very vague. Are we talking newspapers, TV, radio talkshows, or what?
  • "As time progressed..." is also vague and uninformative. Try to provide a clearer timeframe.
  • Don’t use forms like "wasn’t", unless quoting
  • Who is "Jermaine"? Presumably another contestant, but he (?) needs to be introduced properly.
  • In the penultimate paragraph you say that Big Brother was axed on 24 August 2007. This acn't be right – the Big Brother show for 2008 took place (it has only recently finished). What was axed – and this has to be made perfectly clear – was the Celebrity Big Brother spinoff, which has not taken place since the Shetty/Goody controversy.
  • Last sentence is too vague to be useful.
  • A general point re. this section: single sentence and/or very short paragraphs should be avoided, as they give the prose an awkward, jerky feel.

• Media reaction
  • First para is a hotchpotch of tense mix-ups, veering from present to past, present then past again, finally present. This article is describing something that took place more then 18 months ago, so obviously the past tense must be consistently used.
  • Reference to "London mayor Ken Livingstone" is another anachronism
  • Your mention of the interview date 21 January, without a year, is as far as I can see the first indication of when the event in question took place. This needs to be clarified much earlier in the article.
  • Use proper quotes i.e. " and " rather than the single inverted comma
  • You’ve gone present tense again in the final part of the section

• Reaction in India: Wrong tenses again: "The Indian Government also plans..." and later: "The Indian Tourist Office has extended..."

• Police investigation
  • Mixing forenames and surnames again
  • Tense problems again in last sentence of first para: "...has forced police to investigate..."
  • "...at that time", at the end of the section, is redundant.

I will await your responses to the above before continuing the review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)