# Talk:Chartjackers

Hello. I would like to flag the Ben Loka comment that allegedly supports the view that the Chartjackers project was mainly done to promote the four vloggers at it's heart, rather than to prove the skills and enthusiasm of the online community. I cannot find any reference to such a comment on the referenced Twitter feed or on Ben Loka's blog.
Although I am in fact the Executive Producer of the Chartjackers project, I have sought to make changes to enhance the accuracy of the entry, rather than to give an inaccurately positive view. I feel that before I intervened the project had been misrepresented as a failure, which is not a typical perception of the project as a whole.Hattrickdigital (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A "typical perception" by whom exactly? Most of the reactions to this project that I could find seemed to be limited to YouTube, Twitter, blogs etc., which don't really count as reliable sources. But if you can find any other reliable, third-party sources that give a more positive review of the project, go ahead and add them. That Ben Loka remark is a fair point though - I've removed that sentence. Vobedd731 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad you removed the Ben Loka comment. I agree that there aren't (m)any official sources available to quote as defined by the term 'reliable sources'. But why are you making an exception for this line: 'Comedian David Bass said on his Twitter page that he felt that the campaign was being done more for the boys to promote themselves than for "charity"'? This is very clearly a misrepresentation of at least the available comments regarding Chartjackers on Twitter. Stephen Fry, a man who is actually employed as a comedian unlike David Bass, is one of the countless Twitter supporters of the project (he wrote: 'Ha. @CoolLike & ChartJacker chums have produced a (deliberately, I'm pretty sure) cheesy charity number of great charm'). 
I would imagine in order to at the very least be even handed, you would have to either remove the David Bass line, or include a comment such as that posted by Fry to show you are taking an impartial viewpoint.Hattrickdigital (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's Twitter comment about the project is already included in the article - it's Citation No.20. That David Bass remark did happen, but you're right, until I sift through his ~2,000 Twitter updates and link to the offending update in question, it really shouldn't be in the article - I've removed that sentence too. Vobedd731 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:ChartJackers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is the first review I have done, so I may not be as comprehensive as I should be.
I read the article and did a light copy edit to correct a few punctuation mistakes and awkward sentences. IMO this is a good article that covers the topic clearly and in appropriate detail and doesn't aspire to be anything other than what it is. I saw only one fact tag, under critical reception. It is refreshing to read a pop culture article in which information is presented clearly without being crammed with obsessive details that nobody really cares about.
Reviewer: Tom Reedy (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Overall this is a good article, however the following issues need to be fixed:

"The boys" feels a little informal. That being said I'm not sure what would make a good substitute.
 Not sure I guess there are a couple of alternative available, e.g. "The leading team", "The vloggers", "The group", "The guys", "The teenagers?"... Although, as you say, I'm not sure which would be the best substitute. What do you think?
The original research tag needs to be addressed.
 Fixed I've had a look and can't find any sources to verify that info, so I'll just have to remove it.
I'm a little confused in the reception section as to which reviews are for the series and which are for the show itself; it reads as if all are for the former.
 Fixed Do you mean "song", rather than "show"? If so, I've split the reviews up so that it's hopefully clearly which are concerning the song and which are about the project in general.
I'll put the GA on hold and pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback, Wizardman! Vobedd731 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
If I had to pick a choice for the first issue, I'd probably say the group, though I won't necessarily force a change. The other issues are fixed, so I'll pass this as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thanks very much Wizardman! I've taken your advice and removed most of the uses of "boys" in the article. Thanks again! Vobedd731 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The "I've Got Nothing" section is now looking long enough to justify it being a standalone article, with the Chartjackers article simply having a brief summary and a link to it—what are other people's thoughts? My main concern is that, if they were to be split, then a lot of the information from the Chartjackers article would just have to be repeated in the new one (e.g. how the song was written). It may be easier simply to keep the current article-within-an-article format. Vobedd731 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have begun drafting out an article based upon text from this one over at User:Vobedd731/I've Got Nothing, which I will hopefully move into the main namespace when it's ready. If anyone can think of ways to improve it, or would prefer just to do it themselves, let me know. Vobedd731 (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
I think this is fairly comprehensive now. However, there is one point which needs correcting. Chartjackers was devised by Andy Mettam and myself (Jonathan Davenport), and was commissioned by Geoff Goodwin and Jo Twist. It's an important distinction to make from a business point of view because Hat Trick owns the format of Chartjackers and we may do something with it in the future, or in a different territory.
Unfortunately I can't find anything online that backs this up, however I see that the reference used to back up the claim (number 2) does not indicate that Geoff and Jo came up with the idea, so the comment isn't currently backed up anyway.
Hattrickdigital (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, thanks for checking out the article again, I'm glad that you feel it is more comprehensive now. Thanks also for drawing my attention to this mistake. The original version of the article said that the show had been "conceived by the British television brand BBC Switch as part of a season of multi-platform content intended to appeal to teenagers", but, after a peer review, it was decided that this sentence should be changed, as obviously a television brand can't have ideas, the people who work for it do. I wasn't entirely sure who had come up with the idea for Chartjackers, but the sources that I'd found kept saying that Hat Trick had been commissioned by BBC Switch, so I assumed that they were the ones who had conceived the show. I have now rewritten the section in a way that I hope better reflects the truth. Hope that this is okay. VoBEDD (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vobedd (talk • contribs) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Chartjackers. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wc2tu5SI?url=http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/news/s/1159508_club_comes_into_focus_for_new_tv_show to http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/news/s/1159508_club_comes_into_focus_for_new_tv_show
Corrected formatting/usage for http://citypartners.newport.ac.uk/news/displayStory.aspx?story_id=432
Added archive https://archive.is/2012.07.21-200524/http://www.chartstats.com/chart.php?week=20091121 to http://www.chartstats.com/chart.php?week=20091121
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4212
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)