The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it would be better to put the Hannah Montana Forever alternate title in an end-note rather than in the prose of the lead. I would also add a citation to support this information.
For this part, Stories deal with Miley's everyday struggles, I think it would be better to say "Episodes" instead of "Stories".
For this part, plays the fictional character's father Robby Ray, I would avoid saying "fictional character's" as it sounds awkward in this context.
I am not sure if this sentence, The show is aimed at an audience of older children and tweens., is needed in the lead since you have already identified the show as a teen sitcom, and those are already known to be targeted toward these groups.
I would revise this part, The series was created by The Walt Disney Company to continue the commercial, to The Walt Disney Company created the series to continue the commercial to avoid passive tense.
I would revise this part, It has been praised by television critics for its humor and music, to something like Television critics praised the show for its humor and music to avoid the passive tense, especially since the passive tense is used later in the same sentence (which should be kept as that is the best way to present that information).
I would revise this part, for launching the musical career of Cyrus and her establishment as a teen idol, to something like for launching Cyrus's musical career and establishing her as a teen idol. Something about the current wording sounds a little off to me.
This sentence, However, as she began to develop an increasingly provocative public image as the series progressed, the series received criticism for appearing to be a negative influence on its younger audience., has a lot of great information, but I think there is a better way to present it. For instance, I would avoid repeating "series" twice in the same sentence.
You have done a wonderful job with the article. I hope these comments do not seem like too much as they are mostly just nitpicks. I will post a section a day so that I can do my best to be as thorough as possible. I will look at the references last in its own section, and my comments right now will be focus on the prose and any related images/media. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to pick a picture of Cyrus from when the show was on the air? Something like File:Miley Cyrus Concert.jpg would seem more appropriate to me. I am only suggesting this since the current image may be rather misleading to an unfamiliar reader on how Cyrus looked during the show's production.
Perfect choice, some of these elements I had just inherited from the previous versions of the article.
I do not think you have to repeat the first citation so often in the first paragraph. For instance, since the first two sentences are covered by that citation, you can just have it at the end of the second sentence.
Thanks, done.
It may be helpful to link pilot episode just in case readers are not familiar with television jargon.
Instead of "hidden alter ego", just say "alter ego" as the hidden part is unnecessarily repetitive.
I am not sure if this part, after her unsuccessful attempts to hide the celebrity identity, is really needed since we already know from the earlier part of the sentence that Lilly finds out about this.
For this part, Lilly adopts the alias of Lola, I would mention Lola's last name (i.e. Luftnagle).
For this part, before retiring from the industry to focus on raising his two children, I would remove "from the industry" to just saying, before retiring to focus on raising his two children. It is more concise this way.
In this part, with Robby Ray working as the singer's manager, I would recommend that you avoid using the "with +ing" sentence construction as it is a note that I often receive and see throughout Wikipedia reviews. I would look through the entire article to revise any other instances of this.
Have changed a few of these.
Since this article is written in American English, it should be "idolize" not "idolise".
Thanks for picking that up - it's hard to change when I write in Australian English, ha ha!
I would link high school since middle school is linked in this section too.
Could you provide more context about the season three finale and why Miley must make this decision? It is not really clear what the storyline is so I would add further details (and I would guess that sources would cover this somewhere).
Done. I have used the source to add some more details overall.
You use "Ultimately" as a transition twice in the second paragraph. Please revise one of these instances as it is rather repetitive.
I am uncertain about the sentence about the final season. It seems to be repeating the same basic information about previous episodes (i.e. she has trouble maintain a double life). What makes this different?
I'd link college as it does mean different things in different countries.
I do not think Hannah needs to be in quotes at the end of the second paragraph.
The final sentence is not cited.
I am surprised that the events from Hannah Montana: The Movie are not mentioned at all here. Is there any reason for this?
I would say not to include events from the movie in the premise of the show. I have touched upon a brief movie plot summary later in the article, but I feel as if the two bodies of work should be kept separate. SatDis (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I have not read further into the article so I am sure it will make more sense when I get there. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the first two sentences, you use "lengths", and I would recommend changing up one of these instances to avoid the repetition.
There are two sentences in a row that start with some version of "Miley values". I would also change that up.
You have not introduced Bickford yet and for some reason, the full introduction to this person is much later in the article. It should be move up to the first time you mention them.
Could you elaborate on this sentence, In this episode, the trust between the friends is broken, but ultimately restored.? I am not really sure what this is referencing.
Was not essential and unclear, removed.
Since I will likely be inactive tomorrow due to Christmas, I thought I should upload the second section of comments. I hope this is helpful, and I hope this is not too overwhelming or annoying. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Aoba47: for all of the above, which has now been addressed. None of these have been trivial or annoying; I love working on every little aspect of an article. Looking forward to further comments! SatDis (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, that featured music as a central element, I would cut off the "as a central element" as that is already being said when you use the word "featured".
I am not sure if this part, The musical made-for-television filmThe Cheetah Girls led to its stars finding commercial success as a musical girl group, could be easily understood by a reader unfamiliar with The Cheetah Girls show. I could see someone looking at this, and thinking that the show's stars found success by forming a group outside of the film rather than the film being about a girl group that later found success as an actual group. I think this part could be clearer.
I have had a go at rewording this, let me know how it sounds.
For this part, and the release of music by Hilary Duff was used to cross-promote, I would instead say Hilary Duff's music was used to cross-promote to be more direct and concise.
I am uncertain if Hollywood.com should be in italics.
I would clarify in the prose that High School Musical is a movie, and I would revise this part, due to their shared prominence of music, as it sounds a little awkward to me.
For the beginning of the second paragraph, I would make it clear that it was the concept for Hannah Montana.
I would change this part, aged eleven years old, to at age 11. Something about the current wording sounds off to me.
For the part about That's So Raven, I would say the network's name rather than just "the network".
It should be totaling not totalling to keep with American English.
Apologies again - my spell check is set to Australia!
No reason to apologize. I think it is very admirable for you to work on an article written in a style of English different than what you are accustomed to. That's one of the main reasons I always work on American topics, but I do not fully understand other variations of English. You are doing a much better job that I would be doing lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about this sentence: It was reported that Steven Peterman would join the project as an executive producer. Since Peterman did end up being an executive producer, I think it would be better to find a source and a way to say that he was this rather than him reportedly being this.
The final sentence on the series premiere seems a little tacked-on and I'm not sure if it is fits in this section.
The Time sentence has a lot of good information, but it reads a little awkwardly to me. I would also use Time as that is the name of the magazine.
Have tried to reword this.
I am uncertain about the sentence about Musso/Oliver taking on a more recurring role. I would think it was less Musso's personal decision and more of a decision made by the network. You would know more though so I wanted to raise this point to you.
This is interesting. You might be right, but the way it was reported is purely that Disney shifted Musso to his own show (Pair of Kings) and removed him from Hannah Montana, with no further explanation. So, instead of saying Musso dropped his appearances, I've changed it to The network dropped Musso's appearances, so that it subtly sounds more like it wasn't his decision. I've added another reference too.
In this Vanity Fair interview, here, Parton talks about how Cyrus pushed for her to be a part of the show and credits the show for getting a younger following. The Hannah Montana part is at the 18:00 part. Would that be helpful to add (that and Parton being Cyrus's godmother) or is that too trivial?
Love it! I've expanded Parton's role into a few sentences and used that source. She is an important part of the show.
I am not sure if this is required for a GA, but I would keep the citations in numeric order just to help the reader and I think it looks nicer that way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I always try to do that, but have been shifting citations around and the numbers get lost easily. Fixed. Casting section finished. SatDis (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This part has Wikipedia:SANDWICH. The text should never be squeezed between two items so I would pick either the image or the audio sample. I will leave that choice up to you, but I do have a comment on the audio sample below.
It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage, like audio samples, to a minimal unless they are illustrating something that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. I do not think this audio sample passes that and I do not think it works right now. If you want to have an audio sample, as I think it would be helpful here, I would not focus on the lyrics and instead focus on the music. See if you can find anyone that discusses how a song is representative of the show/Hannah Montana's overall sound and that would be much better in my opinion.
I decided to remove the audio sample, however, I was wondering about the image - do you think this image - File:Hannah Montana - Who Said music video.jpg - would be more suitable for the "Music" section, as I don't have a photo of Miley as Hannah on the article yet?
Since it is a non-free image, I would not suggest it for this article, because I do not think it is necessary or illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed through just the prose. I would just stick with the current image. To be completely honest, I do not think that image has a strong justification for the article it is currently in anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the first sentence, you say that Disney "planned" to do this. Did they end up doing it? The "planned" word choice to me implies no, but I wanted to check with you.
Have reworded to show they did this.
I do not think the sentence is necessary: During the first season's production, Cyrus commented that a soundtrack album was a possibility for the future. We already know that a soundtrack album was released, and I would think Cyrus even know at the time but was unable to say anything.
Removed.
Since the films are not mentioned until later, I would move the film soundtracks down to when you mention them.
Good pick up.
Is there any commentary on how the show's music sounds (i.e. genre, etc.)?
Have added a line about this.
The phrasing "won the role" sounds a little strange to me. I would revise it.
I hope this is helpful. Also, on a separate note, please include ALT text for all of the images. For instance, the new Cyrus image in an already-discussed section, now does not have any ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sub-section title is not fully accurate. According to the sub-section, Billy Ray and Miley both wanted the show to be over so it seems like the show ended on its own terms and was not really canceled (or at least canceled in what is traditionally associated with television). I think there could be a better title for this sub-section.
Have changed to "Conclusion" to better represent the natural ending of the show.
It should be colorful not colourful to go with the American English used in the article.
Instead of using the following quotes ("destroying", "out of control", "erase", "start as a new artist", and "like to resurrect"), I would paraphrase these parts. There are a lot of quotes in this part for things that can be conveyed in your own words.
This looks good to me. I was initially weary of the note used in the table, but I have a better understanding of why it is useful. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great so far. I will add more comments some time tomorrow. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas (and if you do not practice that just a wonderful week in general). Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before I get into this section, I would like to hear about how you structured this part. The third paragraph is quite clear and focused on the diabetes episode, but I am less certain about the first two paragraphs. Do you think it would be helpful to put the negative critiques into a separate paragraph for instance to make it clearer? I just wanted to get your opinion on this before providing any more comments. Wonderful job finding all of the sources by the way. I think all of the information is here. I just have a question on the presentation and structure. Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks for the kind words! I must admit that this section could use some work. The first paragraph was meant to be about the business model, and the second was all of the critical reviews. But I think I should restructure these two paragraphs to positive and negative criticism. Let me know if I should go ahead with that. SatDis (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to that, I think it was tricky because a lot of it is neither positive or negative, but more about discussions of gender, etc. SatDis (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. I would not do a positive or negative structure if it doesn't makes sense with this particular article. I think the first paragraph is good because I can see the focus on the business model, but for me at least, I think the focus gets a little lost in the second paragraph so I would more so focus on that. I hope that helps, and thank you for the explanation as that honestly did clear somethings up to me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks, I'm glad the structure makes sense. Should I touch up that second paragraph before or after your comments? Are there any specific suggestions? SatDis (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, I would re-examine the second paragraph before I make any comments just so I am looking at the most up-to-date version. The biggest issue I have with the second paragraph is that it seems to be rather all over the place and does not seem to have a central theme or cohesion. For instance, it starts with positive reviews, transitions into more feminism/consumerism stuff, and then goes into negative reviews. Maybe make the feminism/consumerism discussion into its own paragraph and the reviews on the show into another paragraph? Feel free to disagree with that suggestion as you would know better than I would, but the paragraph does not really feel focused to me. I hope this makes sense (and apologies for the long response, as I have a tendency to ramble). Aoba47 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Perfect - I have just done a minor shuffle rather than a major rewrite - first paragraph is now critical reviews (including business model), second paragraph is about gender roles, and third paragraph about the diabetes episode. Ready for comments. SatDis (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* This section looks a lot better. I just have a few comments for this sentence: The program's depiction of toxic masculinity was examined by researchers, who found that Rico was shown to be misogynistic when interacting with young female characters. You say that it was examined by researchers plural, but that does not appear to be true as the citation is only for one scholar's thesis. After looking at the citation further, I do not think it is appropriate for use on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP. It is not encouraged to use a thesis, particularly a low-level one like a B.S. thesis. I am also personally hesitant about it as from my own personal experience, the oversight and general advisement for B.S./B.A. theses vary wildly and I've written an absolutely terrible B.A. thesis because my advisor was too busy to work with me. Anyway, tl;dr: I'd remove this citation.
For this part, Cyrus later justified her performance, I am not sure "justified" is the right word choice. I think something like "defended" would be more ideal. Would it also be beneficial to add a very brief part on what she said to defend this performance?
Have fixed and added explanation.
For this, she was recognized as the worst celebrity influence, I do not think "recognized" is the right word choice as I've seen that more or less reserved for being recognized for an honor or award, not necessarily a placement on a worst celebrity influence poll.
Very true, have just changed to "listed" as I couldn't find any other suitable word!
This is not really a comment, but reading this section is oddly nostalgic. I remember when that "stripper pole" performance and the salvia video was all over the news. It makes me feel so ancient thinking about it now lol.
I know! So long ago - makes me feel old too!
I was confused by the sentence on the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards performance, specifically this part, speculated that Disney might be forced to discontinue the franchise. In 2013, the Hannah Montana show had been over for at least two years, and I do not know what is meant by the word "franchise" since there was not any spin-offs or continuations of the show around this time period (at least to the best of my knowledge). Could you clarify this further?
You are correct. I think what the article meant was franchise in terms of repeats of the show and any music/merchandise sold. But I found it confusing too, so I will remove it (the article was a little ambiguous).
I think you can paraphrase the "millions of dollars" part without using a quote.
I've never heard of these lawsuits before (but I'm sure Disney intentionally caused that) so this was a very interesting section to read.
Fixed, and thanks! I really only dug into them for this article, but what was interesting to me was updating them with outcomes as of 2020. SatDis (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much a nitpick, but I would use rerun instead of encore. I do not know if this is an American English thing, but I associated reruns with television (including television moves) and encores with non-television things.
Thanks, makes sense. In Australia, they'll typically label high-profile repeats of a big television event (such as HSM2) as an "encore".
Avoid saying phrases like "at the time". Instead, specify the time period.
The last sentence of the first paragraph does not have a citation.
Added.
Would it be beneficial to include any information on the critical response and the box office for either films? I would imagine that this section is supposed to be like a brief summary of the films as a whole so it seems odd to leave out this information.
Have added the box office for both.
Clarify what citation is being used to support this part, but was first released on April 10, 2009.
Managed to find a new source.
The last sentence of the second paragraph does not have a citation either.
I am not sure the first sentence is necessary. It does not seem particularly important to mention when Disney announced they would release a product and have the very next sentence be about the actual release.
For this part, it was recognized as a top-selling brand in 2007, specify who recognized this.
The video game sentence reads a little off to me because it is more so focused on the announcements, than the actual game. I would instead replace this part with information on when the games were released.
For this part, property had become so important that, I am not sure "important" is the right word choice. Something like profitable would seem better to me there.
For the first sentence, specify who reported this information.
Done.
I would avoid having two sentences in a row start off with Billy Ray Cyrus.
Done.
This is more of an aside than a comment, but if a Disney+ show was ever made, I bet they would follow Raven's Home's lead and try to bring back Miley Cyrus to reprise her role and have her mentor a new, young female character who would be going through a similar, dual-identity experience she went through as Hannah Montana. I'm personally not crazy about that as I'd prefer the focus to stay on Miley, but this seems more likely to me than a prequel set sometime in the early 2000s.
Oooh, not a bad idea. That would be possible if Miley ever decided to do it, and perfect for Disney+. Raven's Home is a perfectly fine Disney sitcom and I'm sure they could do it well for Hannah as well. If they did a prequel, it would be solely leaning on the Miley character and the brand of "Hannah Montana", which seems strange if Miley isn't involved. I think it'd be tricky to reboot either way and I'd go as far to predict that this is one of the shows that may never get revived! SatDis (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Miles to Go parts are not done correctly. Look at how the 1989 (Taylor Swift album) article handles its book citations. It should be at the end of the citation section with the individual citations linking down to the book.
The references look reliable and everything seems to be accurately represented in the article.
I believe this should cover everything. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this. Thank you for your patience with the review as I know that it has taken some time. Aoba47 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
