Talk:The Chaser's War on Everything/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sophia Loren

We probably should wait for the actual episode, but Sophia Loren getting Mr 10 question'd has gotten a lot of attention. Noteworthy? ~ Logging in is for the unexciting

dont think so, we would consider it when the footage is actually show, this is an encyclopaedia, dont think spoilers are appropriate Jasewase 10:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just for future reference, spoilers aren't a problem to Wikipedia, so long as they are from a reliable source (ie. studio press release or interview in a newspaper article is fine - a rumours website or forum isn't). -- Chuq (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What Have We Learnt From History?

Third showing. Does that mean it gets listed now? Chewbacca1010 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No even the cast admits its an "increasingly occasional segment". now that ive divided the segments up, im not even sure if life was a musical, osama bin laden should be a prominent segment. Jasewase 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Oz only?

If anyone knows, I'd love to know why only Australian viewers are allowed to view the video casts. Chris Fletcher 06:52, May 22, 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a discussion forum for The Chaser's War on Everything. Please do not discuss issues related to the topic here. –Sebi ~ 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer your query anyway. It's to do with the current Australian copyright laws and the show features music and other copyrighted material that is only legally allowed to be shown in Australia. Offering the vodcast to everyone across the world is breach of copyright. Hopes this clears things up. --Lakeyboy 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm in Canada, and I managed to download their podcasts last season. I switched to torrents because the quality overall, is better then their podcast. Chewbacca1010 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
this perfectly illustrates the idea of breaching copyright. good job Kiran90 06:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
So get the RIAA or the MPAA on my anonymous ass then, if you're so concerned. It's not as though I can watch the episodes when they first air anyhow, since I'm not in Australia. Jeez! Chewbacca1010 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe its to do with the fact that the ABC is a government funded television station, and the copyright stuff to do with he songs and footage shown in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey88 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You could still get the dvd in other countries-though. andrew rickert 07:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Show's name abbreviation

In the introduction it is stated that the name of the show is often shortened to 'The War' by the cast. I can't recall this ever being used as an abbreviation but I can recall it often being abbreviated to 'The Chaser'. Is the comment about 'The War' correct? Afterwriting 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Most episodes start off with "Welcome to The War for another week." --Richmeistertalk 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think when they refer to it as "The War" in that context they are refering to the small "battles" they "fight" as opposed to the show as a whole. EDIT: As in, "Welcome to the war we are fighting," as opposed to "Welcome to the Chaser's War on Everything," if that makes sense. Chewbacca1010 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always understood it as referring to the show, as Richmeister says above. It makes no sense abbreviating it to 'The Chaser' because that is the name of the group (as well as the newspaper) which would cause confusion. -- Chuq (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
i dont see any need to have it on the page at all, it doesnt contribute to anythingKiran90 06:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The group are the Chaser and the show is the War (hence it's their 'War on Everything', and hence why they welcome viewers to 'the War'). However, I've heard the show referred to in general discussion as everything from 'the Chasers', 'Chasers War', 'Chaser' and so on right up to the full title, but never just 'the War'. Perhaps the line should read: "often shortened to The Chaser by viewers, and The War by cast". It's something of a compromise in any case. DirectEdge 09:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

clive the slightly too loud commuter

should clive be elevated to prominent, just like the similar spruiker and crazy warehouse guy? or do we leave the de facto status? or maybe we need to drop osama bin laden, or even pursuit trivia, because they dont seem frequent. if only someone had a whole DVD collection and tallied up the total number of appearances for each segment...which probably could happen lol. Jasewase 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

yeh, i reckon he gets added in Kiran90 06:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. There has only been 3 Clives in 12 airings of the show this year. I reckon there needs to be at least another 2 clives within the next 4 episodes to elevate it to a staple of the show. --Lakeyboy 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Why can this stupid arguing over segments classifications stop, why does it really matter how often they appear we should just make 1 list of segments, and state how many times each has appeared in its description.

The Goverment donation dilemma

Recently, The Chaser targeted donationss being sent to the government. You know, where Chas sent heaps of cheques to the Australian and NSW governments, and then went following them to "thank" them. Some body please add this in. --Pezzar 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll find information on that segment on this page [1], under episode 35. I don't think it was notable enough to be included under the controversies section, nor is it part of any recurring segment. Recurring dreams 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I've quick-failed the article's GA nomination since all of the articles either lack a fair-use rationale, source information, or both. Please addess these issues before renominating the article. Drewcifer3000 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

protection

i think the article should be semi-protected for a short time (before this wednesday's episode) for obvious reasons. Jasewase 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed Muzzamo 12:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. It's already been vandalised due to heightened attention after the APEC stunt. DirectEdge 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if y'all think that's necessary, then one of you needs to do the necessary here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now requested that the page be semi-protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stickeylabel 09:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The request has been granted, and semi-protection will be enforced for a period of seven days. Hopefully this will negate the possibility of vandalism. Stickeylabel 11:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Societal Impact"

I personally feel that this heading is a little misleading, suggesting an analysis or comment on how the Chaser boys have impacted on society rather than the highlighting of some of their more controversial stunts. Perhaps we should rename the section, 'Controversies' or something. DirectEdge 05:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I have now changed to section to 'Controversy' accordingly. Stickeylabel 08:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning

Hi all, Hope I haven't stepped on any toes, but I cleaned up the broadcast section a bit - it kept repeating itself (I think it mentioned the fact 'The Chaser broadcasts at 9pm/prime time' four or five times.) Apart from that, I really like the article, well done :) I also removed the line which referred to the fact the Chaser had apparently hurt channel seven's 'heroes.' Two reasons, one I think that's pretty speculative (yes I read the source, but that itself was speculative, frankly I think the fact channel seven tried to take on both House and the Chaser when they were there first was the reason for Heroes getting crunched, but thats just me) and two, I honestly don't think it's relevent. Sounds more like bragging then worthwhile. However, if people genuinely want it back in then go nuts. Cheers GreenGopher 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I know its a small thing but its bugging me but could someone fix the aspect ratio statment for the dvd releases to the correct value of 1.78:1 Humie64 07:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
it's either 4:3 or 16:9. or thats what i thought Jasewase 09:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Colours

I find it hard to distinguish the green from orange, I'm not colourblind, so if someone could change these to make more easier on the eyes. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 08:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

no offence but you must be colourblind, but to your request i have changed it to green and purple (one light and one dark, without using red and blue which are used for links) Jasewase 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, its alot better. I just figured it may be my monitor, and its colour resolution. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Split

The page is already pretty long. If it gets much longer I think we should consider splitting one/two of the sections into separate pages. Possible controversies or segments. It would also make everything easier to manage and clean up. Cheers, Rothery 07:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I dont know. From an outsider's point of view... I think it makes sense to keep the show in one article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
i disagree here, there are thousands more articles that are much longer in length, and the article is well organised anyway. Jasewase 12:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because there are longer articles doesn't mean we shouldn't consider splitting this. There are also lots of articles with spelling errors. A good analogy? No. Apt? Yes.
Anyway, right now the entire article is about 45 KBS (44 not including references and external links). According to the general rules of Wikipedia:Article size you should start considering to split an article when it is anywhere from 30-50 KBS. A lot of this is a style consideration, as too much text makes a page ugly and people less likely to read it. The page actually says:
> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
So, while I don't think it needs to be split quite yet, after the end of this series, if it gets much bigger, it should be seriously considered. One options I just thought of is possibly keeping the "Primary Segments" segment and then having a link to the main article which is something like List of Segments in The Chaser's War on Everything or something. Just a thought, no rush. Cheers, Rothery 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

My opinion here. When the article reaches 50kb, the controversies and media impact sections should be split into The Chaser's War on Everything in popular culture. These sections relate less to the show than the segments section. The segment section actually describes the show and the various segments to the reader while the controversies etc. only support the article to show it's impact on others. Anyone else agree? --Lakeyboy 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposed popular culture split for the reasons Lakeyboy puts forward. Splitting in that respect is consistent with other articles that have been split. DirectEdge 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The segment section does seem to be untidy and I would like to see that section summarised and the indiviual segment details in another page as mentioned Humie64 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Already someone has created an article on contreversies (which is main linked) from under the "Contreversy/Well known stunts" section. The new article is but a paragraph on contrversies. The current article name is The Chaser's War on Everything controversy

I propose a rename to either:

Any others? Any suggestions? Any preferences?

Once the name has been figured out, then the items can be moved over, and the section "Controversies and well known stunts" will have to stay there, just majorly summarised, and without sub section headers.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I created the controversy page, with the intention to move all the details about their stunts that have received widespread criticism and controversy into the article, and replace the detail in this article with a brief summary. Popular culture isn't a good title, "controversy" suffices. ~ Sebi 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:ExtraDry has moved the spun out article to The Chaser's well known stunts. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And the spun out article has now been deleted. It may be best to work on the spin out article in userspace before creating in the article mainspace. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already been discussed further up this page that when the article reaches 50kb (it is currently around 44kb), we will split the well known stunts/controversies section into a new article called The Chaser's War on Everything in popular culture or The Chaser's War on Everything controversy. Either would suit. I must stress to everyone especially inexperienced wikipedia editors to not create these articles I have redlinked until the article reaches 50kb and cannot be cut down any further and are experienced enough to create a replacement paragraph for the main article, and an introduction to the new article. --Lakeyboy 06:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I plan to do this soon, I have already started on it in my sandbox here (which as of 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC) is the new summary for this article).  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do I even bother saying anything. I said to NOT split it until the conditions above were met. Now it is all a big mess. I am now going to wipe the split article with a re-direct and revert to the original article state until we organise this properly when we reach 50kb and when we reach Good Article status. --Lakeyboy 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not the owner of this article, nor have the right to say what we are allowed to do or not to do. The section ("Contreversy/well known stunts" at the moment has too many short and stubby sections and is probably quite a good reason for GA reviewers to (once again) fail the article. 50kb is not a point where we must seperate the article, no point is. Though per WP:SIZE, it is suggested, once over 40kb it will eventually need to be split. It is currently about 44kb, Just because I quickened the process and split earlier than some, does not mean that it hurt the article in anyway.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should be split now like what SpecialWindler has done on his sandbox, the second bit with the headings for each controversy, but make it just the chaser's war on everything controversies rather than all the chaser shows, as I don't think there has been anything really controversial on their previous shows. If there has been, then they can just go on the show's main page, as im sure there wont be 10 controversey's like there is for The War on Everything. Also a title like The Chaser's War on Everything controversy or something similar. Thats my opinion. Times1 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this issue has to be looked at from a |Good Article point of view and not anything else. We have until October 31 to have this article up to scratch for promotion for GA and if it will past with the controversy section still in the article, we should leave it as it is now. When more controversys occur (and no doubt they will, we're talking about The Chaser here!), then we should go through a summit like discussion on how we are going to go about it. --Lakeyboy 06:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have done some stuff at my sandbox.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  05:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has now passed GA, and I applaud anybody who contributed to that, but now I (and hopefully others) would like this to step up to FA standard. Unfortunely, we are no where near that. I identify 4 problems:

  1. Alot more phrases need citations/sources.
  2. Some sections ("Broadcast", "Awards", "Podcast", "Origins") need expanding.
  3. The "Segments" section is messy.
  4. The "Controversies and well known stunts" section is too long, messy and has too many headers.

Now some will be easy, some others long and tiring. But first, in my opinion, the only way to fix numbers 3 and 4 will be to summarise the information already there (and optionally split a new article). Now some will reply that the article is too small to split, but Wikipedia policies in this regard are suggestions and for this article to go forward, it will need cleaning up. When you look at the Table of Contents, it looks very long etc., and the segments section is various and to put them under headings "Primary", "Supporting", "Occasional" and "Recurring" is a bit POV.

Now for this I have set up (in my sandbox) the summarised information and the possible split section:

Note: The "new split article" for Segments is still under working by me and that the split contreversies section would be for all "The Chaser" controversies not just the ones for "War on Everything".

Any comments?  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  10:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one replies, I presume everybody is happy with the changes. (But when I do change them, then someone will reply, no doubt).  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
is it worth sacrificing GA in the short term for an unlikely FA? i think delay it until the offseason (when the show isnt being produced and broadcasted). ive also startednew section for people's opinions.Jasewase 06:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

apec court hearing?

anyone know what happened today at the local court or wherever? on one of the episodes it was mentioned that today (october 4) the chaser team would face the court... Jasewase 10:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was ajourned, until December 4.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  07:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

Hi all,

I've started to go through the article to remove a few things. I'm keeping a list as I go, feel free to re-add them in if you think my reasoning is wrong. My thinking is we could cut this article down to size a bit, and perhaps add a sister article entitled 'segments of the chasers war' as per the discussion above, where more detail can be gone into. All 'abandoned' segments could go there, which would remove the clutter from this page.

Anyway, below are the major changes.

- In the final episode of Season One, they presented the "What Have We Learned From Current Affairs This Week Awards", with A Current Affair winning the "Slightly Less Crap Than Today Tonight Award".

I removed this... it's a bit trivial, and probably not notable - although it was hilarious, nobody has mentioned it since

- The Ad Roadtest section is conufusing as all hell, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Any suggestions? I would prefer if it gave one solid example and explained it in detail, rather then vaguely referencing three or four. My choice would be the nicobate spoof (no gary no) for two reasons; one it would be easy to explain, and two it has a reference (so it can exmplain if people don't get it.) Something like:

  • "The Ad Roadtest" – The team recreate situations shown in Television Advertisements to see if they would work in real life. An example is the testing of an old Nicorette advertisement, which contained male cheerleaders encouraging an smoker attempting to quit from lighting a cigerrette. In the ad this was successful, however when recreating the situation in real life, the Chaser stunt showed that different results eventuated.

...yeah even that sounds dodgy, more like a TV promo. But you get the idea.

- In Other News/ The Fixers - I merged this together, although it was a tough call. Essentially, it is the same segment, with a different name and a slighly new twist. It would be appropriate to split in a seperate article perhaps, but for simplicity it probably should me merged in the main article.

I was going to go ahead with supporting segments, but didn't want to step on too many toes. So I'll stop there, and wait for other views. Ta GreenGopher 12:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the piece on other news shouls have been deleted, while it is fine to mention the fixers replaced this segment they are different segments without the exact same content and people should be able to know what in other news was about if they didnt watch it last year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.134.53 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wales part inclusion

I reverted a change that include the mention of Mr 10. Questions interviewing Jimbo Wales. Even though there was a reference supplied (one news source) I don't think that this really deserves an inclusion; just because this article happens to be apart of Wikipedia, doesn't immediately mean that this should be included. We don't include a heap of other stunts that Hansen does that receive media coverage, why should this one be any different? I don't want to edit war over this, I'm just stating my points for exclusion of this from the article. ~ Sebi [talk] 07:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm cool with that. I thought it was justified, but I see where you're coming from, and the article is getting a bit long. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Green & Purple?

Casting an eye over the article, I noticed that barring 'the fixers' there are now only two 'stunts' which are left in purple text - ie appearing only in season one - Famous Face Off & "The 2:30 Report"

A few months ago the colour differences were useful to compare what was in which season, and there was a pretty even split, but by now pretty much every segment has been in both seasons (or just s2), and those which haven't probably won't be shown in the next six weeks. I'm wondering whether it would be easier on the eye to remove the colours, and just add for the two remaining ex-segments that it was a 'former segement' or something. Thoughts? GreenGopher 11:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a fiddle tomorrow to see what I can come up with GreenGopher 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Eulogy Song

Should it be put under controversial incidents?58.168.211.127 06:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It already has been but yes it should. It has sparked outrage across Australia even causing John Howard and Kevin Rudd to comment on it. --Lakeyboy 06:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also wondering, should the popularity (for better or worse) of the controversy be mentioned? Recently updated on their video download section of the website was the note that "The ABC servers can't cope with the popularity of *that song*. Episode 20 has been removed for now, but should be back up next week. In the mean time you can watch the other segments from that episode in the video highlights." -- Permafrost 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha... I downloaded it earlier, obviously just in time :) I don't think you could really say it was more popular or controversial then, say, APEC... the difference is that with APEC everybody knew it was coming, and watched it on TV. This time the news only broke after the ep, thus the servers are crashing retrospectively as they can't watch it on TV. GreenGopher 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that message when I tried to download the episode just before. I'll just have to stick to YouTube highlights until the ABC put it back online. It's notable so I will add it to the section. --Lakeyboy 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

YouTube controversy section

I reverted this revert of my original attempt to remove the section. The only reason it's included in the article is because Hansen said something at the end of an episode. None of the news reports cited in that section mentioned anything that is slightly relevant to The Chaser (if they did, only a mention about what Hansen said). The section is referenced, but that particular stunt (or what the section calls it, a "well-known stunt") isn't noteworthy (not "non-notable") for inclusion. ~ Sebi [talk] 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Message added to top and moved to bottom

Hi im hulkamaniak, i edited the article how today tonight aired a segment on the "eulogy song", the ep it aired on was on wednesday night, and the today tonight article was thursday night, making it one day after the event, yet someone edited it and wrote 2 days earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.230.154 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

primary segment

What justification is that the "Citizens Infringement Officer" part of the "Primary Segment". I wouldn't call it as such. Im my view it has had no more appearence than other characters such as the Spruiker or Warehouse Guy. I will move it unless someone has objections.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  02:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

primary segments is meant to mean it is more detailed and the team member(s) perform the segment in front of audience (jokes, analysis etc). when CIO was first created it was like that, but gradually it has just become a stand-alone pre-produced item. and also the removal of colours makes the article look boring now: it's just i was used to it i guess...Jasewase 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

media impact

The two scetions on A Current Affair, and Today Tonight are basically pointless. They basically just outline everytime the shows run a piece on The Chaser WOE. But In my own opinion they have no relevence to the article for example:

Today Tonight itself has previously come under fire for set-up stunts for their own show.

What point does it have? I am currently re-writing it to get rid of the irrelevent points (as most of it is.). Its like the Well known stunts/contreversies section. You don't have mention every contreversy, why are we mentioning every time the Chaser appear on ACA and TT.

If anyone wants to see the section before I put it up see: here.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, and have replaced it with the stuff in your sandbox. The old sections were way to crufty, and would be more appropriate in ACA/TT's articles. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
in this section it should also mention the show's tv ratings, if possible Jasewase 11:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a good idea; they change constantly, don't they? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

nicknames

In the first sentence it refers to:

  • Being called "The War" within the show
  • Being called "The Chaser" outside the show

While the first one is acceptable (because it's true), the second needs a citation. Now it dosen't matter if one person calls it that, it dosen't matter if the whole country calls it that, unless you have a source for it then it could be bull for all I know. Whoever added it please add a citaiton, even a newspaper calling it that. Otherwise remove it.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  11:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know how we could remove the sub-section headers (underneath the "Contrversy/Well known stunts" section) so that the headings don't turn up in the Table of Contents.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Chaser" refers to The Chaser, and no source will tell you otherwise. This should be removed. As for the TOC stuff, Spebi (talk · contribs) will probably know (something about {{toc}}, limit=x)... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's been trimmed now, so the limiting TOC is no longer neccessary. And it's {{TOClimit}}, by the way ;) ~ Sebi 09:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[2] First paragraph in this article.
NSW Premier Morris Iemma has joined senior police and football leaders in an attack on the ABC TV show The Chaser, urging the team to rethink their brand of comedy after a dangerous stunt at an NRL match.
The phrase 'war on everything' isn't even mentioned in the artcle. "The Chaser" is commonly used by people as a shortcut for the show - when was the last time somebody was asked "hey, did you watch the war last night?". The wording is awkward, but correct. Are more sources needed or will that be sufficient? GreenGopher 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 24, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Syntax is readable, but the intro could use at least another paragraph or two to summarize this long article.
2. Factually accurate?: Not a problem here, (56) citations formatted well to good sources. I do notice a "fact" tag, however, so a citation is needed at the "Origins" section.
Y Done - Section removed, it was unsourceable. — H2O —  09:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, yes the article is of course thorough, it's so darned long.
4. Neutral point of view?: NPOV, yes, however the Note to all editors gives one pause - have you all been having some trouble with article stability?
Just vandalism mostly - it's a very popular show, especially when controversial. — H2O —  09:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Article stability? Going back in the edit history, really only a few days, I see some controversial edit summaries, about "reverting back to older versions of the article," etc. Don't get me wrong, I like the show The Chaser itself, but this is an issue.
Mostly vandalism, and some constructive production, I'd say :) — H2O —  09:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Images?: Ah images, Yes, they all have a rationale given, but seven images on a long article, and none of them are "free use" or better yet, from Wikimedia Commons transposed here? This is too many fair use on one article, I should think. Perhaps cut it down to four, and/or find some relevant free use images.
Some free images listed below - one has been added to the article. There's now 5 nonfree, one free. — H2O —  09:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I did not want to fail the article outright, I am a bit biased, I like the show The Chaser itself. If you find you can address all of the issues above, feel free to message me on my talk page, or just contact another reviewer and point to the issues you fixed from my points about. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
2. Factually accurate?: Done. I have re-written some sentences where the fact tag was and provided a reference. --Lakeyboy 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

you fixed from my points about. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

6. Images?: As for the images, you say four is the preferred amount. I say keep...

I will look on sites such as Flickr and see if there is any copyright free images taken by regular individuals of the Chaser Team doing some of their more controversial stunts but I doubt it.

Also, if 5 fair use images will still give it Good Article status, then add to the list Image:Taylorsunrise.jpg - The screen capture showing Chris Tayor's popular dumping skit. --Lakeyboy 06:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

I only found two, and uploaded them to WikiCommons. They can be used on Wikipedia below:

Hope that helps.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

You've done a great job addressing the points I had brought up. But, if you have another free use image, why not go ahead now and replace it for one of the existing fairuse pics currently in the article? That would give you a more solid footing later on at WP:FAC... At any rate, a job well done. Not to worry, I will update the tags and the article history stuff on this talk page myself. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

The bookshop stunt isn't mentioned in the article, so adding the image would violate the IUP...somehow (I know it would, I forget where/how). Thanks for the pass! :) — H2O —  09:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

segments

In the segments section, do people think that the Introduction of the show should be mentioned. While not techinically a segment, it still constantly has the same themes (mocking people in recent news) and also has some of the big stuff that they do. While not a segment, it should be mentioned (in my opinion) in "Primary Segments"  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in primary segments, as it isnt a segment but perhaps it could be listed in recurring themes. 4:42, 29 october —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.128.24 (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
perhaps we could include a piece about the order of stuff, in general, that could include the introduction and conclusion, things like the fact that the ad road test is usually near the end of the episode and that the fixers is usually end of episode. But i don't believe they should be in segments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.129.110 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No. It's already overly crufted, and a segment isn't really defined that way... — H2O —  08:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

controversies section

How are the Tim Freedman parody and Craig Reucassel/Peter Debnam speedos controversial or well known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.69.149 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tim Freedman parody was controversial as it involved an arguement between a noted band and the Chaser team. It was covered by several news sources throughout Australia and addressed on the bands website and Chasers MySpace. The speedos article did get a lot of mainstream attention, but isn't a major controversy, so I agree it probably doesn't need mentioning. Madslocodemente 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Though it is a "well known" stunt.  SpecialWindler talk (currently offline)  05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.