Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Press Gang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:59, 14 December 2007.

Press Gang

[edit]

Self-nomination. The article appears to satisfy the criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well referenced, neutral, etc. I'd expect any 'fixes needed' to be minor. It has been a GA for nearly a year. The JPStalk to me 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is indeed comprehensive, well referenced and further it is well written. I wonder if some structural changes might be appropriate to improve the flow and there are a couple of other issues:
  1. The short section on the opening titles would work as a subsection of production.
     Done The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The see also section seems superfluous when there is a link to the list of episodes in the storyline section
     Done The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd like to see the cite episode template used to reference instances where specific episodes are mentioned to improve the article verifiability
    How would you feel about a piped link to the relevant part of the 'List of episodes'? I'm worried that increased use of the template would look a little messy? The JPStalk to me 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be opposed to that. Internal links are not a substitute for references. Putting the template in a reference leaves only a superscripted link to the footnote in the article; personally I can't see that as messy in fact articles look tidier with citations to me!--Opark 77 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll enact that when I have more time. The JPStalk to me 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, drop me a line on my talkpage when this has been addressed and I'll be happy to give my support.--Opark 77 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Done The JPStalk to me 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merchandise and reaction could be merged under a header of "impact"
    Mmm, not sure about this one: do you mean 'Impact' as a L2 header, with the existing subheadings as L3? They seem large and distinct enough for their own standalone sections? The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I meant but if you're happy as they are that is fine - just a suggestion.--Opark 77 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The two very short subsections in merchandise probably do not warrant their own heading
     Done The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aspects of the character section appear to be unreferenced and might constitute original research. Again episodes can be cited as a primary source if there is no third aprty coverage of some of the minor characters. Some of the non-speaking / background recurring parts might not be notable enough for wikipedia and should be considered for removal to reduce the length of the characters section.
    Yes, another editor introduced some OR after it GA status. I've removed what I think is the bulk of it, using the version that passed GA.
    I'll mainly defend the 'Other recurring characters' (though I've just removed a couple of background characters, and moved a couple of minor ones to a more logical place). The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Opark 77 (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive comments so far. The JPStalk to me 15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for your work on improving the article.
  • Strong support The article is comprehensive, well referenced and further it is well written. All of the points raised in my comments have been addressed.--Opark 77 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a couple of stylistic matters.
  1. In some places, especially under Reaction, there are paragraphs of only one or two sentences. Could you merge some of these?
    I've merged 'critical reception' with the single-paragraph 'Awards'. There are a couple of other instances, I see, but I don't want to merge distinct or signposting sentences. The JPStalk to me 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. <blockquote> creates unnecessary white space. It might be beneficial to merge the Hari and Cornell quotes into the main text. The Lynda quote looks fine as blockquote however.
    Both quotations are over 40 words. It is certainly academic convention to have quotations of such length indented. This white space is not excessive: in fact, it's often necessary when reading from monitors. The JPStalk to me 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Image:Linda Day.gif is a .gif. Yuck! Could you replace it with a .jpg? Or better, replace the image with one of the "typewriter style typeface"?
     Done Good point, and the inclusion of the caption aids fair use. The JPStalk to me 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support I have been unable to find errors or omissions.--Keerllston 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn per Tony1's good work--Keerllston 11:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find errors. Needs cleaning up before promotion.

  • Please use logical punctuation at the end of quotes. See MOS on Quotations.
  • Could you please identify the specific problem(s) so that it can be addressed. The JPStalk to me 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellipsis dots: MOS says to space (in most contexts, including here).
  • If memory serves, what's meant is that, for example, "tons of stuff... We" should become "tons of stuff ... We", not "tons of stuff. . . We"; it's the spacing between the periods that's deprecated, not the spaces either side of the ellipsis – see the Function subsection of that MOS entry. There are a few places where you have the spaces, and others where you only have the trailing space, so consistency is needed anyway. Hope that helps. Carre (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit] although there remains the exception for when the ellipsis is used to indicate a pause or interruption of speech. Just to clarify (or maybe muddy ;) ) a bit more. Carre (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that friendly explanation, Carre. I think I've fixed that now. The JPStalk to me 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jeff Evans ..." para—odd quote that crosses over two part-sentences—check that this is correct. Also check the hyphens as interruptors within these quotes. Were they in the original? Otherwise, should follow MOS. What kind of quote is this: "1989's "Monday - Tuesday"?
  • Oh, I see the problem. I'd missed out a closing quotation mark.  Done The JPStalk to me 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read MOS on the final period in captions.
  • "He was also "extremely angry" that Drop the Dead Donkey had adopted the style. They were dropped after the second series.[26] The cast were also "grumpy" with having to turn up to a recording studio to record them." Both "alsos" are idle. "with having to turn up" is pretty clumsy.
  • "Sunday tea-time" could mean different things in different countries.
  • Some choppy paras.
  • Too vague to be addressed. If I found the paras 'choppy', I would have already have fixed them! The JPStalk to me 08:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35: what is it? A TV doco? Link to transcript?
  • Online transcript, as far as I know, does not exist. The article explains that it is a documentary on first mention. The JPStalk to me 12:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS issue about logical punctuation: for example: The issue led episodes served to develop the main characters, so that "Something Terrible" is more "about Colin's redemption [from selfish capitalist], rather than Cindy's abuse."[13] Read MOS.
  • Not quite sure what the problem is here? I wonder if you you could possibly correct the few glitches? The JPStalk to me 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choppy paragraphing: take "Other recurring characters", for example. And please remove the bolding, which adds to the choppiness. Choppy "Repeat showings" and ff.
  • I've removed some bolding, but I'm looking for consistency with the previous section. The JPStalk to me 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the rest of the prose been massaged since my comments, which were only samples? My eyes strayed onto "There have been several products released"—no, "Several products have been released". That's a whole para, that sentence, too. I do concede that it's harder to find glitches, but they're there. Tony (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though two minor points: Are all the redlinks really necessary? And also, <ref name=""></ref> should be used to consolidate a few of the duplicate citations in the References section. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Removed redlinks that are unlikely to be created. I can't see duplicate links? The JPStalk to me 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Press_Gang&oldid=1088822189"