Talk:The Hounds of Baskerville

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hounds of Baskerville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 02:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lede: Link 'second series'
• Lede: "who also portrays Mycroft Holmes in the series, Sherlock's brother," -> "who also portrays Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's brother in the series."
• Lede: "Gatiss felt a greater… than he does" Make sure the tenses match; I'd use past
• Lede: "The episodes provided an example of how the series is not afraid to tackle the most famous stories" Add 'even' before 'most'
• Lede: "After its broadcast on BBC One, the episode was given consolidated figures of 10.266 million viewers in the United Kingdom, although a slight drop from the previous episode, was still the second largest audiences in British television the week it aired." Break into two -> "After its broadcast on BBC One, the episode was given consolidated figures of 10.266 million viewers in the United Kingdom. This rating, although a slight drop from the previous episode, was still the second largest audiences in British television the week it aired."
• Plot: "Sherlock reacts with anger, denying that there can be anything wrong with him" -> Do you mean to say: "Sherlock reacts with anger, denying that there cannot be anything wrong with him"

• Doesn't that imply that he admits that there is something wrong with him? Because he claimed nothing was wrong with him. -- Matthew RD 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, oops. I didn't catch the 'deny' part.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Plot: Why is there a minefield in this city? :P

• Baskerville is a research base, in the middle of Dartmoor, which is a National Park, no cities around. Clarified a little. -- Matthew RD 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Casting: "In June 2011 it was announced that Russell Tovey will appear on Sherlock series two in its second episode." Change 'will' to 'would'
• Casting: "said of the experience;" I believe the semi-colon should just be a colon
• Writing: "as it was written after Doyle killed off the character and as a result was well sold." Which character was killed off?
• Writing: "Gatiss observes that Conan Doyle's tiredness of the character…" change present to past, i.e. observed
• Writing: "The three series two episode, respectively centres on Sherlock deal with love, fear, and death" -> "The other episodes of series two, respectively centre on Sherlock dealing with love, fear, and death"

• There were only three episodes, what you want seems to imply there was four? Reworded for clarity. -- Matthew RD 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Writing: "Freeman stated that when he sees the hound, Sherlock becomes "really terrified" and for some time stops trusting the evidence he sees" -> "Freeman stated that when Sherlock saw the hound, he became "really terrified" and, for some time, stopped trusting the evidence he saw"
• Writing: "The episode is an example of how the series is not afraid to tackle the most famous stories" Add 'even' in there and move it up to the part where you're taking about the actual novel and how famous it is

• Done? Did I move it in the right place? -- Matthew RD 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it looks good.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Plot/Reception: I would move the picture for the plot down into the reception area
• Critical Reception: "He praises the two lead actors…" -> "He praised the two lead actors"
• Critical Reception: "favorably compares" -> "favorably compared"
• Critical Reception: "Chris Tilly of IGN rated the episode a "good" 7 out of 10, stating" -> "Chris Tilly of IGN rated the episode a "good" 7 out of 10, but stated"
• References: No. 4 (TV Tropes) is not a reliable reference

• May I ask why it's unreliable? -- Matthew RD 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The big reason is that its a wiki and thus editable by anyone. Because of this, it doesn't have editorial oversight like a reliable source should.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Did not see that, but now I do. Done. Hopefully the replacement sources I could find a feasable. -- Matthew RD 00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Great response! Just sort out the TV Tropes issue and I'll pass it!--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel comfortable with this now. Passing GA; great work! :)--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler in lead section

I know Wikipedia policy is to be quite liberal with spoilers, putting completeness first. But, even with that in mind, I would say that putting the solution to the mystery of a whodunit in the lead section might be a bit too much. It read: "In the conclusion it is revealed that the hound was a hallucinogenic manifestation of a chemical weapon created by Henry's father's real murderer, Doctor Robert Frankland."

It's hardly unreasonable that someone might want to read the lead section of an article without wanting the ending spoiled - especially since the ending is not all that interesting in itself. Furthermore, the word 'hallucinogenic' is hard to miss, and reading it gives everything away - by contrast with, say: "In the conclusion Darth Vader reveals to Luke Skywalker that he is, in fact, his father", where one would have to read the whole sentence to learn anything. ~~Dan~~

Regarding WP:SPOILER, the instruction appears to be: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served."

Clearly, this is not a mandate to include spoilers everywhere in the article without some good justification - thus, on occasion, deleting a spoiler because it is a spoiler isn't necessarily wrong. For one thing, no information was deleted - the solution to the mystery appears in the Plot Summary as well. Nor is there any 'encyclopedic purpose' being served. For instance, if it were the case that in this episode, Dr. Watson were to die, it might be justified to include this fact in the lead section - someone might want to know that this is the final episode in which Martin Freeman will star, without being interested in the plot itself. By contrast, the fact that the hounds were hallucinations is of no consequence whatsoever outside the episode itself - they could well have been aliens without any great bearing on the series as a whole.

All in all, as far as I can tell, the spirit of WP:SPOILER is that spoilers should not be taken into consideration when improving and article - but for this to hold, there must be a genuine improvement. If I rewrote the Lead Section of The Sixth Sense as "The film tells the story of Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), a troubled, isolated boy who is able to see and talk to the dead, and the phantom of a deceased man (Bruce Willis), who tries to help him", this would likely be quickly reverted, and justifiably so. ~~Dan~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.183.130 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." That explains everything. All your reasons involve "spoiling the plot". That's just your opinion and is not a good enough reason. Please provide a WP:NPOV reason. DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. For one thing, no, WP:SP does not explain everything. Your argument could be equally well used to support my proposed change to The Sixth Sense - would you genuinely hold that such an edit would be adequate?

But even leaving The Sixth Sense alone, let us consider whodunits in general. Take some at random, plus the source of this episode: The Hound of the Baskervilles, Curtain (novel), And Then There Were None, A Study in Scarlet, A Study in Pink. none have any spoilers in the Lead Section, with one notable exception - for Curtain, we are told: "The final chapters of the novel tell of the death of Hercule Poirot." Which would pretty much agree with what I proposed - Poirot's death is an event that has some general importance, whereas the identity of a particular novel's murderer is only relevant within the context of that particular novel.

Returning to WP:SP, the criterion for including a spoiler should be that it has some encyclopedic purpose. Now, 'encyclopedic' is a vague word, but if something is not found in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, then surely it cannot be said to have an encyclopedic purpose. Unless, of course, you would hold that Wikipedia is severely defective, and this particular article is a shining beacon of truth in a sea of censorship and lies. I would find that rather absurd.~~Dan~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.183.130 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is all your POV and is subjective. Please provide a reason that is not subjective (WP:NPOV). Also, other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) doing things a certain way is irrelevant unless those things follow a manual of style or other guidelines. Finally, the intro is for summarising the entire article, and it's fine as it is currently written, spoilers and all. Please provide a reason for removing a single sentence from a short synopsis of the plot that does not involve WP:SPOILER. DonQuixote (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the citation to WP:Spoiler is about removing information from an article, and the debate here is about removing information from the lead that is still found in the article's Plot section. Is not this a case of talking past one another? DonQuixote is correct that the information should not be excised merely to prevent spoilage, but that doesn't seem to require that it be in multiple places and that the lead be one of those. Czrisher (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

DonQuixote, WP:OSE does in fact say that: <<Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology.>> As Czrisher correctly argues, WP:Spoiler does not give a clear answer in this case, since it is not about removing information altogether, but rather, about moving it around. Of course it is going to be based on subjective arguments, because we are all agreed on the hard facts - what the plot is - and we disagree about how this can be presented in the most elegant manner. There is no way whatsoever to escape subjectivity here. Quite reasonably, the first port of call should be the Manual of Style - and it says nothing about whether the entire plot should be summarised in the lead section. Arguing that this is a good idea seems rather bizarre, given that the very next section of the article is the Plot Summary. Then, the second port of call should be precedent - i.e. how this issue is approached in general, and in particular where such debates have already taken place. Watchmen (film) is an example of an article where it seems to have been agreed that spoilers be removed from the Lead Section - please check the Talk archives. ~~Dan~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.183.130 (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If the argument involves "how to present the plot elegantly", then that's something that can be discussed. Feel free to do so.

And I'm not arguing that such-and-such is a good idea, rather I'm saying that "spoils the plot" is a bad argument. And as for items being repeated in the lede, that's the purpose of the lede (short summary of the article proper), and thus can't be avoided. How to best summarise the article proper (including summarising the plot, etc.) can be discussed. Feel free to do so, keeping in mind that "spoils the plot" doesn't hold much weight.

Also, I can't seem to find the discussion at Watchmen (film), can you point to where it is? DonQuixote (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was in fact the Watchman discussion archive. Meanwhile, I rewrote the plot summary, without removing any information save for the murderer's name. The reason being that the murderer's name is an entirely superfluous bit of information in the lead section, given that we are told nothing else about him until the plot summary.92.83.183.130 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. And, yes, that is a bit superfluous. DonQuixote (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor grammar

The page has many instances of poor grammar, with a lot of it reading as if it were translated from another language.

Especially the background and writing part. Can anybody look into this?

Silent Nemesis2710 (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you? Anyone can edit Wikipedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Movie sequences inside the movie

Is there a reference or copyright, where the three outtakes (Henry watching TV) come from? They look like other 'Hound of Baskerville'-productions. Skasperl (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Hounds of Baskerville. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120113091342/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/showbiz/2012/01/04/sherlock-writer-steven-moffat-furious-with-sexist-claim-91466-30062866/2/ to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/showbiz-and-lifestyle/showbiz/2012/01/04/sherlock-writer-steven-moffat-furious-with-sexist-claim-91466-30062866/2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701091700/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)