Talk:Watts family

Untitled

The page tries to take a more dynamic look at the Watts family, rather than just rehashing plot, focusing instead on characterisation and theme.

Hi, thanks for all your hard work, but unfortunately there's a problem with the family tree image. It cant be released under a free licence, because the BBC owns the copyright to all thos mini images. I'm afaraid it will have to be removed.GunGagdin^Moan 20:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs... I thought if I took all the images from the wiki characters pages I'd be safe?? But I can just do one minus the picks. Familiae Watts (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's already a family tree of the Watts family uploaded by Trampikey, but it doesn't look too good and it's out of date too. But yeah, what Gungadin said. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of images - if I were to take a screenshot of the Watts family from the 2004 Xmas episode is that permissible to upload??? Alas I understand "copyright" when it comes to texts, but get confused when it comes to images (or rather images of images!)Familiae Watts (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I havent had time to read through the page yet but will try to get to it on the weekend. Looks great, but at first glance there may be some issues with original research and non-neutral POV in some of your prose. Will be more specific when I have time. Excellent work nonetheless though, good for you :) .GunGagdin^Moan 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - I need to rework some of the phrases and work on neutral pOV.... also put in some criticisms references that I haen't worked in yet.Familiae Watts (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

some improvements for GA

OK so I'm going to list possible improvments here, will do it a bit at a time:

Starting with lead - this needs to summarise all the main points of the article. If you read science journals, the lead would be akin to what is known as an abstract, which summarises the points of a piece of work.

Using words like "greatest" will be looked on badly unless you can find a source to say they are the greatest. Even then, to save it looking like this is your opinion, it is best to say something like "they have been referred to as the 'greatest'" etc. --GunGagdin^Moan 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, understand... am currently going through article and rephrasing some of the more... enthusiastic terminology. ;) Thanks for all your comments.Familiae Watts (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I;ve included just about all the references I had for this article and gone through and rephrased some of the language to be a bit more academic, as well as lengthening the lead... also, timeline: keep or cut???Familiae Watts (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)