Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Things Aren't Simple Any More/archive1
- 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:29, 17 September 2010 [1].
Things Aren't Simple Any More edit
Things Aren't Simple Any More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): The JPStalk to me 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is comprehensive and appears to tick all of the boxes. It has recently undergone a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors, and a peer review further enhanced the prose. I envisage any additional improvements that might be requested here to be minimal. The JPStalk to me 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources all look good to me, but one little quibble. Ref 7 (Comedy Connections) has its date formatted ISO-style whereas the rest are in DD Month YYY format. Imzadi 1979 → 21:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The JPStalk to me 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This looks good to me, although I've had a go at revising the introduction into the "three paragraph" structure. I'm not sure if it's an improvement or not (feel free to revert). Bob talk 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I remember watching this episode when it was first broadcast, and it was powerful stuff, but I don't get much of a sense of that from this article. On the other hand, it seems altogether too weepy for me in some places, such as in the caption under the lead image: "Watching the shot being filmed gave the writer a lump in his throat." From a more technical FA perspective, the lead does not adequately summarise the article and the tenses and chronology in the Synopsis section seem to be all over the place. For instance, what does "The story begins in present day with Margaret (Annette Crosbie) having a heated telephone conversation ..." mean? Present-day what? Should that be "the present day"? Back to the weepiness theme, what about this: "The technicalities and temperature of the night shoot meant that the scene did not impact upon the cast and crew during filming. But as he watched Victor's arm falling into the shot and his cap drift away in the gutter, Renwick "for a moment" felt a lump in his throat." Hard to know where to start with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedits you've just undertaken. What do you think the lead is missing? It seems to cover every major part of the article? How do you feel the 'powerful stuff' can be addressed without breaching WP:NOR? Perhaps it isn't actually "powerful stuff"? The Synopsis can only describe things objectively. The Reception section is the closest we can get to any impact upon viewers.
I have removed "present day".
There are not many reliable sources discussing the production. Thus, I can only work with what there is. If it's weepy, it's weepy. Unfortunately there are no RS discussing more mundane things.
The caption you mention justifies the inclusion of the image. I'll take it out if it will change your vote. If not, there's no point.
The sentence: "The technicalities and temperature..." has been rewritten.
Also, two copyeditors have not spotted tense issues; I am blind to them too? Could you help me by pointing them out?
I hope you'll help me address your concerns. The JPStalk to me 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Other copyeditors will of course have their own opinions, and resolving what you meant by "present day" has helped, but let me ask you what this means: "Confiding to a priest (William Osborne), Margaret pledges vengeance for Victor's death, vowing to "kill him with my bare hands". Kill who? The priest? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's another good point. I'll address it. You aren't obliged to correct things yourself, but since you obviously have greater skills than I (I'm not being snide -- I'm being genuine), any chance you could give it another copyed? It'll save time, and improve the quality for the reader. The JPStalk to me 22:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a publicly funded service, and there are many things I want to do here myself, so I can't do everything that everyone else wants me to do, even if I was so inclined. It's my honest view that this nomination was a little premature, and that fixing it within the time-frame of an FAC is unrealistic. Others may disagree. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's another good point. I'll address it. You aren't obliged to correct things yourself, but since you obviously have greater skills than I (I'm not being snide -- I'm being genuine), any chance you could give it another copyed? It'll save time, and improve the quality for the reader. The JPStalk to me 22:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other copyeditors will of course have their own opinions, and resolving what you meant by "present day" has helped, but let me ask you what this means: "Confiding to a priest (William Osborne), Margaret pledges vengeance for Victor's death, vowing to "kill him with my bare hands". Kill who? The priest? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exp lead, and I've even cut down the 'weepy' caption. The JPStalk to me 05:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedits you've just undertaken. What do you think the lead is missing? It seems to cover every major part of the article? How do you feel the 'powerful stuff' can be addressed without breaching WP:NOR? Perhaps it isn't actually "powerful stuff"? The Synopsis can only describe things objectively. The Reception section is the closest we can get to any impact upon viewers.
Oppose on 1a. The problem with the prose is unexplained connections/statements. It assumes far too much that you know and expect even a knowledgeable reader to know as well. Needs a certain distance. I do not see how the rest of the text could possibly be up to standard, and this has been here for quite a while. Here are comments about the lead alone.
- Is it useful to divert readers to British television in the opening sentence? It would be more likely to be clicked on as a "See also", wouldn't it? Could you peruse the link target Final episode to determine whether it is sufficiently focused in this context? (Is a section-link more appropriate?). There are plenty of high-value links at the opening already; I'm concerned about dilution (WP:OVERLINK).
- It's a little unusual in this type of WP article to use past tense, particulary when you open with "is". Don't people still view it on DVD etc?
- "Renwick had been struggling to conceive and write new stories for the series and had therefore decided to kill off the character." Is the causal logic of "therefore" clear to us? I'd be inclined to remove that word.
- Isn't it the BBC TV Centre?
- "sensationalist"—unclear why Christmas makes it thus.
- The possessive apostrophe for "Millionaire?" doesn't work.
- Speech tags ... "said" is the default, and use ellipsis. But here, even "felt" would be OK. So instead of the laboured "Many reviewers commented that the dark tone of the final episode was characteristic of the series, reflecting that killing off the protagonist was", try "Many reviewers felt that the dark tone of the final episode was characteristic of the series, and that killing off the protagonist was"
- I don't quite get this: "Although this was the final full-length episode, Victor and Margaret returned in a short sketch for Comic Relief's Red Nose Day telethon on 16 March 2001". Tony (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.