Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green Wing/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Green Wing[edit]

previous FAC

A self-nomination, this article was put up featured article status before, but was not promoted. (The fact that the nomination was restarted might have had something to do with it.) However, I believe this article is now of an acceptable standard. It is already list as being A-class, and I can see no problems with the article myself. ISD 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed the links to the BBC comedy guide need updating. If they're the same link they could be combined. Otherwise, I'll stick to what I wrote in the original FAC prior to its restart: "It seems a bit unusual to use so many references to primary sources (the episodes themselves) and it would be better to have more third-party commentary such as BBC articles, but I can't think of anything more specific at this time." Gimmetrow 07:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just had a quick read through and stumbled badly on the plot section, which isn't plot but character sketches. This should go either one way (plot) or the other (characters). I'd like to see much more sourced and referenced material, from third-parties, so I endorse Gimmetrow's comment. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comments: I have tried to use more third party sources (British Sitcom Guide, Channel 4) as references sources. The episode references now link to these sites, rather than to Wikipedia articles. I've also tried re-writing the plot section. I shouls point out that the BBC comedy guide is currently being updated and is not online, so at the moment it is of much less use. ISD 12:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fixes needed:
  • "The main plot is split between two love stories. These being the love triangle between Caroline, Guy and Mac, and the on-off relationship between Alan and Joanna."
  • "The first series introduced the main characters, as well as introducing Caroline to the world of East Hampton. She wonders whom she loves, Guy or Mac? Even then Martin seems to be attracted to her. She takes in Angela as a lodger. Alan and Joanna try their best to hide their relationship from others, unsuccessfully, but soon Joanna falls for IT manager Lyndon Jones and Alan becomes jealous." This seems choppy to me.
  • According to WP:EPISODE, the episode is the primary source and does not constitute original research. From what I gather, I think that means that the citations aren't necessary in the series summary (see The Office (US TV series)). Dabomb87 16:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Opposition: I have tried to carry out everything you asked me to do. Is the article better? ISD 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks much better. However, I would feel better about supporting if the whole article was proofread by a more grammatically knowledgeable person by me. Also, perhaps you could make a section about the characters in the article. Dabomb87 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is the blurry blob in the infobox the best that can be got? It might be worth getting hold of someone like James Henry at his blog, to see if a better image can be released under GFDL or Creative Commons. Haven't gone through anything else, so nothing further. Carre 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • It's readable and fine. It appropriately passes. Learnedo 08:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—The writing is passable in places, but overall, it needs glitches to be weeded out. For example, in one small portion of text, I found the following:
    • "Originally, the show had a half-hour pilot made a year before transmission"—ungainly.
    • "The pilot allowed the writers to experiment, such as using different filming techniques."—Ungrammatical.
    • "In the pilot, Doon Mackichan played Joanna Clore and was meant to play her in the original series, but left because she had a baby." Had to read this a few times to identify the news (as opposed to the given, grammatically).
    • "Although each script is fully written, the actors are allowed to improvise their own jokes, frequently adding to what has already been written." I guess if you improvise jokes, you do add to the script.
    • "The filming was done"—inelegant.

These are examples of why the whole text needs a good going-over by a different copy-editor. And try to make it sound less trivial? Tony (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose i'm going to echo Tony's comments. A copyedit is needed by fresh eyes.Legalbeaver 21:15, 14 November 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/Green_Wing/archive2&oldid=1138461919"