Talk:Last of the Summer Wine/Archives2008/February

The Road to Featured Article Status
Everyone, I'm so happy we are now a good article! I see no reason to stop here, though. I would love to see this article become a featured article and would like everyone's help and input to do it. I think we have the most opportunities for revision in the Production, Plot, and Reception sections but would like everyone's input on what they think. So don't be shy. What do you think this article needs?

I'll also soon be asking for a peer review to get opinions from other Wiki editors. Redfarmer (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First up, great work on getting this to be a GA! I've got about halfway through reviewing this (I wouldn't go so far as to call it peer reviewing it!) and a few things are immediately apparent:
 * Firstly, we have to decide on US or UK English, and be consistant through the article. Currently there is a mixture of both (humor vs neighbourhood, program vs programme etc). Personally i'd rather it was in British english as it's a British show, but I'm not that fussed provided it's consistant.
 * Secondly, the info on secondary characters needs a rethink. Currently it is essentially just a list of character and actor names. Info like Howard and Marina, Entwhistle and Wesley's mechanical works etc is in the plot section and feels rather shoe-horned in. I think we're missing a great opportunity to explore the 'newer' (relatively!) story devices and reactions to them. I'm not sure how best to approach this however.
 * It may be an idea to change 'supporting characters' to 'additional characters' as the article talks about how their role has developed over the course of the show. Are they really still 'support' in the traditional sense? If we did this, it may allow us more scope to explore the importance of Nora (which i think is seriously lacking if we can find supporting evidence etc), Howard and Marina, Sid, Ivy and the cafe, the coffee mornings etc. We clearly need to be careful it doesn't become too uncited, or too large (though maybe it could be a separate article if we can find enough info).
 * I'll hopefully get through my review tomorrow and i'll put it up via edits. Ged UK (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the only thing I'm really concerned with is overlap with Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine (which, I think, needs to be renamed). What confused the matter even more was that Kathy Staff is now billed in the opening credits with the trio ("Staring Peter Sallis/Kathy Staff/Frank Thornton/and Brian Murphy"). I've been trying to think of how to best do this myself. Any ideas you have I'd love to hear.


 * I'd be inclined, by the way, to go with British English and date conventions as well since it is a British programme. Redfarmer (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When I created the Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine page, the main article was full of mini-biographies of nearly every character, making it hard to read. I still believe that summary style is the way to go: an overview of the plots and story devices in the main article, and a secondary article with more details on the more minor characters. Bluap (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. It makes perfect sense to me, and should help make the article a little punchier. Ged UK (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just put my edits up. Let me know what you think. I haven' actually finished yet, I've only got as far as the Episodes section, but i thought it best to put them up now to see what people think. Ged UK (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've begun looking over them and the only thing I disagree with thus far are your tags. They are cited at the end of the paragraph (i.e. all are sourced from the 35 years documentary). Redfarmer (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Peter Sallis' reduced role: I've never been able to find an explanation on it. Many speculate that he's not in the best of health (he has been on the show since 1973 after all) but, because this is speculation, I did not include it in the article. I don't think we should have a problem with it since it's an on-screen evidence thing. Redfarmer (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding guest appearances: I think we should put back in the credit the actor is most famous for. Since it's an internationally syndicated program, not all the actors are readily famous to non-British viewers. With the exception of John Cleese and, possibly, Trevor Bannister, most of them will be unfamiliar. Redfarmer (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspected that those were the sources of the cites, I just wanted to make sure :) Ged UK (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, i thought we might not be able to find anything. THere's no doubt he's frail, I passed him on the street the other week and he was very slow moving using a cane. THat would count as original research though! I think you're right, there shouldn't be a problem with it. Ged UK (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, true, but isn't that the point of wikilinking them? Ged UK (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True on the wkiilinking part. I'm just concerned about that entire section looking like a long string of names. I'd like to find a way to clean it up a bit. BTW, when you get a chance, I added a completely new section, "Summer Season." Would you proof read it for me and let me know if you find any errors? Thanks. Redfarmer (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the summer season section today, as I'm sure you noticed. Sometime this week I'll go through the whole thing again with a fine tooth comb compared to the 'well written' Featured article criteria and guidance that's here Ged UK (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a little frustrating. Someone closed my peer review request after we received absolutely no useful feedback. If no one is going to give us useful feedback on peer review, I say we give it one more look over and then nominate it for FA status. That's about all I can see to do at this point other than relist is for a peer review and hope someone actually reviews it this time.Redfarmer (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you try any of the review volunteers, you may have got a better response if there is one interested in the subject matter. Keith D (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest lurking on WP:FAC for a couple of weeks, to see the type of comments they give on candidates. Personally, I think that the article isn't quite ready, but it's difficult to put my finger on anything specific.  Ironically, the article is bound to get a lot better peer review as a featured-article candidate, than on peer review. Bluap (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wainwright v Wainright
We need to be consistent with this (the librarian character), but I'm not actually sure which is right. We have both in the article and it looks sloppy. Ged UK (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's Wainright in the article, it's a typo and should be Wainwright. Redfarmer (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, it's definately a more common UK spelling --Ged UK (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)