Talk:Outnumbered/Archive 1

New series
The British Sitcom Guide is reporting that this has been given another series. I'm not very confident at editing Wikipedia yet - can someone with a bit more skill insert this news into the article for me.
 * Only when confirmed by BBC. If it is, then I'll be happy to.--UpDown 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Italics
Does the programme name really need be in italics? Also, I added to the table and removed the 'upcoming TV' template but I wasn't logged in. MathiasFox 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is normal Wikipedia style to display the names of TV shows, radio shows, books etc in italics. ISD 07:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article?
I was wanting to know if anyone else thinks this article should be put forward for good article, if it is too soon or if we should put it to a peer review first? ISD 08:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I would go with either. This is a well-written and comphrensive article. --UpDown 08:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've put it forward for GA. ISD 06:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination – on hold [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|35px]]
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Some issues, as follows;✅
 * Lead: The lead section needs to be longer per WP:LEAD.
 * Reception: not sure why the Rod Liddle quote appears as a blockquote; not really consistent with the way the rest of the reviews are quoted. The line “James Walton wrote in The Daily Telegraph that this is a virtue...” is unclear – what aspect of the series is a virtue?:* I've made a few small edits myself to correct a few Manual of Style issues and to fix some dodgy grammar.
 * Is “improvisational theatre” really an appropriate category for a television programme?
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Some issues, as follows;
 * References 4, 5, 9 and 10 link to the list of episodes in the article! See Template:Cite episode for information on how to cite television episodes properly. ✅
 * Apart from that, it looks OK; maybe a bit too reliant on the British Sitcom Guide for information. A wider range of references would go some way to improving the article further.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: :* For a TV show that only finished airing a few months ago the article appears to be as thorough as it can be at this time. To maintain GA status on an ongoing basis, it will have to be kept up to date (further series/cancellation/awards etc.) and, at a later point, some kind of wider critical context will have to be added.
 * However, I do have an issue with the paragraph related to the ratings in the Reception section. You only cover the performance of the first episode rather than how the series did as further episodes aired. Some useful links here, here and here should help you with reworking. ✅
 * In addition, a cast and crew section is frequently used in many television articles; you might want to consider it.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: OK
 * 5. Article stability? OK
 * 6. Images?: Fair use rationale: Article name parameter needs to be added to the template used. I would also note that editors often use the programme title card in the infobox rather than a cast photo.✅

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Joe King 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of the above. I haven't got time during the week, but will try and work on fixing the above at the weekend, if it can wait till then?--UpDown 08:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have 7 days, so that gives you until early Monday. - Joe King 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regard to cast and crew section. Many TV articles merge the cast with Plot (including FA Only Fools and Horses), so I no need to seperate it. All the crew are in Infobox and there's not much more we can say on them. I can see only 3 refs from British Sitcom Guide and I think this is quite acceptable. All your other suggestions appear to have been done by ISD.--UpDown 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As regards to the category, several other TV shows use this category, such as Whose Line is it Anyway?, so I think it is acceptable. ISD 12:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that's a pass, I think. I've added few relevent wikiprojects to the talk page as well. However, regarding the category, "Everyone else is doing it, so why don't we?" is no reason to do anything. The show should stand on its own merits within that category and I'm not convinced it's appropriate. All the best. - Joe King 13:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll remove the category. Thanks for passing it. ISD 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Series 2 on again 12 June 2009
If anyones interested and has the talkpage watchlisted. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvised?
I've changed the classification in the infobox from "improvised sitcom" to just "sitcom". While it's fairly evident that some of the dialogue is indeed improvised, the fact that the series won the 2009 Royal Television Society Award for Scripted Comedy suggests that only some of it is ad-libbed. Does anyone know what proportion of the action is scripted? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely nearly all of it. This ad-libbing claim is wearing a bit thin. Postlebury (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kids' ages
The article states specific ages for the kids, but surely over the course of 3 series the kids' ages haven't remained constant.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Brick
I don't think Angela's husband Brick is Australian, I think he's American. Master z0b (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)