Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackadder/archive1

Blackadder
Previously nominated in April 2004 where there was very little response. Seems quite a good article to me. violet/riga (t) 22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Object, but only slightly. 1) Needs references, 2) I noticed a few minor errors which I'll endeavor to fix tomorrow (it's 1am right now :-)) . Zerbey 16:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the author(s) of the article used them but the only possible references are mentioned in the Tie-ins and External links sections. Perhaps these could be rearranged and called references, but is it right to do that when they may not actually have been used? violet/riga (t) 09:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - this is excellent. I've had a tidy as well.  My only caveat is length - currently 39k after I moved the list of characters to a separate article.  Perhaps the episode lists should be moved to a separate article, or main articles written for each series and summarised here? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A good point and a good idea. Doing that, however, would probably render the main article not feature-worthy. violet/riga (t) 15:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure (I've had a further tweak) - all I am suggesting is either (i) List of Blackadder episodes, to contain just the episode lists, or (ii) The Black Adder, Blackadder II, etc., as main articles, with decent summaries in Blackadder. The former may be sufficient. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Article is now 40k - I'm thinking your idea would be a good one and place an object until we can reorganise it. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Er - you nominated it: can you object? Are you planning to address the problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Obviously this is the result of someone's cunning plan.  Baldrick, is this your doing?!? --Modemac 14:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It's fuckin' ace. (also I've done loads on it - ha ha ha)--Crestville 19:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Tally-ho pip-pip and Bernard's your uncle. -- In English we say, "Support". That being said, I wouldn't mind an extra picture if that is available. I don't think the length is a real issue, BTW. Jeronimo 21:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Fine - I have supported anyway :) Are there many featured articles over 32k? Is the 32k limit only a rule of thumb, or is it still a real problem for some readers with some browsers?  -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page for whether the "32k limit" is mandatory or indicative. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, this is an excellent article on one of the greatest TV comedies of all time. My only gripe would be that the spoiler warning should really be before going into detail of what happens in each episode of the series, not half way down the article. As hard as it is to believe, there are people who haven't already watched them dozens of times! Shane King 09:36, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just spotting a failing - no mention of cunning plans outside of episode descriptions. I think that's an important enough aspect of the series to be mentioned in the overview. violet/riga (t) 20:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The word cunning occurs four times in the overview, including "I've got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel." Is this not sufficient, or does the phrase cunning plan have to be there too? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Though the word appears (three times in one quote and once in reference to Blackadder himself) I think the overview needs mention of Baldrick's attempts (and occasional successes!) to save the day with his cunning plans, it being an important part of many episodes over the series. violet/riga (t) 22:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Added cunning plans. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support ZayZayEM 04:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Mark 07:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)