Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Last of the Summer Wine/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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:57, 12 June 2008.

Last of the Summer Wine
Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the article is the best quality now it has ever been in and I can think of no further improvements that can be made to further bring it to FA standards. Redfarmer (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The authors of the book source are Morris Bright and Robert Ross. Thus, the abbreviated citation should be something like "Bright and Ross", not "Bright & Morris". Budding Journalist 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Capitalisation needs to be fixed in the headings, for example "History and Development" needs to be "History and development" and "Supporting Characters" needs to be "Supporting characters". This needs to be fixed throughout.
 * Fixed
 * Overlinking in the infobox. Roy Clarke, James Gilbert, Bernard Thompson, Sydney Lotterby, Alan J. W. Bell and Ronnie Hazlehurst are all linked twice in it.
 * Fixed
 * Single dates like 2008 should not be linked if they are on their own.
 * Fixed
 * Ref 110 isn't formatted properly.
 * Fixed
 * I'm not sure that Amazon is counted as a useable source.
 * I'm more than willing to remove these references; however, are they invalid as a source to the DVD release dates? Redfarmer (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I can see where you're coming from on that. Fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "Awards and nominations" could be prosified.
 * Done.


 * Aside from this it looks pretty good. Gran2 14:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The character section is far too long, and has many unsourced statements. I'd suggest renaming Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine to List of Last of the Summer Wine characters, and splitting off some of the character stuff from the main to that list. The table of recurring characters seems excessive and unnecessary when it already has a main list. The DVD release table is also unnecessary, the dates are already in the episode list where they belong. No need to repeat in the main, let the prose standalone. See also section violates the MoS as it repeats multiple links already wikified within the article. The third paragraph of the "Casting" section is missing a citation.  The template for this series seems extremely excessive and unnecessary. Everything already wikified from the main, so its just cluttering the bottom of the article. Ditto on the ELs, several of which are already used as sources. The ref section needs tweaking, as Notes are really refs while Refs is also a single ref being used a bunch of times. Refs 12, 36, 76, 84 and 89 all appear to be being used as references, when they are unsourced notes that do not provide actual referencing for their respective statements. Also could use a copyedit. The lead has a rather large run on sentence, and there are some other minor prose issues. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've completed all the suggestions you have given and will continue to look for possible copyedit violations. If you have further suggestions, please let me know. Redfarmer (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still a few statements missing citations: last paragraph in "Filming"; last paragraph of "Documentaries"; last part of the first paragraph of "Spin-off"; the last two paragraphs of "Other media"; . Some other ref problems: Ref 101 - IMDB is not a citable, reliable source. Another source needs to be found. Ref 91 is missing publisher info. Ref 24 is missing date and author information. Ref 7 is missing format note (since it is a Word document). Ref 93 was improperly formatted, but I fixed that one cause I couldn't figure out how to type out what needed fixing and have it make sense. :P All cite books should be using the "ISBN" field not "ID=ISBN" where the ISBN is included, and book citations should at least have the month of publication if the full date isn't available.
 * Nothing wrong with filming; everything referenced from the reference at the end.
 * Documentaries fixed.
 * Spin off fixed.
 * Other Media fixed.
 * Ref 101 replaced with more reliable sources.
 * Ref 91 fixed.
 * Ref 24 fixed with date. However, BBC did not publish the author info for this obituary.
 * Ref 7 fixed.
 * ISBN fixed (that was added by a newbie the same day you did the review :P)
 * Dates fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a few minor MoS issues left as well, particularly in "Other media" where several sentences have the citation before the full stop instead of after. In the minor nitpicky department, where there are multiple refs, they should be in numerical order (so [4][19] instead of [19][4]). :) Has the article been copyedited yet, as both of those should have been caught in that process.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed Other Media. These were done by the newbie the same day you reviewed the article. He's adding good information; he just needs to be coaxed on formatting.
 * Fixed ref ordering. The one you specify was the only one I saw. Redfarmer (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost done. I missed one too, in Specials, last two sentences of the first paragraph. I....I....oh, no, I think that all I can find! ;-) Well, except the notes/reference thing, but I can't think of another solution for it. Oh, not anything that bothers me, but some folks have been complaining about 3 column reference layouts of late, so two column might be something to consider.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed specials.
 * Fixed reference columns. Redfarmer (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: In the filming section Holmfirth is referred to as a village while the linked article indicates a small town. Need to check which is correct. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * In the real real real picky department, shouldn't it be "Reference" since only one is listed? (Normally I'd have changed this myself, but wanted to make sure there wasn't some MOS reason or something, just making sure I'm on safe ground here.)
 * Fixed.
 * What makes http://www.summer-wine.com/indexbackup2.htm a reliable source? Looks like a fan site to me.
 * Not a fan site. Official site of the Summer Wine Appreciation Society. Its president, Clive Eardley, has had quite close connections to the show for almost two decades. Eardley and other members of the society have, over the years, received full cooperation from Roy Clarke and Alan J.W. Bell, been granted exclusive interviews with the cast, been the first to receive news on Summer Wine, and been granted exclusive on-set access during filming. They have often been the only source of news for what is happening on set during filming.
 * Okay, so it's a official site of a fan club? Still, we need something a bit more to show it's reliable.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The story of the society can be found here. Clive Eardley is used as a source by the Huddersfield Examiner here and here. The society is given coverage by the Summer Wine Exhibition, a project supported by cast member Tom Owen here. The late Ronnie Hazlehurst trusted them with the production and distribution of a "best of" collection of his Summer Wine themes, which was distributed in commercial shops for a time. Not only are all of the cast members of the society, but the BBC asks the society for advice in filming new episodes. These are the guys you go to when you want information on Summer Wine. They're the ones who get the exclusives from the cast and crew (such as interviews with Tom Owen, the late Brian Wilde, Peter Sallis, Norman Wisdom, and Robert Fyfe, because they're trusted. Redfarmer (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.phill.co.uk/index.html a reliable source?
 * You're right on this one. Replaced with a more reliable source.
 * Current ref 11 "British TV Comedy: Last of the Summer Wine" is lacking a publisher.
 * See above.
 * What makes http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/index.htm a reliable source?
 * Once again, you're right on this one. I'm removing the information this referenced for now since I can't find a more reliable source.
 * What makes http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/ a reliable source?
 * TVShowsonDVD.com is a news source for DVD releases and is quite accurate. They originally garnered attention when their pressure--both from them and their readers, was largely responsible for causing Fox to release Family Guy on DVD (back after it was canceled the first time). They now have connections to many of the major distributors. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And, I should add, they were recently acquired by TV Guide.
 * that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Please let me know if you see anything else. Redfarmer (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion I am not sure in how far this is necessary in the first place, but I'd like to see the same refs combined into one via the  and  way. This would cut down on a lot of redundance in the Reference section. – sgeureka t•c 15:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem with this is that almost all of the references are referring to different page numbers in the book, making this impractical and impossible. Redfarmer (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've simplified what I could, which is not much. Redfarmer (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You've done exactly what I meant. I'll give the article a closer look over the next couple of days as time permits. – sgeureka t•c 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose for criterion 1a (prose). I encourage you to read the awesome User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a (it was a big help in my first FAC), because redundancy and awkward prose including comma overuse are the weekest point of the article. Still, take everything I noted below with a grain of salt; I happen to mess up at times too. I have only read through the intro, the production section and the characters section, but I'll review the rest as soon as the article got a copyedit throughout, which will probably take you a few hours but it's worth it (i.e. the prose issues are not unfixable).


 * Support Although the article still has half a dozen or so prose hickups (which I was not able to fix for various reasons), I think the prose is now good enough for FA status. It can't hurt to ask another editor for a new copyedit though. – sgeureka t•c 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King ( talk ) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"In 1972, then-head of BBC Comedy Duncan Wood watched a programme called The Misfit, written by Roy Clarke. Clarke impressed Wood with his ability to inject comedy into the script at the same time since The Misfit was supposed to be a drama. He approached Clarke and inquired about his interest in doing a sitcom" TONY  (talk)  13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Sorry, poorly written. This needs thorough surgery before resubmission. Here's just one portion as an example, with a multitude of issues I could analyse:
 * Could you be more specific about what you don't like about this paragraph? I wouldn't be here if I could see what you're seeing about the article. Redfarmer (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Image:LOTSW-title.jpg has no copyright tag. The copyright holder also needs to be identified per WP:NFCCa.
 * Image:Summerwine2003.jpg has no source or copyright holder identified.
 * Kelly hi! 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Redfarmer (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there are lots of issues with the prose. I realize you may not readily identify the current issues, but frankly, that is the primary reason for a substantive peer review before coming to FAC.  Additionally, my random source spot-check was not promising:  You can't use a primary source for a statement like "... the longest-running sitcom in the world."  Random prose issues:
 * "Brian Wilde replaced Bates as the quirky war veteran Foggy ..." Illogical, since Bates did not play Foggy.
 * "The cast has grown from a handful of people to an ensemble ..." A handful of people is an ensemble.  Your description of the show from the start is the very definition of an ensemble cast.
 * "Although reception of the series is mixed, with some feeling ..." Avoid the "with -ing" construction.
 * These were just in the lead; Recommend withdrawing to work with a copy-editor and get a good peer review. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I've tried to get peer reviews and copy edits before with absolutely no results, so you can understand if I'm a bit skeptical of the peer review system. I've plead with editors to help me the past six months and only recently have I had other editors making substantial edits to the article. I've opened two peer reviews in the last six months only to have both closed, one with no comments and the other with only an automated bot list. I've received more feedback from this FAC then I have from any other method in the last six month. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might find peer review improved since you last tried it. There is now a volunteer list where you can locate people interested in reviewing/editing by topic.  I do empathize, but FAC is not the place to bring articles up to par.  I recommend you withdraw until it is ready. -- Laser brain   (talk)  18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, how is a documentary on the show a primary source? Redfarmer (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How would I know it's a documentary? You used the cite episode template but didn't provide much information so I assumed it was a special episode of some kind.  If it's produced by the same company that produces the show, it's a primary source. -- Laser brain   (talk)  05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to my reading of WP:PSTS, a documentary about the programme is a secondary source. It "draw[s] on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview" Bluap (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.