Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)/archive1

Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)
Self-nomination. Angmering 16:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. This article contains numerous spelling errors (e.g. "programme"); I'd fix it myself, but I have to update American List of America-related American topics. Seriously, it's a good article, but I think the controversy could be expanded. The word "subversive" is used several times, but what is meant by this is never made clear: who felt threatened and why? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:03, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments... I'm not sure I understand the joke, but I might be being a bit thick! Anyway, I have expanded the "reaction" section with extra details of some press reaction and the Conservative Party motions tabled to stop the repeat, and the worry of its depiction of a totalitarian government. (And to be fair, 'subversive' occurs exactly twice, once in the main intro at the top and once in the relevant section). I'm not sure what to do about 'programme' - I didn't know about having to stick to US spellings, if that's the case, so it seems I shall have to read the style guide a bit more carefully in future. Angmering 17:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No, no! I apologize. On British topics, we use British spelling; on U.S. topics, American spelling; on neutral topics (e.g. color/colour) we go with whatever spelling the original author used. I apologize that my poking fun confused you. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:28, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
 * Aha, gotcha! I must be in a very serious mood today... Angmering 17:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Much better. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:29, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice one! - David Gerard 23:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - needs a ==Reference== section. See Cite your sources. ---mav 06:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Added. Angmering 11:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Object with only a few small problems. I must have been on crack this morning.  I forgot the comments I made at PR, and didn't notice the same things when I breezed over the article today. One thing I noticed is an unsubstantiated claim - "While the vast majority of the audience were taken aback at the brilliance of the production and..." - how is that possible to know? I submit it is not, so that should be re-written as factually as possible. In a few spots, the writing seems a bit too folksy or colloquial for an encyclopedia article. A few informal sentences converted to encyclopedia style would fix much of that I would think. - Taxman 21:01, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hello - thanks for the comments. First of all, I'm sorry I didn't notice and act on your comments at PR, but I gave up checking after a few days as nobody had left any comments so I assumed it had slipped out of anybody's notice. You are quite right about the "folksy" writing - I have gone through and tried to remove all of the instances of this I could spot. The worst offender seems to be the "Reaction" section, which I have hopefully adequately encyclopediafied (if that's even a word!). I'd be very grateful if you could take a look and let me know if you think it's now okay. Angmering 21:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Much better. Nice work.  Now I support fully. - Taxman 22:27, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)