Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:13, 26 August 2008.

Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)

 * Nominator(s): sgeureka t•c
 * previous FAC (03:05, 13 July 2008)

Second nom. The first FAC failed when (some legitimate) concerns came up late in the game whose fixing took some time; unfortunately, that FAC was archived as not promoted before reviewers had the time to (possibly) change their opinion. Now I've taken five weeks off to get some editorial distance. I have copyedited the article with semi-fresh eyes again, have read the comments again of the first FAC again to see if I've missed something the first time around (nope, just a tiny MOS issue...), and now I hope the article is really as good as I believe it is. Thank you for your time. – sgeureka t•c 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images
 * Image:Lyme Park 2.jpg - I see this image has been deleted from Flickr, so there is no working source and no way to verify the license, etc. I'm not really sure what we do in these situations. I'm worried that we can no longer use this image. You might contact the user at Flickr and see if he will release it at Wikimedia Commons. I will see what else I can find out. (It is such a lovely picture!)
 * The purpose of FlickreviewerR and the accompanying box is to verify that the image was indeed uploaded under an appropriate license, even if it's later removed. The box is present, meaning the license was verified and the image is thus okay. --JayHenry (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked and found out this wonderful nugget of info, too. Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Five positions of dancing Wilson 1811.jpg - Could we get the full publication information for Wilson's book? I noticed at the LOC that there are at least two books with this same short title.
 * Done. I am pretty sure this is the right version (through browsing and the year). – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(I'll review the rest of the article later. Looking forward to it.) Awadewit (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment
 * I don't think the Apted Book of Country Dances was published in the eighteenth century. See Worldcat results. Also, I checked a database of all books published in the eighteenth century and I couldn't find it. Awadewit (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the Making-of book again, which did indeed imply that the book was from the 18th century (on p. 70 "Simon [Langton] recalls how [the fifteen separate dances] were put together: 'Jane Gibson had this wonderful book from the period called The Apted Book of Country Dances, which has all these Country Dances with instructions on how to use them...'", and on p. 69 gives one used song of that book as written in 1776). However, a good fansite says the book was published by W.S. Porter in 1966 as a collection of songs by Thompson from the late 18th century. I'll fix it in a minute. – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Nearly there  - everything looks really good, except I am a little concerned about the prose in the Plot section but not sure if anything can be done flow-wise which then impacts on brevity. I did what I thought was needed as I went along, nothing struck me that wasn't a straightforward fix (which I did). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support—Can you remove the optional (s) from "Language(s)" and "Composer(s)" in the infobox? It's an example of why infoboxes can be ham-fisted. Tony  (talk)  02:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no attachment to that infobox information one way or another; I have removed that information, but will not do anything if I get reverted. Interestingly, it was you who asked for the Composer to be included in the infobox. ;-) – sgeureka t•c 06:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What, you mean the infobox won't let you use the singular? I don't believe it. Tony   (talk)  06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I completely misunderstood you. (I thought you wanted the whole entries removed for trivialness.) But yes, per Infobox Television there is no way to remove the "(s)". – sgeureka t•c 09:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments - This article is much better than the last time I read it. I just have some nit picks, as overall it is comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written: —This is part of a comment by Awadewit which was interrupted by the following:
 * I know there was some discussion over whether or not we could link to YouTube - unfortunately, I do not know what was decided. Does anyone know a firm decision on that?
 * AFAIK, youtube links are generally discouraged because copyright violations are rampant there and vids shouldn't be used as sources. But this is the official BBC youtube channel, and it's not used for sourcing, so the link should be fine. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While Mr and Mrs Bennet disagree about Elizabeth's decision, her best friend Charlotte Lucas invites Mr Collins to stay at Lucas Lodge. - Do you think Jane or Charlotte is Elizabeth's best friend?
 * Where I come from, family members is never referred to as friends (no matter how close you are) because blood is thicker than water. I guess I could write "good friend" for Charlotte instead to avoid interpretative claims. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "close friend"? Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Either would work, I guess, so I used your version. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth is stunned when she learns that Charlotte Lucas has accepted a proposal from Mr Collins, but the friends soon make up. - Do you think we can say "stunned and appalled"? Such a phrase would add meaning to the second half of the sentence.
 * I agree. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Firth and Ehle began a romantic relationship during the filming of the series, which only received media attention after the couple's separation. - Can we get a date for the separation?
 * I never came across an exact date. The media attention was around the time the serial aired in the UK (Bridget Jones mentions the relationship on 23 October 1995), and the actors said it was over by that time, that's all I know. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some things are a mystery. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Birtwistle in particular felt that a new adaptation on film would serve the drama better than the last BBC adaptation, which had been shot on videotape. - Could we explain why?
 * Birtwistle in the making-of book, p. v: "Although videotape is the dominant medium for television and works for current affairs and documentaries, I don't feel it serves drama well. It always looks undernourished; it's too present, too literal. Unpoetic, if you like. We wanted scenes to have a freedom that is just impossible to achieve recording on video in the studio." (I'll try work this into the article.) – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what Birtwistle means but this is somewhat hard to put into words without sounding too technical or feelings-POVish; I added "..., the dominant medium for television and works of current affairs that may give too literal impressions.'' Maybe you can come up with something better than I did in the article. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about just quoting her - the undernourished, present, unpoetic section is particularly evocative. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Susannah Harker's (Jane) hair was slightly lightened as a contrast with Elizabeth's, and was arranged in a classic Greek style to highlight the character's beauty - Is there a good link for "classic Greek style"?
 * Doesn't look this way. There is Classical Greece, Art in ancient Greece and Severe style, but they usually refer to sculptures. (Although Jane definately has this classical Greek hairdo as claimed in the source). – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Three days were allotted for the filming of the ball at Netherfield, which designedly had a different pace and style than the dance at Meryton - Perhaps we could say what the difference was?
 * Rewrote (per source) to "Three days were allotted for the filming of the ball at Netherfield, whose pace and style designedly focused on elegance rather than the community enjoying themselves as at the dance at Meryton." – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article uses both "eighteenth century" and "18th century" - pick one style and stick with it.
 * Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel's wit, which stems from Austen's lively and animated family background - This is confusing.
 * Removed subsentence. It's not that important after all. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC drama makes nature an integral part of the story in the form of Old England - Is there a good link for "Old England"?
 * I looked for it when I wrote the article, but didn't find a wiki article and still don't (the term was mentioned in several P&P sources though). I guess it just expresses nostalgia for 18th century England. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed a few AEisms, but you might have another look to make sure that the article is entirely in BE.
 * I am not an expert when it comes to AE and BE, but I asked two British editors before the last FAC to check where I screwed up, and their concerns were addressed. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you fixed two AEisms that I should really have noticed before. I ran a BE spell-check program over the text again just to be sure and found one more AEism. – sgeureka t•c


 * Dates are not linked in the article, so they should not be linked in the notes.
 * The templates auto-link the dates, and the templates are still under discussion for restructuring. I'll try to find out whether they have introduced a date-on-off-switch now. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How annoying. Templates should be able to be easily changed! (This is why I dislike templates.) Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Nope, no on-off-switch for datelinks yet. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have page numbers for footnote 8, the A&E Monthly Magazine?
 * (Reply to this and related refs) Unfortunately, no, and the next English-language library that may still carry these magazines for checking is 1000 kilometers away from where I live. (Nearly) all articles seem to be hosted on fansites and are googeable though (I know, unreliable, but that's all I can offer from my end other than removing these refs altogether, which I find too extreme to seriously consider). – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Way too extreme! Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have page numbers for footnote 15, the TV Times?


 * Do you have a page number for footnote 23? Referring a reader to an entire book is hardly helpful.
 * I copied it from the main Pride and Prejudice article. I have contacted Karenjc who added that ref to wikipedia in June, and I hope she can help. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like a reliable website. I'm not sure we should include it in the notes.
 * (That page must have been changed recently; the web archive has the original content.) It's not being used as a source but as a convenience link for all the music pieces and dances so that they don't have to be listed in the article. The website cites its book sources. If you nevertheless favor removal, please say or do so (my ownership issues are not big enough to battle this), but I am not sure that this would make the article better. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it meets the requirements for WP:SPS - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - I think all sources we provide readers, even if they are just convenience links, should meet the requirements of WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought long and hard about how to reply this, but I think I better save my breath for the WP:RS page since I am getting increasingly unsure what "self-published" means (i.e. is an external re-publishing of material from reliable sources defined as self-published when no analysis happens?). I'll therefore rm the link until I am wiser. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks like a random film review. Does the reviewer have any credentials?
 * ReelViews redirects to James Berardinelli (who did this review). According to his article, Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic Roger Ebert called Berardinelli "the best of the Web-based critics"[5], which is quite something. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Footnote 25 should be cited as published in Persuasions Online (see details on website).
 * (This and all related refs) Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is Persuasions, not Persuasion. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Footnote 26 should be linked directly to the The Times, if possible, and the correct title of the article should be found.
 * This looks like a print source, and it says "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission." Googling didn't help. How shall I proceed? – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in a rush right now, but leave a note on my talk page to remind me and I'll look it up. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can get this at my library on microfilm, but I am away right now. It will have to wait until next weekend. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Footnote 27 should be cited as published in Persuasions (see details on website). Please check all links to the Jane Austen Society and make sure that anything published in one of their journals is properly attributed - I stopped clicking on these as I began to see a pattern.


 * Do you have page numbers for footnote 45? Basically anything without a link needs a page number (I will stop listing all of the footnotes that need page numbers at this point.)


 * This link indicates that the article is from Telegraph Magazine - that should be included in the footnote.
 * Changed to "Telegraph Magazine and re-published by The Age" – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "Bibliography", University Press of Kentucky is overlinked.
 * Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon! Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied to some points above and will work on the article today and tomorrow. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All points addressed here or in the article, although some issues may require more discussion. Also, thank your for your copyedit, but there were some subtle changes that the sources no longer support, so I need to check that in more depth again. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Quite a nice read; the only things I noticed have already been cleared up. Good work. NSR 77 TC  23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. An excellent read! Re footnote 26: I tried looking this up on Lexis Nexis last time this came to FAC, but they don't have archives for the Times Educational Supplement for that far back. Perhaps Sgeureka can try contacting the FoF webmaster for original publication info? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have access to the entire TES on microfilm, but not until next weekend. I will look it up. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment to show I am still here. Some more minor things have been addressed since my last replies, and the only unresolved yet with-some-help-fixable issues from above are footnote 23 (which I'll probably replace with a totally different statement and source if User:Karenjc doesn't have the time) and footnote 26 (where I have contacted the FOF website owner if s/he's got easy access to the full publication data, but I guess it will be more likely that Awadewit gets that data faster and easier). – sgeureka t•c 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check the Persuasions journal titles again - some of them should be Persuasions and some of them should be Persuasions On-line. These are actually two different journals. Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.