Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)/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 03:05, 13 July 2008.

Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)

 * Nominator(s): – sgeureka t•c

Several established editors have told me they can't find anything left in the article to improve, so here I am. The only concern I somewhat anticipate is whether the cast image is really needed, but I am too close to the article to determine that myself. Thank you for any comments. – sgeureka t•c 08:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the cast image. If I as a moderate NFC supporter cannot not fully stand behind it, then image deletionists will certainly object to it over long. No point of standing in the way. – sgeureka t•c 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments That's all I can find wrong with it really. Clearly very close, well done. Buc (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should "Conception and adaptation" come first? seems more suited for "Production"
 * "Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice had already been the subject of numerous television and film adaptations, including five BBC television versions in 1938, 1952, 1958, 1967 and 1980. In the autumn of 1986, after watching a preview screening of Austen's Northanger Abbey, Sue Birtwistle and Andrew Davies agreed to adapt Pride and Prejudice, one of their favourite books, for television." needs ref
 * "Birtwistle and Conklin (1995), pp. v–viii" and are the refs, both of which are noted one sentence later.
 * No refs in the "Plot" section. But great job trimming it down.
 * Per convention, the work of fiction is its own (primary) source, and the plot section is inline with WP:PRIMARY (i.e. no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims). Any seemingly interpretative claims (like the last sentence of Episode 4) can be cross-checked at wikisource:Pride and Prejudice with Jane Austen's own word-by-word descriptions of the characters' feelings and intentions, if need be.
 * "Filming was set to begin" why not "Filming began"?
 * "June 1994 and would finish on 1 November 1994" why does June have no specific day while November does?
 * The Making-of book itself doesn't say when exactly in June, and no better sources exist for production facts.
 * Shouldn't "Broadcast and merchandise" come before "Critical reception"? or at least the Broadcast part of it should.
 * "The sequence also appeared in Channel 4's Top 100 TV Moments in 1999, between the controversial programme Death on the Rock and the Gulf War." but where was it placed on this list.
 * I never came across a source that specifically mentioned the place.
 * "Other adaptations" talks about adaptations of the novel not the TV serial.
 * It talks of the adaptations after the 1995 serial and how the 1995 serial influenced them and their reception. Or that's what I intended. Do you have a suggestion for a better header that makes this clear?
 * Thank you for your comments. I will address the remaining comments tomorrow. – sgeureka t•c 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressed the remaining points. I have moved the two sections around. I have thought about it before, but I (still) do not prefer one version over the other since all the production and reception subsections mesh chronologically either way. The Cast section, for example, still mainly focuses on casting, but the casting only comes after the Conception/Adaptation. The British audience reception and the British home releases came long before the American critical reception, etcetera... – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Still mixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I reformatted and got rid of citation in favor of the cite xxx's. There should be no mix any longer. – sgeureka t•c 12:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 30 "Sokol, Ronnie Jo The Importance of being Married..." Is this a journal article? If so, the title should be in quotation marks and the journal title should be in italics. I've never heard of such a journal though, are they considered a reliable source?
 * It is an essay in "Lupack (1999)", as noted in the ref. I didn't find a wiki MOS that says how to deal with such a situation, so what's currently there is my way of dealing with it. A solution may coincide with your next point(s), which I won't fix until tomorrow.
 * Current ref 34 Troost, Linda and Greenfield is this a chapter in the book listed in the bibliography? If so, you need to put the title of the chapter/article in quotation marks and then list the title of the book in italics. Like this: Troost and Greenfield "Introduction - Watching Ourselves Watching" Jane Austen in Hollywood p. 2. If you want a template for this, either cite encyclopedia or cite conference will do the trick.
 * Same for anything quoted from that book. The current ref 43 (Looser, Devoney) should be formatted like this: Looser, Devoney "Feminist Implications of the Silver Screen Austen" in Troost and Greenfield Jane Austen in Hollywood p. 160-161. Likewise for current ref 58 (Nixon, Cheryl L.) and current ref 59 (Troost et. al)
 * What makes http://www.screenonline.org.uk/index.html a reliable source?
 * The website was developed by the British Film Institute.
 * Likewise http://www.tvradiobits.co.uk/?
 * It shows all covers of Radio Times, as a support of the claim that Radio Times "had devoted three covers to Pride and Prejudice between 1995 and 1997". I can remove it though, either just the ref because this doesn't change that RT had three covers, or the subsentence because this info is rather trivial. Which do you prefer (if you prefer removal)?
 * Up to you. I think it's a bit of trivia, personally, but that's up to the editors of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed as too trivial. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll address the other comments tomorrow. Thank you for your time. – sgeureka t•c 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations fixed. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * "the American Arts & Entertainment Network. BBC One" &rarr; "the American Arts & Entertainment Network (A&E Network). BBC One" perhaps
 * "Greenfield (1998), p. 160-161" – needs an en dash; that's the only one I could find

Gary King ( talk ) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing issues. In keeping with my indolent ways, I only bother reading until I find something objectionable; in this case, the lede, which I think is too long and filled with unnecessary details that are better discussed in the main body. We don't need to know the intricacies of the production financing or producers in the lede - we need a concise overview. Pride and Prejudice is a 1995 British television drama serial, adapted in six episodes by Andrew Davies from Jane Austen's novel of the same name, originally published in 1813. Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth starred as the story's protagonists, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Produced by Sue Birtwistle and directed by Simon Langton, the serial was a BBC production with additional funding from the American Arts & Entertainment Network. BBC One originally broadcasted the fifty-five-minute episodes from 24 September to 29 October 1995. The A&E Network aired the serial in double episodes on three consecutive nights beginning 14 January 1996.

Set in England in the early 1800s, Pride and Prejudice tells the story of Mr and Mrs Bennet's five unmarried daughters after a rich, amiable young man named Mr Bingley and his status-conscious friend, Mr Darcy, have moved into the neighbourhood. While Bingley takes an immediate liking to the eldest Bennet daughter, Darcy has difficulty adapting to the local society and repeatedly clashes with the second-eldest Bennet daughter, Elizabeth. The New York Times called the plot to bring the various parties together "a witty mix of love stories and social conniving, cleverly wrapped in the ambitions and illusions of a provincial gentry".[1]

Critically acclaimed and a popular success, Pride and Prejudice was honoured with several awards, including a BAFTA Television Award for Jennifer Ehle for "Best Actress", and an Emmy for "Outstanding Individual Achievement in Costume Design for a Miniseries or a Special". The role of Mr Darcy elevated Colin Firth to stardom. A scene showing Firth in a wet shirt was recognised as "one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history".[2] The serial inspired author Helen Fielding to write the popular Bridget Jones novels, whose screen adaptations starred Firth as Bridget's love interest Mark Darcy.

I would rewrite this as:

''Pride and Prejudice is a 1995 British television adaptation of Jane Austen's 1813 novel starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. A co-financed production of the BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network, it originally aired over six episodes from 24 September to 29 October 1995 in the UK and in North America on the A&E Network in January 1996.''

(Frankly, I'd kill the next paragraph entirely: 1) the plot details are already accessible via the novel's page and are in the main body. They should not therefore be in the lede of an adaptation since it is one step removed from the original storyline - but that's just my view; I'm probably wrong.) A critical and popular success, the series garnered several awards, including a BAFTA for best actress and an Emmy for costume design and helped propel Colin Firth to widespread fame. A scene showing him in a wet shirt has become an iconic image: "one of the most unforgettable moments in British TV history".[2] The serial also inspired Helen Fielding's popular Bridget Jones novels, who named the love interest after Austen's character.

If it's useful, I can take a deeper look at the main body later. Eusebeus (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD wants "three or four paragraphs". I've had a look at other FAs in my writing of this article, and they summarize the plot in the lead with a few sentences up to one paragraph. I also don't know how well-known P&P is in the English-speaking world and how far summarizing the plot is unnecessary, but I have never heard of P&P until two months ago. The old lead and overview were doing a poor job of even hinting at the premise of the story, and the spoilerish plot section in both the novel article and the TV serial article weren't (and aren't) an alternative for this purpose either. (As a result, my sick mind assumed P&P to be a date rape story or a mass murder story for half of my first watching of the story.) Long story short: I see informing the reader of the premise in the lead while keeping spoilers out as an encyclopedic service and even a necessity. (Everyone is free to disagree.) – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with sgeureka per plot details in the lead. Since WP:LEAD states that the introductory paragraphs must be a summary of all major points in the article, it makes sense that a major section of the article (plot) will need mentioning.  Although the source material and the adaptation are both well known (in the English speaking world, at least), the lead should include at least a sentence or two of plot summary.  Besides, for all we know it could have been an incredibly unfaithful and strange adaptation, so clicking on the novel's article might not have done the average reader any good. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, as I suspected, I am wrong about that then. Eusebeus (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Did this go through Peer review? Eusebeus (talk))
 * My experience with formal Peer review is that it is a waste of time. I have asked several editors to give me private peer reviews though, and got only tweak-ish suggestions for improvement (for better or for worse). – sgeureka t•c 10:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry you find formal peer review a waste of time. I have always found it useful. Anyway, here are some comments on the plot summary.


 * Episode 1: "for the summer" would be better than "in the summer months"
 * Episode 2:
 * The verb "reject" needs an object - you must reject something or someone. So, she thoroughly rejects him, or his offer, but not just "thoroughly rejects".
 * You should briefly mention in the summary of this episode that Collins is the heir, through an entail, to the Bennet property, which is why Mrs Bennet is keen for Elizabeth to marry him.
 * Episode 3: The phrase "but she soon notices that she may have overestimated her friendship with the Bingleys" is cumbersome and unclear. Suggest a replacement, shorter and to the point: "but finds herself ignored by the Bingleys"
 * Episode 4: Lydia goes to Brighton as a friend of the militia colonel's wife, not just "as a friend"
 * Episode 5: Comma required after Pemberley in first line, and an awkward repetition of "Darcy" in the last line should be avoided.
 * Episode 6
 * "After a slip-up of newly-wed Julia...." Sorry, don't understand the phrasing
 * Clarify that Darcy apologises for interfering in Bingley's relationship with Jane
 * Elizabeth doesn't reluctantly comply with Lady Catherine's wishes. She defies her, and sends her packing, no nonsense!

Otherwise, a pretty neat job on the plot. I'd like to look at some more of the prose if I have time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good advice all around, thank you. I've incorporated all suggestions in some form, although I may go over ep 6 again for conciseness and tone. – sgeureka t•c 12:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments just started looking when I noticed Eusebeus' job on the two paras concurred with my feelings, though I am happy to leave the plot in. Now do you want us to come in and massage the text or post ideas here? I am happy either way (though I did the first couple of Eusebeus' as they were pretty succinct and well written). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the comments so far have addressed ing and that my plot compression was awkward here and there. Any comments or copyedits are appreciated (who would claim the opposite?), but I am content with whatever reply/result I get. – sgeureka t•c 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I feel just terrible about having to oppose this well-presented article. However, I do not feel that it is comprehensive yet. Two topics are missing: cinematic style and themes. The essays in Jane Austen in Hollywood and the essay in Jane Austen on Screen on this series would allow you to write a decent section on each of these topics. I have just started reading about Austen adaptations, so I know those sources are good, but I'm afraid I don't know what else is available. Darcy's gaze is briefly alluded to in the article, for example, but so much more could be said about the style of the film&mdash;the cinematography of the series. Also, while the themes might seem like a replication of what would be said about the novel Pride and Prejudice, we still have to explain them in this article, and the producer acknowledged the TV series was emphasizing particular elements of the novel over others. This kind of material can be greatly expanded. I believe I read an essay in Janeites that discussed how the adaptations highlighted the role of servants in Austen's world because of they were in a visual medium (see notes here, under Janeites, chapter 8) - these kinds of differences have been discussed by Austen scholars and deserve to be included. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me a few days and I'll see what I can come up. I have a lot of unused info in my userspace and in the Making-of book, I just didn't elaborate on these topics because of article depth, space, and personal interest (and because other FAs didn't devote much space to them either). – sgeureka t•c 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a new section called Themes and style, which I admit overlaps somewhat with the section "Conception and adaption" in the Production section, but I can't really help it. I have tried several things in userspace and in Show preview, but I think it works best to leave the production section to a producers' POV and intentions, and make the Themes and style section about what reviewers and scholars had to say. Please ignore the poor prose and random thoughts in the new section for now (I think it will have turned into something acceptable by July 6). I am still collecting and weeding out usable stuff in my userspace (User:Sgeureka/Sandbox), but books could literally be written (and have been written) about the themes and cinematic style, so I think it's best to just touch upon the most common themes and leave the details for the ref-links and leave the themes for the novel article or new articles. – sgeureka t•c 15:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is starting to look good - precisely what the article needed. Awadewit (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on image
 * Image:Lyme Park 2.jpg - Could you add a description to the image page? It helps other users! Awadewit (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. – sgeureka t•c 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Good work, but it's not there quite yet.
 * I agree entirely with Awadewit's comments.
 * A new section is in the works. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, I found it rather highly linked, especially in key places. To reduce the sea of bright-blue, which was degrading the appearance and readability of the text, I delinked the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM – not also that the raw (British) date format contained an errant comma, which almost all readers were seeing—I've fixed that, as well as the US format used in the infobox (see what autoformatting conceals from WPian editors, hmmmm?).
 * Consistent figures for numbers over nine required, I think, by MOS. "six fifty-five-minute episodes. Production aimed for 10.5-hour shooting"—the first example is crying out for it. Needs auditing in this respect.
 * "which needed to appear over-the-top to reflect the disagreeableness of its fictional owner"—ah, "over-the-top" is too informal and vague, in this register.
 * "Davies loosened Jane Austen's story restrictions in which females are present in all scenes"—are they best framed as :restrictions" for the author?
 * "the Bennet girls dressing up to advertise their bodies in the marriage market"—oh, could we put it a little more delicately? Even "advertise themselves" would be better.
 * "Davies employed techniques such as voice-overs, flashbacks, and characters reading the letters to themselves"—noun plus -ing strikes again. See this.
 * The theme music is among the greatest achievements of Carl Davis (an American, BTW), and the text says nothing directly about it. The theme certainly owed nothing directly to "small-town music of the early 1800s"—in fact, it resembles the chamber style of Robert Schumann at his best. I think it's a stroke of genius. I've added a shocking POV statement to the article, which you'll need to remove if you have no references to support it. But I'd be disappointed if the theme can't be highlighted properly.
 * I must have accidently changed the meaning in one of the copyedits, as the original source quotes Davis as "I wanted the sense of a small town in 1813." I have tweaked it and added that (per the making-of book) his model was a popular Beethoven septet. During my research, I have only found two or three newspaper interviews/articles with/about Davis, but none mentioned that P&P was his best work (or I would have added it long ago). I'll do a search again. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think the prose needs a run-through by fresh eyes, especially given the iconic literary status of the book. TONY  (talk)  14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "O'Connor however remarked that American audiences"—two commas required, or "However, O'Connor remarked that American audiences".
 * All points addressed (or at least tried to), except Davis. And I'll read up on the number MOS again. Thank you for your notes. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the unsourced Davis claim, as neither google books nor the first 300 GHits brought up anything. – sgeureka t•c 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Non-free image justification. Um ... convince me that the four images are minimal use (WP:NFCC) and "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (WP:NFCC). TONY   (talk)  15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (See also reply at WT:NFC). As said in the nom, the cast image could go if others (like you) feel that way, but I believe the other two non-free images to serve a significant purpose - the infobox image was there before I started editing the article and never came across a possible better one for identification, plot, style and theme of the production. And the wet shirt scene seems to have had such a huge impact in the English-speaking world (as demonstrated in four reception/legacy paragraphs in the article) that I feel sorry for the actor for having been reduced to it for years, sometimes up until today. – sgeureka t•c 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the cast image as I was unsure about it the first place. If someone wants it back, I got it from amazon. I stand by the inclusion of the other two images. – sgeureka t•c 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments ok, now to get started... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * a rich, amiable young man named Mr Bingley - "the rich and eligible Mr Bingley"

Gotta run. I'll keep reading from plot later.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.