Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Round the Horne/archive1

Round the Horne

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) &  Tim riley  talk  20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Round the Horne is a BBC radio comedy show from the 1960s. It broke boundaries and records, and helped, in its own small way, to alter the social scene of Britain. Even now, 50 years after its last episode was broadcast, it is still considered the best radio comedy series of all. It would be bona—nay, fantabulosa—to vada your dolly old eeks with comments (that's your actual palare, that is – when trolling meant something quite different). We've tried to keep it clean, but if you see a double entendre, please do whip it out. – SchroCat (talk) &  Tim riley  talk  20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by Dudley

 * Support. My queries on this first rate article were dealt with at PR. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dudley. Your input at PR and support here are greatly appreciated.  Tim riley  talk   23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto! Many thanks Dudley. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Smerus
Support. I have spladgered my grommets seeking a quibble, but have been forced to chuck in the towel (even though that has left my grommets exposed). Congrats.--Smerus (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Smerus, for your input at PR and your support here. We are much indebted.  Tim riley  talk   10:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed we are: many thanks Smerus. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Im not sure there is a need here: the captions do the task. Or at least I think that's the way it's supposed to work? - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * File:The_cast_of_Round_the_Horne.jpg: the unique historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself is historic - at the moment this isn't evidenced here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Swapped for a more appropriate one


 * Thanks, as always I'm much obliged to you. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Had minimal comments at the PR, and they were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wehwalt. I fear the article must seem a touch odd to anyone not from these shores, and we are most grateful for the trouble you have taken in reviewing it.  Tim riley  talk   22:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, many thanks, Wehwalt. I'm also much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Moise
Very well written and comprehensive. I hadn't heard about this show before but was happy to learn about it. I made a couple of really small edits. One more minor point for your consideration:
 * There are a number of mentions throughout the article of the Hornblowers and the Fraser Hayes Four but inconsistent use of the/The and whether there are quotation marks around "The Hornblowers". Note that MOS:THEMUSIC recommends "the" (small t) but I know this is a contentious point and would never insist on this to anyone who has strong views that it should be otherwise—as long as each article as a whole is consistent in its usage. Cheers, thank you for the interesting article. Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Moise - that's very good of you, and thanks for your time and comment. I've made the capitals on Hornblowers and Fraser Hayes, to lower case so they are all consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Newspapers
 * The link to The Independent (William Cook 7 June 2006) goes to a google search page
 * The Liverpool Echo (Joe Riley 18 May 2005) does not appear to need a subscription to view
 * However, the Daily Telegraph (Charles Spencer 2 January 2004) does need the subscription template...
 * ...while Spencer's 3 February DT article is shown without need for a subscrption


 * Websites
 * "Round and Round the Horne": link goes to wrong page
 * "Mary Warnock": link goes to wrong page


 * Apart from these minor issues, the references are impeccably presented. All other links are working correctly. The sources themselves are of the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this extremely thorough review, BB. The points you mention shall be attended to pronto.  Tim riley  talk   11:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All done – satisfactorily, I hope.  Tim riley  talk   11:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian. Tim seems to have sorted these ones already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jim
I stopped nadgering my splod to review this bona effort, but I find nothing that needs changing Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jim, for your support. I hope you enjoyed reading the article as much as we enjoyed writing it.  Tim riley  talk   13:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, many thanks once again, Jim, we're much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Late comment
Whilst idly fangling my wurzels, I noted that there was no explanation in the article of the programme's title. If we are being encyclopaedic, we should I think give a word to the not-so-wise about circumnavigation.--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm not sure I read anything that explained it (I think the writers of the various sources thought the joke too obvious to explain), but there will be some who don't see the connection, I'm sure. I'll have a hunt to see what there is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interestingly OED seems only to give 'around the horn adj. and n. Baseball (a) adj. (attributive) designating an act of throwing the ball around the infield (see around the horn at Phrases 2);  (b) n. a double play in which the fielder at third base throws to second base who throws to first base, getting two outs in the process; (also, rare) a type of sidearm pitch', and doesn't have (at first glance) 'round the Horn' (or 'around the Horn'). If there is a derivation (and there clearly is) of the title, obvious or not, it should be noted somehow.--Smerus (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks suitable to me, and I'll add it, if and  concur. In a footnote: To "round the Horn" is a traditional term for navigating the dangerous waters at the southern tip of South America, Cape Horn. Ref: NYT etc, as in link. (Afterthought: I see from the WP article on Cape Horn that the winds match our two nominators. One of us is in his Roaring Forties and not so far off his Furious Fifties, and the other is in his Screaming Sixties (Department of No Surprise). But I digress.)   Tim riley  talk   15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bona by me!--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Done - I found a good source that links the naval term to the programme, and managed not to refer to the seamen sailors at any point. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
Commented at the Peer review, here. Very well-written, comprehensively sourced and a great pleasure to read. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks KJP - your assistance at PR was as invaluable as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I echo my Rt Hon and Disgraceful Friend's thanks to you, KJ.  Tim riley  talk   17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Another late thought
This is a tricky one. Should it be "the wogglers' trade" or "the woggler's trade"? My belief is, according to standard English practice, the latter. Of course, your source may give the former - but that would then be i.m.o. an error in copyediting..........OED gives, for example, "cobbler's awl", "cobbler's punch" and " cobbler's wax "; also "cobbler's end" and "cobbler's peg", (both of which could certainly be worked at).--Smerus (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather rash to dwell on "cobbler's" in this context, me judice, and the possessive apostrophe is faithfully reproduced from the source. Rambling Syd presumably had the Gowers revision of Fowler in his gander bag; I haven't checked the current edition. It is very flattering indeed that you are inclined to revisit this review, though I hope nobody you know is aware of the fact.   Tim riley  talk   17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am hoping my pseudonym may help conceal my dark tendencies.--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Should this be considered an open item, or are you satisfied with Tim's response? -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am perfectly satisfied, admittedly I should have made this clearer than just giving a laconic response.--Smerus (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)