Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Blue Heelers (season 13)


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 21:49, 2 May 2008.

Blue Heelers (season 13)
I am self-nominating this list because it has had a lot of work go into it of late and I believe it now meets all featured list criteria. The episode summaries are concise and are not too long and not too short. I believe it satisfies all applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have modeled it on and compared it with other featured lists of a similar nature such as Lost (season 3), The Simpsons (season 1), The Simpsons (season 7), etc. and believe it has reached FL level. I will address any problems or comments anybody has and would be more than happy to answer any questions. I support.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC).


 * The first sentence says it's the third season. I'm guessing this is an error. I think the article would benefit from a little more time 'in the wild', being less than a week old. --Golbez (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As the result of a recent discussion, many Blue Heelers articles were split into individual season articles and much information was merged into their respective season lists. Much of the content on the page has been simply moved. Daniel99091 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

{{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #cedff2; color:white;|contentstyle = border:1px;|header= Resolved stuff from Matthewedwards (talk)|content= Comments }} That's all for now, but I think it should also have a thorough copyedit. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I will try to give it a good proof and copyedit today. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Try and find a free image to use in the list. Might be difficult as it is a television series, and not necessary, but it would boost the "appeal" of the list, if you like.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅"due to its cancellation by the Seven Network. The cancellation was a result of Seven Network concerns about the sharp decline in ratings of Blue Heelers." could be "due to its cancellation by the Seven Network as a result of concerns about the sharp decline in ratings." Same information, less repetitive and clunky
 * ✅After the first use of "the Seven Network", couldn't simply "Seven" be used instead?
 * ✅"When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had henceforth canceled Blue Heelers" could become "When the time came to renew Blue Heelers in late 2005, Seven commissioned ten further episodes to be produced, but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had canceled Blue Heelers".
 * ✅Further to this, Ref [1] suggests that these episodes are from season 14, as season 13 had just wrapped: "Producer Gus Howard told the cast and crew on Monday - a day before series 13 wrapped for the year - that Seven had commissioned 10 more episodes. That takes Heelers to 510 episodes"
 * the show had "wrapped for the year"; Blue Heelers episodes are not live and need to be filmed some time before they go to air, as Blue Heelers usually started airing immediately after the Christmas hiatus. I will try to integrate this in.
 * I'm still confused then. To me it sounds like they were a day before finishing the thirteenth season. Then they're told they can have 10 more episodes. Those ten more episodes it seems are the ones listed here. So either they're a part of season 13, in which case where are the rest, or they're actually season 14. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I think that this writer has just made a mistake; a few mistakes actually. I'm guessing "a day before series 13 wrapped for the year" should read "a day before series 12 wrapped for the year". Furthermore, where the writer states "That takes Heelers to 510 episodes, beating the 509-episode record held by Homicide for 30 years.", is also wrong. Blue Heelers equalled Homicide's record which was also 510 episodes. I think I'll remove this source, definitely not reliable. Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to work it out, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
 * ✅"partially due to the series's move its lower-rating timeslot" is missing a "to", I think
 * ✅}I can see lots of changes in tense, such as in Cast section: "There were no changes made to the main cast", then "The main cast is the same as in the twelfth season", and then "Main cast for this season consisted of"
 * ✅Those redlinks need turning blue by creating articles
 * ✅I would say that pilot refers to the series' first episode, not the season's, which would be a season premiere
 * ✅"This season also marked the time when Blue Heelers matched the record for most episodes produced..." didn't Prisoner Cell Block H have 600+ episodes?
 * corrected to "the record for most episodes produced in an Australian weekly primetime drama"
 * ✅"These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is a fragmented sentence
 * ✅"achieved 1,512,000 viewers in the 5 cities (metro only)." There are only five cities in the entire country?
 * "5 cities" refers to the five largest state capitals in Australia, probably should have explained that.
 * ✅"as previously mentioned," isn't necessary
 * ✅Instead of explaining what each #'ed column represents, why not just title them "season #" and "series #"?


 * Hope that's useful, and I'll be happy to support if it's done. :) — 97198   talk  12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Nice stuff. — 97198   talk  07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and support. Daniel99091 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment There are some references without retrieval dates that should be added. Plus, all full dates should be linked.-- Crzycheetah 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the work put into this - it's really nice to see some good quality content emerging on Australian TV series. However, I have a few issues that I'd like to see addressed before this is featured.
 * The text in general could do with a copyedit. There's a bit of awkwardness in the "casting" section, and the "production" section could do with a fair bit of a tune up. "Awards" is also a little bit clunky.
 * The "season synopsis" section is a bit on the rambly side, and is strangely low down in the article. It could do with being integrated with the lead plot around Croydon and being rewritten to be a bit clearer. I wonder if this wouldn't be better placed between "casting" and "production" too - what actually happened is kind of fundamental to the article topic.
 * I also think that many of the episode summaries could do with being rewritten to be a bit clearer.
 * I know I've picked out quite a few issues with the article, but I do want to congratulate those who've worked on this - it's a great effort so far. I'd even chip in to help fix the article, but I kinda stopped watching when Geoff Morrell left the series... Rebecca (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also very glad to see some articles about Aussie TV. I have begun copyediting the article, although I am yet to even touch the episode summaries. Let me say that the copyedit was an "attempt"; I have to say, I am not very good at copyediting. I would very much appreciate it if you could perhaps have a read and maybe note some of the most clumsy sentences; or maybe even change them, if you could. I would also appreciate any feedback and further suggestions. Thanks! Daniel99091 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
 * The changes made were terrific. While the episode summaries could do with a bit of a copyedit, I'm happy to change my position to support. Rebecca (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bec. You Legend. Daniel99091 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Don't say "January of 2006" (WP:SEASON). I puzzled how 10 episodes became an 11-episode season; please clarify if the compilation was one of the 10. One sentence calls John Wood the pillar of the show, and the next says "Blue Heelers veteran, John Wood. It's repetitive and suggests some sentences were rearranged. "Hovered" is informal and doesn't indicate the degree of variation; it would be more precise to provide a range for viewer stats. "in regards of"? And the semicolon before "a record of sorts in itself" doesn't look right. Gimmetrow 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed article in accordance with your suggestions. How are you puzzled as to the episode number? If you are puzzled because of the episode table, the final two episodes were aired together as a 2 hour finale. They were, however, 2 episodes. In regards to ratings, there is not much available for particular episodes etc. and I have included all reliable ratings data I have been able to find. Thankyou for your comments, Daniel99091 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC).


 * US spelling unacceptable. Please change. (UK spellchecker is the one to use, since the Austr. one has a bad glitch.) TONY   (talk)  19:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed canceled -> cancelled and equaling -> equalling. I am unable to see any others, but if I have missed any, please let me know. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Support: I made several small changes. I removed "this indicating the decline of the show in the eyes of the public" as it could be worded better and needs a citation.  I also removed the "see also" section as it seems unnecessary.  "This may well be because of all the support thrown behind Wood" needs to be rewritten as it appears to be original research.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I've fixed the sentence you brought up. Daniel99091 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Oppose—Doesn't meet the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing. Daniel, such a nice note on my talk page, so I feel bad opposing, but I must. Here are random samples from the lead that show the entire text needs scrutiny.

And lots more. Please find fresh eyes to go through it. Consider withdrawing, fixing and resubmitting; when fixed, it will be a worthy FL. TONY   (talk)  14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Tony. I have made all changes you suggested and hope to copy-edit the article soon. Daniel99091 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC).


 *  Oppose Support Apparently my comment above was ignored, since I still see references that are not cited properly. They are missing retrieval dates; refs ## 1-5,7,8, 17-21, 23. -- Crzycheetah 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.