Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Wing (series 2)/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 23:27, 19 May 2008.

Green Wing (series 2)
previous FLC (15:43, 23 April 2008)

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this list for FL status again because I believe the main reason it did not get promoted last time around was because so few people commented on it. Only two people gave their comments, with no-one actually supporting or objecting to it. I am nominating it again, this time appealing to related articles and WikiProjects for their views. ISD (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only two very large quotes in the reception section. Are there any more reviews that could be mentioned? Can the quote be cut down a little?
 * Did the 2nd series win any awards, or was it nominated for any? These could be included
 * What about viewing figures? I remember when I was in the UK that Heat (magazine) gave viewing figures, as did Radio Times and Ceefax and Teletext, but I'm not sure if they are archived anywhere :(
 * Check out the wikilinking in the episode descriptions, and consider why some are used, but not others. Semen for example is linked, but not masturbation (I'm not suggesting either should or shouldn't be, it just seems to be indiscriminate)
 * Response to comments - I've tried to carry out the comments you have asked for. I believe I have covered everything. ISD (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments LOL, poor you with the old FLC. Fingers crossed we don't have a deja vu on our hands.
 * Matthew touched on it above - the linking in the plot descriptions. If I were writing the article I wouldn't include any links to pages besides characters and actors because it's really hard to draw a line between what should and should not be linked. We could link more than half the words in the text, if we wanted to. I'm not insisting you remove the links but I'm interested to know, what purpose do you think linking words and terms in the plot summaries has?
 * It's mentioned that the writers all collaborated on each episode, but did the two staff directors work together on each episode? If they alternated, include their names with their corresponding episodes within the Template:Episode list as can be seen with prety much every featured LoE.
 * No need to include refs 3 & 4 (critical reception) in the lead as they appear later in the article, supporting the same information. You generally don't need to reference things in the lead if the same information is referenced in the following article.
 * When Mac awakes from his coma, it is discovered that he has amnesia, meaning that he has no memory of his relationship with Caroline. As Caroline tries to make Mac remember, Mac's former girlfriend Holly Hawkes (Sally Phillips) returns to the hospital, claiming that Mac is the father of her son - "Mac" is used four times in two sentences when no other males (except his son, who can't cause any confusion) are mentioned. Use "him" a couple of times.
 * All thirteen main characters appear in all eight episodes of the second series, with the exception of Dr. Angela Hunter - you'd be able to say "all main characters appear..." but to specifically mention that thirteen appeared and then say, "oh, no, twelve" is contradictory. Like me saying "I have 3 potatoes but I actually only have 2." Doesn't really make sense.
 * Other than Harley, other Green Wing writers - "other" used twice at the beginning of two consecutive beats.
 * If you feel the need to link murder, surely it must be necessary to link cameo appearance. A reader's far more likely to click on (for an explanation) the latter than the former.
 * Unnecessary to re-link Paterson Joseph's name in Reception.
 * And why re-link Green Wing? The series title has been used billions (well, almost) of times before then without being linked, even above in the same section.
 * Why shorten Royal Television Society to RTS in brackets? That's usually only done when the term is referred to repeatedly and it's more convenient just to use an abbreviation than spelling out the entire name. Unnecesary here when it's never mentioned afterwards.
 * The two quoted reviews only reflect the same episode. Is there not a general overall-series review, or at least a review of a different episode?
 * That's about it. Will be happy to support when changes/responses are made. — 97198   talk  09:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to comments - I've carried out all the changes that you asked for. ISD (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice stuff. Good digging up of that extra review; however now saying However, there are other opinions before citing a positive review implies that the preceding review is negative - maybe reword as the recently-added review is partially positive and thus the second review isn't a completely different opinion. (The word "review" is starting to sound weird.) And I'm still unclear on the series' direction... did the two co-direct every episode with each other? — 97198   talk  12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further response - I've done the changes that you asked for again. ISD (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — 97198   talk  13:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I went ahead and did some quick fixes, but the cast section should be reviewed once more - a reader unfamiliar with the show is unable to tell what name refers to an actor, and who is a character. Some WP:DASH issues should also be reviewed and fixed. I am ready to support then. – sgeureka t•c 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reponse to comment - I've tried to make the improvements that you have requested. ISD (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (For reference, I have undone your last two dash fixes, where the normal "-" such as for "show-off" was/is the best choice, although WP:DASH strangely doesn't mention when they should be used.) – sgeureka t•c 12:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Summaries do not need referencing and all summary references should be removed. The fields for airdates and episode numbers are a bit wide. They need to be set down to more standard sizes. With so few episodes in the series, there is absolutely no reason at all to have these split out into three lists. Suggest merging back into a proper List of Green Wing episodes, then look at resubmitting. Collectonian (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to opposition - The already featured list for Green Wing (series 1) was promoted with a similar structure so I don't see the need to change. Can you point out where in Wikipedia policy it says that episode summaries do not need referencing. Also, there are not three lists, but two lists and one article (the Special is a seperate episode) and there has never been a single list of all Green Wing episodes. ISD (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Plots do not need summaries. That has always been the case, with television series, films, etc. Why the other was promoted, I do not know, but its unnecessary, excessive, and I will not support such unnecessary single lists when the show has only 17 episodes. Collectonian (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Collectonian is right, is it possible that the two lists be merged into a List of Green Wing episodes? -- Scorpion0422 04:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It may well be possible, but seeing as series 1 is already a featured list I don't really want to do that. I would have wasted all that work on these two lists. ISD (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it would be a "waste" of work? It isn't a waste to improve existing lists through merging. It would only require a bit of tweaking to combine the two series and the special into a single list (though, in truth I'm wondering how series 1 passed when I'm not seeing a clear reference for the airdates there either). In either case, you'd really only need to tweak a few sentences, and the lead, and it would be good to go for a single, comprehensive, and appropriate episode list ready for FLC. As it is now, the special is ripe for AfD or a merge proposal as it really doesn't meet WP:N and WP:EPISODE on its own (even if it is a GA, since the GA criteria doesn't often include notability, and it passed years ago). Collectonian (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As is mentioned below, the years are mentioned in the British Sitcom Guide references. The reason I said it would be a waste would be that I would have to go throught the whole FLC process again this this new article. I would have removed one featured list and I will have to hope that the new one might get promoted, which it may not. Another reason I do not want to merge these articles is that if this list gets promoted, I hope to create a Green Wing featured topic. The less featured works there are, the harder this will be to do. I will say this however, if this list does not get promoted in its current state, I will consider your proposal. ISD (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You could merge the two into the series 1 article, then rename it and then it would be able to retain its FL status. I've always seen these season pages as a chance to split up episodes lists for series that would be enormous (ie. The Simpsons) and I think the two could easily be combined. The production info could either remain on the page or be moved to the main Green Wing article (and help improve that). -- Scorpion0422 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I believe this article has good standard. also one comment are there references for the original airdates? -- Gman 124 talk 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to comment The dates appear in the British Sitcom Guide references. ISD (talk) 06:22, 12 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.