Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Press Gang episodes


 * 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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

List of Press Gang episodes
Self-nomination. The article seems to fulfill all of the criteria. Any objections should be minor and easily addressable. Article is well-referenced and not controversial. There are no images as I'm not convinced any would enhance understanding of the topic, thus, failing our non-free criteria. Please make any constructive criticism as specific as possible: I despise vague comments, especially when copy-editors use a specialist register, as it takes longer to identify the problem than it does to correct it. If you have the skills to identify a misplaced comma, then it would be useful, and quicker, for you to correct it. The JPS talk to me  11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments One of my favourite shows!
 * "British television children's/teen show".. Hmm. Maybe "British children's television show]]? ✅ Removed the phrase, as it's inferred later in the paragraph.
 * I suppose you could also keep the word "teen", though it should be the full word, "teenage(d/r)", but I don't think it flows well with either.
 * The lead needs expanding. When did it first air? How many series? When was the final episode? ✅
 * Explain that Central is a regional broadcaster and producer on the ITV network. Or whatever it is. (It's been a while since I lived in the UK)
 * Do you not think this might be a bit cumbersome? The parent article didn't require such explanation in its FAC. I think that's irrelevant for this article; there's a wikilink if anyone wants more info. The JPS talk to me  11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, didn't this air on Channel 4? It's been a while but I'm sure I remember it being shown in that 6pm slot they filled up with Roseanne, Blossom and all that other American stuff. ✅
 * The prose under the "Series" section could do with being expanded a little. Was it released in all of Europe, the UK, Ireland on Region 2? Was it released in NZ, Aus, Mexico on Region 4? ✅
 * Years should be separated by an endash, as well. ✅ -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "(in a couple of cases" and "Sam was basically the character of Julie under a different name" are not written in an encyclopaedic format. ✅ Reworded to make slightly more formal.
 * The final paragraph of the article, regarding the reunion, should be moved up to the lead section. ✅
 * References section needs separating into a General and Specific subsections, with the books in the General section, and the pages in the specific. ✅
 * Mmm, you don't mean having two 'References' to separate books and URLs, do you??? Or do you mean the Cornell ref, which I can split into pages. The JPS talk to me  13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of hard to explain, but look at Manchester City F.C. seasons. There's a General subsection, and a specific subsection. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. That looks fragmented/messy, though. I've just been browsing some (not all) featured episode lists and I can't see this format. 1 2 Is it a requirement in the MOS, and if so where is this requirement articulated? Going off other articles, the Cornell and Evans refs could go above the reflist, or they could be within a L2 'Further reading' section. The big difference between the Man City article and this is that for the latter the books are dedicated to the subject, whereas here the subject only appears in Evans and Cornell for the pages cited. There is a logic in pointing readers to James and Baskcomb for Man City, but the rest of Evans and Cornell will not enhance understanding of Press Gang.  The JPS talk to me  19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "Cornell", or rather I might know what it is, but not that it is named that! Further reading links should only be used for those not actually used to reference statements in articles, but would work to enhance the information already there. Citing_sources gives a good indication of how to implement what I said. The reason it's "General" and "Specific" in the Man City list is because it also uses a footnotes section. For this particular list though, either "General" and "Specific", or "Notes" and "Reference" could be used. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Thanks, Matthew. I'm still not keen on it, but since it's in CS...


 * Please get rid of those two episode guide links in the references. If there is no official website, then you might be able to get them through under an External links section… ✅ No comprehensive official site.
 * … which also needs adding, along with a "See also" section, if anything to include in those sections is available.
 * I'm not sure what could go in here? All relevant articles are linked within the list. The JPS talk to me  11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe a link to ITV's CITV website as well, and in the see also sections, wikilink to the Press Gang article, CITV, and character list article, if there is one.
 * Could do a Wikilink to the PG article: it'd be rather redundant considering it's in the first line, but if it keeps the MOS happy. No character list article. A link to CITV's website would be superfluous as there offers no further information on the subject of this article. It's practically a different service now anyway to when PG was aired. The JPS talk to me  18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ anyway, though I think it's pointless! The JPS talk to me  08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Matthew. I think I've addressed all of your concerns now. Thanks for your helpful feedback, and if you have anymore suggestions on how to improve the list, let fire... The JPS talk to me  08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Good list. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Approve, the list is clear, complete, has a nice intro, and good references. I don't like the "See also" either, but it is MOS... One minor thing: you might link to IMDB? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD.
 * No images you could use?
 * First para is a collection of short sentences and doesn't really make for decent prose.
 * "between 2004–6" - not nice, prefer 2004 and 2006.
 * Don't merge the cells with the number of discs, just have a row for each series.
 * "weren't" - not for featured content, avoid contractions - so "were not".
 * "'pings'..." - why the ellipsis to finish the synopsis?
 * "it has even happened!" - not encyclopaedic!!
 * "a giant pink rabbit!" - again... got to avoid this kind of thing.
 * "that he didn't do it," - did not.
 * " on a nervous Sarah - who is about" - why the hyphen?
 * "has big plans for him - whether Kenny likes it or not" - again, not sure why there's a hyphen here.
 * "who hasn't" - has not.
 * Some synopses seem to be split into two paragraphs, which I don't think is absolutely necessary since the synopses are so short anyway.
 * "43-nil," - "43–nil"
 * Page ranges in the references need to use en-dash to separate them.
 * Don't think you need the See also section at all.
 * That's it from me, sorry for the delay in the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have done most, except:
 * Images. It is temptingly easy to upload a DVD cover, or use one of the images from the parent article. I've given some consideration at many points during the article's genesis about this and concluded that it would fail our non-free criteria #8 by being there for decorative purposes. I don't feel it an image would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." As featured content on a free-encyclopedia, non-free images should have a watertight rationale, and I'm struggling to honestly defend one.
 * I've combined most of the paragraphs in the synopsis. I have retained logical breaks to separate a synopsis and any production information.
 * See also. I agree with you, but I'm sure you've seen the above comments. Argue amongst yourselves about this one.
 * The JPS talk to me  12:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in the MOS which mandates the use of a See also section. I was aware of the issues with fair use, I wondered if there was a free image at either Commons or Flickr you could use but I've had a quick look and can't find anything so never mind.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, lost 'See also section. General consensus seems to be that's it's redundant. If Matthew and EdgeNavidad still think it's essential, I'll put it back in. The JPS talk to me  12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns have been addressed. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.