Wikipedia:Peer review/Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)/archive1

Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)
This peer review discussion has been closed. Article is a current GA, and reviewer has indicated it may have FA potential. As I am very excited about this but also still fairly new to Wiki editing, would really appreciate any and all feedback on what's still needed to ready it for FA nomination.

Thanks much, Shoebox 2   talk  19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey
TV shows are not the kind of article I normally visit, but since you asked so nicely ... feel free, of course, to disagree with any suggestions I make, some of which may just be me being opinionated.
 * This is amazing, thank you. I've looked over and considered (if not used) them all, will just add a few comments here and there. Shoebox 2  talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * have you ever read WP:BUNDLING?
 * Skimmed just now, will read more closely ASAP. I dislike both reading and writing sentences broken up by cites. Shoebox 2  talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * in British English, is "series" also used as the equivalent of North American "season"? If so, that's terribly confusing, and could use a note explaining it—especially since the article is using "series" to refer to the overall series as well (which is what the North American definition is limited to)
 * Yes, 'series' is the UK equivalent of the American 'season'; British programming doesn't follow a set seasonal model. And yes, that means in UK usage 'series' can refer to both the entire show and the individual seasons. It's fairly common international knowledge by now, esp. now that British TV has become fashionable N.American viewing, but there's no harm in adding a note. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * the prose does seem wordier than it needs to be—I've pointed out a number of easy cases, but a lot of the prose could be tightened well with rephrasing
 * I'd recommend giving the Manual of Style's "Words to watch" page a good look
 * If you want intend to take this to FAC, make sure that everything is properly cited—there are a number of sentences and even entire paragraphs that aren't.
 * WP:CITE, quoting the verifiability policy, says that citing is required for any material that is 'challenged or likely to be challenged'. Everything currently in this article that I (and/or the GA reviewer) can imagine fitting that bill has been cited. The 'Format' section, which contains 99% of the uncited material, here is serving the same function as a plot summary in a movie article -- ie. verifiable at the source. Hence both very necessary to an understanding of the subject and, realistically, unassailable (at least, now that I've removed 'notable' from the description of recurring sketches). Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find at FAC that they'll expect citations beyond merely what's likely to be challenged. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head that generally gets through is in plot synopses. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the show, and haven't checked any of the sources, so I can't speak as to comprehensiveness and balance, but I do think this would make a good FA Canditate if the prose went through a thorough copyedit, and the refernce issues were worked out (a lot of the unreferenced stuff could be dropped without hurting the article, I think, especially the list of recurring skits)

Lead

 * There are a couple of inline cites in the lead. Normally we only do this if a claim is controversial (think of the claims you could image being the Israel or abortion articles).  Is there any significant controversy over these statements?
 * No, and both are cited later in the article besides. Removed. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "bestselling children's history franchise": puffery like "bestselling" has to go
 * "originated by Terry Deary": originated in what sense? Provided the original idea? Was the original writer?
 * I'd argue that 'bestselling' here is a plain statement of fact, but I don't care enough to fight it. Removed, and Deary's role clarified as suggested. Shoebox 2   talk  05:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a plain statement of fact when you state, say, in the "Reception" (or whatever) section that it was a bestseller. It's another thing altogether when you're using to to qualify and define a work. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "by Lion TV with Citrus Television": are either of these worth a redlink?
 * Lion TV, sure -- I'm surprised it doesn't already have an article. Citrus I know nothing about, so am hesitant. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "of thirteen half-hour episodes each": you could safely drop "each"
 * "Western European history curriculum": is there something decent to link to here?
 * I don't think so, unless there's an article somewhere on 'traditionally taught subjects in the US, Canada, Britain and to a certain extent continental Western Europe' history classes, which is about the most concise summary of the concept possible. Trust me, there's just no easier way to make it clearer. :) Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "consciously accurate focus": unlikely it would be accurate by sheer serendipidty—I'd drop "consciously"
 * "through to the period": you could safely drop "to"
 * "immediately post-WWII": "post" would refer to the era, so this would read as "immediately during the post-WWII era". Maybe "the immediate post-WWII era"?  Also, I'd spell out "World War II".
 * "A puppet black rat "host" named Rattus Rattus appears": I really don't like the way this reads ("puppet black rat "host"), but I can't immediately think of a good way to handle it ...
 * "quintessentially British comedy classics": "quintessentially" and "classic" together is overkill—I'd drop the "quintessentially". Also is Monty Python the troupe a "comedy classic"?  Maybe a reword of the sentence is in order
 * The 'quintessentially' is actually meant to refer to the 'British' part. Leaving it as-is accordingly for now, although would be open to a better wording that gets the same idea across. Shoebox 2   talk  05:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "for its deliberately non-condescending approach": I'd drop the "deliberately"—again, I don't think you'd be unintentionally non-condescending (at least in any meaningful way)
 * "and been named among": not technically incorrect, but "has been" sounds better to these ears
 * "with Fry replacing the puppet rat as presenter": link Fry here

Background

 * You use "eventually" a lot; except in cases where the sense would be lost (rarely), I'd drop it
 * "Horrible Histories is based on the bestselling UK children's historical-comedy book series by Terry Deary, first published by Scholastic UK in 1993 and since expanded into a multimedia franchise." A short description of the series would be very nice.
 * "the bestselling UK children's": again, de-puff please.
 * "by Terry Deary": worth a redlink?
 * "a negative experience with the 2001 animated series": what "2001 animated series"? Could we be given the briefest background so we don't have to click through?
 * " "horrible, funny and true." ": period should be outside the quotes
 * "as well as contributing to the writing": or "contribute"?
 * "that the show would be respectful of audience expectations": you could safely drop the "would"
 * "involved framing and/or interpretive devices"; "and/or a wizard storyteller": collapse "and/or" to "or", per MOS:ANDOR
 * "Once the writing process was underway": you could safely drop "process"
 * "the producers further discovered": you could safely drop "further"
 * "A comedy style relying on parodies of familiar modern media tropes was then introduced as a means of making these historical details more easily and immediately accessible": I'd reword to "They used a style relying on parodies of familiar modern media tropes to make historical details easily and immediately accessible": I might even drop "easily and immediately"—that's kind of what "accessible" means, doesn't it?
 * "to put together a veteran creative team": if the team's new, it can't be "veteran".
 * "which would have roots almost entirely in the adult UK comedy community": or "with roots mostly in the adult UK comedy community"?
 * "They also approved the wholesale adoption": drop the "wholesale"
 * "which frequently involved the use of "gross-out"-style": drop "the use of"
 * "The whole creative team": drop "whole"
 * "was also determined from the beginning not to adapt the humour to children": drop "also" and "from the beginning"
 * "they sought simply to make the best comedy series possible": drop "simply"; "the best comedy series possible" sounds more like advertising than a statement of fact
 * "To that end, classic adult satires such as Blackadder and the Monty Python films were specifically used to set the tone for the new series": "used"? as in they recyced footage from these shows? If so, let's make that clear.  Also, drop "specifically"
 * "would subsequently be cited as visible throughout the show's run by both creators and commentators": I don't like this at all.  I might combine with the info in the previous sentence and rewrite entirely, simply stating that these shows were used (actual footage?  I'm still not sure)
 * Blackadder and the MP films were shown to the writers at the first production meeting by way of setting the tone. I've clarified that and reworded the next bit to flow better from it. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "notably within the music": how so?
 * "This trend would also continue": or "This trend continued"?
 * "The net result was a show that immediately appealed to young children while also gaining the increasing respect of older viewers.": or maybe "The show appealed to young children while gaining the respect of older viewers.". I assume "respect" here is a euphemism for "viewership"?  If so, let's be explicit.
 * Not exactly; this is children's TV, remember. Adult viewership -- which can and often does include caretakers watching a show with the kids for whatever reason -- is something distinct from according it respect. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe a rewording would clarify this, as there are children's shows out there (think 1960s Batman) that were aimed at children but gained an adult audience, and this seems (at least) to imply that sort of thing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Format

 * This section is almost entirely uncited. What makes certain sketches "Notable" if the citations haven't bothered to note them?
 * Fair question, 'notable' has been dropped accordingly. However, as noted, this section is the sketch-comedy equivalent of a plot summary. These sketches -- as even a casual glance at the show itself, or for that matter its episode list, will make clear -- are important to an understanding of the plot. (I know they're not GA/FAs, but the Monty Python's Flying Circus and Kids in the Hall articles, among others, use similar list concepts to get the idea across, and no-one seems to be complaining about their lack of cites.) Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are over 4,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, and only a few thousand have gone through the rigours of the GA or FA process. There are widely-read articles of well-known subjects that are almost entirely uncited.  "nobody" has complained about them, either—there are only so many articles we busy volunteers can get to.  I can guarantee you this section will attract flac if you bring it to FAC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted... and thanks for the wake-up call. It was rather foolish of me to try to argue from lesser to greater quality. As I still do think the list of sketches is important, will set about the process of finding cites as directed. :) Shoebox 2   talk  16:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Music

 * "Original music plays a large and notable role": we can assume it's notable if it's being noted
 * "the BBC Proms' prestigious annual children's concert": "prestigious" is peacockery
 * " (with the exception of episode 5 of Series One)": this is trivial. I'd shunt it to an endnote.
 * [sigh] And the GA reviewer thought it was important enough to be cited. Feedback, never a dull moment. :) Seeing as it was already mostly an endnote, I've placed it there entirely for now. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is important enough to be cited (in an endnote), but it drags down the prose. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The episode (available here"; "See here for the video clip.": we shouldn't be linking to non-free material hosted on YouTube
 * "with sketches from the same": the same what?
 * "performing in the recognisable style of a modern boyband": drop "recognisable"; also, "modern" will date rather quickly
 * ...On the other hand, it's kind of interesting when several reviewers agree. I still like 'recognizable', but will bow to increasing peer pressure. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "with which the musical elements especially are executed": drop "especially"
 * "Many of the videos have in fact earned a measure of standalone": drop "in fact" and "a measure of"
 * "... run to pay tribute to every major era it ever featured in turn.": uncited
 * Wording changed, which should eliminate both the hyperbole and the need for a cite. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Content and educational potential

 * "educational potential"? Maybe "value"?


 * Yes! Thank you, both the GA reviewer and I have been tearing our hair out trying to come up with a better way to word that header. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "No formal, overarching educational method": I'd drop ", overarching"
 * "while remaining acutely aware of": I'd drop "remaining" and "acutely"
 * "saw their basic role as": I might drop "basic"
 * "a point of view that was endorsed by historical scholars": meaning a point of view these scholars themselves followed, or that they commended the show for?
 * The latter. Clarified accordingly. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "is in fact part of an extensive": drop "in fact"
 * "an extensive British black-comedy tradition": link Black comedy
 * "However, conscious emphasis was placed": I'd drop "However, conscious"
 * "the demands of comedy with historical accuracy": is historical accuracy not normally more demanding than comedy?
 * Depends on who you ask, I suppose. :) More seriously, wording adjusted for clarity. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "the mainstream scholarly consensus on the topic": which topic?
 * "If an error was discovered": I'd used "when" rather than "if", since we're talking about something that's actually happened
 * "died on the loo ": this may be an Easter egg
 * "also meant that the show": drop "also"
 * "inevitably incorporates a certain amount": "incorprates" or "incorparated"? I'd drop "inevitably" and "certain"
 * "Perhaps most explicitly, one sketch actively champions Scots-Jamaican nurse Mary Seacole as an undeservingly forgotten heroine in the shadow of Florence Nightingale": I'd drop "actively" and "undeservedly" (is a "heroine" ever "deservedly" forgotten?)
 * "a point repeated in Seacole's later solo song": which point?
 * "by generally highlighting strong, active female historical figures": I'd drop "generally", and I'd choose different adjectives for "strong" (what, physically?) and "active" (they're still around?)
 * I'd argue that both the original adjectives are perfectly clear in context, but don't object to clarifying further. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "the British women's suffrage movement": you probably want to link to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom rahter than Women's suffrage
 * "the ethics of conquest and labour conditions": without the serial comma here this can be parsed as "the ethics of conquest and the ethics of labour conditions"
 * "deflect any serious controversy"; "without any ill effects": drop "any"
 * "as they had demonstrably already been": meaning within the show? This could use a rewrite to make it clear
 * Basically, the sensitive subjects in question had already been presented to the kiddies in the popular books, so nobody could object to them being presented again on TV. Reworded for clarity. Shoebox 2   talk  05:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "needed especially careful handling to avoid a potentially negative impact": I'd drop "especially" and "potentially"
 * "The show will sometimes acknowledge": "The show will sometimes acknowledged"

I'm going to take a break here for now. No promises on when I'll be back. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, so much, for your help thus far. I've taken the great majority of your suggestions and will use them as a template for copy-editing the rest of the article. Shoebox 2   talk  05:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)