Wikipedia:Peer review/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (UK TV series)/archive1

Whose Line Is It Anyway? (UK TV series)
Wanting help overall with this article. Have suggested breaking off the "games" section to do a system similar to the The Price Is Right in order to remove the cruft temptations from the main article and allowing more in dept discussion of individual games. Have also suggested making a single page with all the games with only a slight expansion from the current.

Also worried about cruft still existing in the Atmosphere section, but I think some points about common themes and jokes is still okay, but trying to avoid it sounding like nothing but a fan site. Also, what about splitting it to UK and US versions? Please help, discussions in the talk-page haven't really brought lots of help. -Thebdj 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, the consensus seems to be to separate the "games" into their own page. I hope with a bit of work the Atmosphere/Running gags can be editted into something a bit more prose-like and edit it down to a smaller and more concise section that should hopefully work.  I am not sure that the section for running gags would support its own article because I fear it could turn into a disaster but that might be what has to be done in the end.  Hopefully, I can throw in some more on the British show, and I will try to get everything to American english.  Thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far; I am going to wait a few days to see if I get some more ideas and input before making any major edits.  Thanks again. -Thebdj 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The common sketches section is very, very long, and I'd agree with it being moved to its own separate list. Also, the article seems very light on references in comparison to the very thorough collection of information it presents.  Nice job so far, though! Air.dance 08:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It falls down because it's too thorough with the games and especially the running gags section. There's too much bullet-pointed stuff that gets less and less interesting for non fans and concentration could start to lag before the end. I think "Überfan!" will occur to many lay-readers. I would slim down the amount of bullet pointed games / gags info and try to introduce some more prose into the piece. For example, tell anecdotes about one or two of the running gags first, then include a few more with bullets. The background and atmosphere bits are good, although I would possibly have the atmosphere section before games. These are obviously style considerations, overall this is a good one. I would avoid splitting to UK / US pages as so much of their history is intertwined. I think many readers who are acquainted with both will be relieved to find they are together, although more info on the UK series is required, and you could be less in-depth about the US show. Splitting the games list into a separate article is more attractive, if you could bear to slash the games down to only the most commonly played you could legitimately make a full list as well. The running gags section really needs to be trimmed down, and might not make for the most encylopedic stand alone list. Nice one, look forward to keeping an eye on it,  Dei z io  23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor issue; per WP:CONTEXT only years with full dates should be linked- thanks, AndyZ 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is certainly quite complete, and fairly well-written. My criticisms: (1) The games section is way too long; fork off an article to include all the games, and only discuss the particularly famous ones in the article (helping hands, party quirks, singing games, world's worst, maybe two or so more).  (2) The running gags section is totally uninteresting: it is interesting to note that running gags occur, but not interesting to list more than two of them.  And many in the list are dull and obvious: so and so's height or weight or lack of hair.  Might as well fork it off, but I'm not sure that would be worth an article even then, which is why I think you should just remove that section.  (3) The article only has one reference: more should be found, even if they can't be inlined ones.  Perhaps something could be incorporated about critical reaction to the show?  (4) The basic atmosphere of the show should be covered before the list of sketches.  (5) Finally, the article should either be written in American English or British English, not a mix of both.  Mangojuice 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)