Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yes Minister/archive1
Appearance
I just had a look around at this and found it a pretty great article. Wiki-newbie 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- It was just given it's GA status this evening, so the FAC so soon is flattering, thanks. We have been given some very good feedback tonight, though, which we, naturally, haven't had the chance to implement yet. The GA assessor said that it's very close to FA, but probably not there yet. As one of its writers, I'd have taken his advice and waited a bit before coming to FAC. The JPStalk to me 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is a very good article, no doubt about that, but it's not quite ready for FA. There are no less than three sections, Episodes, Remakes and legacy, and Radio, that I consider stubby. One section, Other characters, does not have any citations.UberCryxic 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I really think it's best to withdraw this FAC until we've worked on the constructive criticism we've been awarded this evening. (Or is the nominator the only person allowed to request withdrawl?) The JPStalk to me 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comments - I agee with The JPS and UberCryxic: this is very good, but not quite there yet. It is generally a very nice read, and well illustrated, but there is some unnecessary repetition between certain sections, some sections are rather short or choppy, and there is not as much inline citation as has become the norm recently (very few for the first six (!) sections: none for "Plot", only one for "Background", two for "Inspirations", one for "Episodes", none for "Other characters", and two for "Opening titles and music"). Well done so far, and good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I too have added to the article and agree that it's too soon to be an FAC. However, there are some sections, e.g., "Other characters" and "Episodes", that contain basic facts and I can't see that these would need to be verified, since there is no disputing the content of these sections. Also, I can't see how "Episodes" can be expanded without duplicating List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes, since the episode titles are all that is missing. Having said that, I could dig out the Lotterby interview from Radio Times if more background is needed. Overall though, I'm pleased with the GA status (congrats to The JPS) and hope we can work towards improving it further. Chris 42 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Object—1a. The first paragraph does not look promising:
Yes Minister was a satirical British sitcom transmitted by BBC television and radio between 1980 and 1984. This was followed by a sequel, Yes, Prime Minister, which ran from 1986 to 1988. All 38 episodes were written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn and all but one last half an hour.
- "aired on" for "transmitted by", which sounds awkward here. Wasn't it only the original series that were aired during that period? There have been repeats ...
- Were the 38 episodes under both titles or just the sequel?
- "All" twice in a sentence. Replace the first one with "The".
- "Last": Present tense all of a sudden? In any case, talk in terms of "duration", or "were 30 minutes long".
The rest of it looks significantly short of the requirement of "professional" writing. Please have it thoroughly copy-edited. Tony 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Aired on" is more of a US expression, whereas this is a British series. I have changed the tense of the opening paragraph to reflect that it "is" a series (i.e., the episodes still exist) that "was" first transmitted between the years stated. I've also fixed the other points noted above. Chris 42 17:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)