Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackadder Goes Forth/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Currently listed as a Good Article, I've been overhauling and expanding this article recently with the intention of improving it to A or FA standard, and it would be very useful to have suggestions on how to improve it. In particular, I'd be interested to see if there are any sections which are felt to be missing, or otherwise lacking in information/references. I also wonder if some sections, such as the plot section, are perhaps a little too long? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Bob talk 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I remember the series well, and am glad to see an article about it. I'm shocked, though, to find that it was over 20 years ago! Here are some comments.
- Plot section
- This does not decribe a plot, and I don't really see how a series of discrete episodes can have a "plot", as such. It can, and this seies does, have a theme or themes. As you have written it, the section adequately describes these themes. It sets the scene, introduces the characters, explains the dark and cynical humour, and illustrates these aspects with anecdotes. What you need is a section title that properly summarises what the section does.
Renamed as "Scenario", following other FA sitcom articles.
- There are a few instances of prose needing attention in the section:-
- Sentence rewrite required: "The reputation of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (who appears in the show's final episode played by Geoffrey Palmer), whose orders are alleged to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of British deaths (particularly at Passchendaele and the Somme)[12] are continually referenced and criticised by the characters." Two Parenthetical insertions in a sentence that winds on and on. Needs to be at least two sentences.
- There are a few instances of prose needing attention in the section:-
Hopefully improved.
- The reference to "the return of Bob" will be meaningless to those unaware of this character's appearance in an earlier series. A few words of explanation necessary.
Clarified and revised section.
- I'm not sure where it's stated, but I am pretty sure that there is a MOS stricture on the use of decorative quote marks within the text. Also (for elsewhere in the article) blockquotes should be not be used for shortish quotations; the minimum recommended is I think four lines of text.
- Episodes: the very brief summaries are disappointing. It would be much more informative to have a 100-or-so words which outline the story of each episodes, rather than these one-line condensations.
I've expanded them beyond the one line summaries, although they're perhaps not 100 words. I didn't want to give too much away, as there are already separate episode articles with larger plots.
- Writing: I don't follow the sense of the sentence "During rehearsals, the script was exhaustively discussed and redrafted by the cast, many of whom were close friends of the writers, and being comic actors themselves, not afraid to question the script." It's the phrase "being comic actors themselves" that causes confusion; I don't know why it's necessary to point out that the cast were comic actors - I'd take that as read. Or is the point that Elton and Curtis were comic actors, in which case the whole sentence needs rephrasing?
Rephrased, although I might revise that section again.
- Filming: can you explain the reference to Blackadder Rides Again?
- Another MOS point: date ranges, e.g. 1914–1918, need dashes not hyphens.
- Also, there is a dablink on Baron von Richtofen.
I think that's about all. As I am not able to watch my peer reviews at the moment, if you have queries arising from this review, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review - I agree with everything you've highlighted, although I'm a bit ashamed to admit most of the prose errors (except for the Haig one) are mine. To answer a question, the somewhat clumsy "being comic actors themselves" was meant to illustrate that each of the actors (Fry, Laurie, Atkinson) are noted for being comedy writers and performers in their own right. I'll try and work out a better way to phrase that. Bob talk 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)