Talk:Joking Apart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleJoking Apart is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
April 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 21, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Other version[edit]

This is an adapted version of the article which appears on my website, rewritten to be more suitable to Wikipedia. [1] The JPS

GA on hold[edit]

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria. I have decided to put it on hold until the following issues are fixed.

  1. "It juxtaposes a couple, Mark (Robert Bathurst) and Becky (Fiona Gillies), meeting/falling in love with their separation and divorce." Probably reword the rest of the sentence to "Gillies), who meet and fall in love before getting separated and finally divorced" (if that's maintains its current content). Also instead of using "It" for the opening word in the second paragraph, perhaps used "The show", or "The sitcom". Also in the intro, "juxtaposing" is wikilinked in the second occurrence, wikilink the first occurrence in the first paragraph instead. The last issue with the intro is the sentence "Although the show attracted a small audience because of scheduling problems, it attracted a small dedicated following." This seems to repeat itself with a "small audience" and "small dedicated following". This appears to be the same two groups of people being described.
  2. "The writer wondered what to do next.[1] Bob Spiers, Press Gang's primary director, suggested that he meet with producer Andre Ptaszynski to discuss writing a sitcom." Combine these two sentences, perhaps something like, "Moffat wondering what to do next, was introduced to producer Andre Ptatszynski by Bob Spiers, to discuss a sitcom" or something to that effect. If you don't want to combine, then elaborate on the first sentence.
  3. Combine the last three paragraphs in the Inception section into one paragraph, they are related somewhat and short enough to be merged together. Also, see if you can incorporate the last sentence about Pola Jones into another sentence or properly include it within one of the paragraphs.
  4. "A fellow performer on that show also auditioned for the part at what is now the Soho Theatre, the old Soho Synagogue, in Dean Street, and claimed..." Remove the comma after Synagogue.
  5. "Bathurst says "I don’t think it was entirely jocular"." When did he say this? At the time, in an interview? Elaborate on that.
  6. Due to the short length of the current sections in the production section, consider merging a couple. For example, you could include the location and casting together with the heading "Casting and location" or something to that effect. It doesn't look too well to have individual sections for three sentences. The structure section should be incorporated into the inception section.
  7. Juxtaposed has now been used three times by the Structure section. Consider using a different term to add some variety, or at least change the second occurrence back in the intro.
  8. Go ahead and add wikilinks for the actors in parenthesis after the cast role.
  9. "Fiona Gillies was aware that some of her lines were what Moffat's ex-wife had said to him." This line is almost the exact same as what was said in the casting section. It should probably only be mentioned once.
  10. Again, combine some of the miniparagraphs within the cast roles section. Each character should probably have one individual paragraph.
  11. "Although this made it clearer that they were not 'real', it looked odd." Made clearer for whom? Also, don't include "it looked odd", it may be construed as a weak form of POV.
  12. There is a period missing at the end of "The first series of six episodes were recorded at BBC Television Centre in April/May 1992, and transmission began on January 7, 1993". In the same section add a wikilink for honeymoon and adulteress.
  13. "the performances of Bathurst and Gillies took the scene above mere farce." Again, this may look like POV, please reword to be more encyclopedic or sourced.
  14. Combine some paragraphs in the series 2 section. Due the same for the next three sections.
  15. "Critical reception was good." Change to "Critical reception was generally positive" or something to that effect. Also if you can, see if you can find a review that may be negative of the show. This will help the reception section to not be biased in favor of the show. I'm sure all shows have some critics that don't like it.
  16. It is mentioned that it was entered for the Emmys. Did it win any? What categories was it nominated for?
  17. Add wikilink for DVD. Combine "As a professional videotape editor, Robins was able to restore and assemble the disc himself. He used a piece of freeware to transcribe the dialogue for the subtitles."
  18. Add more categories that describe the show; look to other British shows, or GA/FAs for examples.

This article needs the above issues to be addressed to pass. I will leave the article on hold for seven days and will pass it if everything is fixed. If you have any questions or when you finish, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I have time. I'm not as bothered about these little badges now. I appreciate your comments, though it might have been courteous to say something nice. The JPStalk to me 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about #5 -- there's a ref straight after that quotation. #11 is a quotation, immediately referenced (criticisms are always POV, and the scare quotes clearly separate the article from this POV). #16 no idea. It didn't win (hence all sources saying 'nominated'), but can't recall for what categories. It might be mentioned somewhere, but that amount of detail does not effect GA. Question about 'debuts' cat: do you reckon it should be 1991 for the pilot, or 1993 for the series proper? Added a few more cats, but there are some GAs with only a couple: unless you know of any 'divorce in popular culture' or equiv.
Thanks again for your thorough comments. The JPStalk to me 10:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

I apologize if I wasn't too courteous, I reviewed this article around 1:30 in the morning and was a bit tired. Most of the article's issues have been addressed, but please take a look at some clarifications of a few of the points found below. Once these are addressed, I should be able to pass the article.

  • Concerning point number 5, it's great that there is an inline citation but the wording of the sentence is confusing. Do you mean that he says this directly at the audition, was reflecting back on it in a later interview, or something else? For example, you could write: In a later interview Bathurst stated that "I don’t think it was entirely jocular" or "at the time, Bathurst replied "I don’t think it was entirely jocular". As it stands now, it's difficult to determine the setting of the statement.
  • For the 11th point, if it is a quote, it would probably be best to include it in quotation marks and declare who said it, just so the reader isn't initially confused or required to look at the inline citation.
  • About the issue with the Emmys, it would be best to have it clarified for the readers, but if there is no further information, then I wouldn't worry about it. I also looked at the article for the citation, and it doesn't go into detail.
  • For the categories, I just thought there should be more than one, it looked kind of bare down there. But this should be sufficient what you have added.

Some of my suggestions were not just for qualifying for GA, but just to improve the quality of the article in other aspects. The article covers the details well and it's good to see that you addressed these so quickly. Again, once you finish these, please let me know on my talk page and I'll head right over. --Nehrams2020 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; your comments have been really helpful in improving the article. (Oh, and I commented when I was tired too, hence I might have been a bit moody.) The JPStalk to me 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed[edit]

At this point, I have passed the article as a GA according the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, making sure all newly added information is properly sourced and neutral. Keep up the good work, and if you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the massive backlog. --Nehrams2020 16:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (pass)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I made one or two minor edits - nothing worth putting the article on hold for - and there is still the odd statement that could do with an explicit citation, but I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. There is also one iffy link (Coupling Season 4), which is not only given as requiring registration, but seems to go to a Dr Who forum...

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 10:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further development suggestions (as requested by User:The JPS)[edit]

To be honest, it's not easy to find issues with this article; you've done a first-class job on it. However, I've managed to pull together a few suggestions:

  • I don't think 'juxtaposes' really needs wikilinking, but obviously it's your call.
I'll probably keep it cause it's more of a technical term than an everyday word. None of my students yesterday knew what it meant!. The JPStalk to me 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more detail throughout the Production section, especially in its chronology, would help to set the context for the programme. For example, when did Moffat write two series of the Press Gang? When was it suggested that he do a sitcom? When did his wife leave him? (etc...!)
    • Mmm, I'll have a closer look at series 2. The last point might be a little too personal! I don't think any interviewer dares or wants to go into the specifics. The only reliably sourced info relating to this is already included (re: Press Gang series 2). The JPStalk to me 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the programme's connection with Coupling? This show is mentioned in the infobox and the article (see below), but unless a reader knows the show, this won't mean anything.  Done
  • Similarly, the article compares the programme to Seinfeld. Again, this is only meaningful if a reader is familiar with Seinfeld. Maybe both these comparisons should either be explained further or (probably the better option) removed.  Done explained as much as RS allow. The JPStalk to me 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some statements need explicit referencing:
  1. "Moffat had been through a difficult period in his life, with his first wife having recently left him." This comes under WP:BIO, and although it may be covered by the citation in the next sentence (not sure, but that appears to me to relate only to the typewriter/foot incident), it should have its own cite. Done
  2. "Other than the stand-up sequences, the second series followed a more linear structure. Moffat had experimented with non-linear narrative in Press Gang, notably the episode "Monday-Tuesday." Coupling would later use similar devices throughout the series." These contentions should really be backed up.
The first sentence can be supported by reviews and Moffat's commentary. The last two are not really original research. The JPStalk to me 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "...(Jackson now admits that he was wrong)..." definitely needs citing. Done
  2. The last paragraph of DVD release is unreferenced.
Although the prose is generally very good, it could be tweaked in places. I've made some minor alterations, mainly just fiddling with the grammar, but a proofread from the WP:LOCE wouldn't hurt.
  • Yes, once I've looked after the research and content, the grammarphiles can play with it. The JPStalk to me 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have a baby, which is seen or referred to occasionally, reflecting, as Moffat observes, that it was written before he himself had children." I couldn't make sense of this. Is Moffat implying that he wrote little involving the baby because he lacked experience of children?  Done
  • One thing that gets picked up a lot at FA is short (one- or two-sentence) paragraphs. Perhaps it would be possible to merge these into their surroundings?
  • The Dr Who forum link may not only be awkward (requiring registration), but more importantly, being a forum the source may not meet WP:RS. Done

Other than that, it looks good to me. Hope this helps! All the best, EyeSerenetalk 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joking Apart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joking Apart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joking Apart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joking Apart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020 notes[edit]

@The JPS: addressing these comments can help this article remain a featured article per WP:URFA/2020. Heartfox (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overly reliant on interviews with cast members which are not in independent sources
  • Overly reliant on unofficial website
  • Some statements did not match the source
  • Some of the independent sources do not appear to be reliable
  • Characters section does not conform to MOS:TVCAST
  • Episodes section does not conform to MOS:TVPLOT
  • The reception section does not need irrelevant comments from cast members. It is also a bit light.