Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:07, 15 December 2012 [1].

List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes edit

List of The Office (UK TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  ajmint  (talk • edits) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have recently written its lead, added an image of the creators, added references for each episode's plot and alternative title and copy edited the plot summaries for each episode. I believe it is now of similar quality to other featured episode lists such as those of Peep Show or its American adaptation. Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong as this is the first time I've done this. Thanks,  ajmint  (talk • edits) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Check reference titles for WP:DASH (i.e. use en-dashes, not spaced hyphens) and avoid the SHOUTING that may be in there.
  • BBC refs have "last updated" dates in them, these can be added as publication date.
    • Do you mean the months, like "August 2009"? If so, should "2009-08" be used? Also, do you know if BBC News should use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}? ajmint (talk•edits) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I prefer human readable dates in any case, so would prefer "August 2009" and the accessdate as 10 September 2012...! As for the citation template, I tend to use the Cite web one, but as long as you're consistent throughout, I don't think it really matters. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have switched dates to "10 September 2012" format, added BBC months and used {{cite web}} for BBC News. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you need to link television programme in the second sentence of the lead. I would think that linking story arc would be more beneficial to our regular readers.
  • " paper company" -> "paper merchant"
  • Four paras in the lead for a reasonably short list seems a lot per WP:LEAD?
    • I'd appreciate your advice on which bits to shorten; could the first two maybe be merged? ajmint (talk•edits) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thoughts, how about just scrapping the second paragraph? The characters are basically introduced by the episode summaries anyway. ajmint (talk•edits) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you could merge the last two paragraphs a trim a tiny bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have merged the last two and shortened the characters and awards bit. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to the main part of the list in due course, but must pause now to watch the closing ceremony of the Paralympics! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help! ajmint (talk•edits) 20:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Can you use No. instead of # for number please?
  • Where are production codes referenced?
    • I have removed them, they don't add much and I can't find any sources. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an irritating middle-aged man who thinks" maybe "a middle-aged man who mistakenly thinks..."?
  • No need to link superimposed.
  • "and unfortunately for him" not sure this is needed?
  • Not sure "peeved" is the encyclopedic language I'd expect in an episode summary. I think perhaps there's a general tone issue with the summaries, maybe get someone to have a look through them?
    • Have replaced it with "annoyed" and made some tone edits, but they could maybe be tweaked a bit more. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other media, I wouldn't have a subheading (there's only one subsection so it's not needed) and I would merge the paras.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ajmint (talk•edits) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal unless someone can address Giants' concerns above, the main contributor has made one edit in the last couple of weeks, this nomination is stagnating. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the source concerns because I'd hate to see a wonderful candidate like this be failed. I'll also address new concerns if they come around. TBrandley 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many episodes lists have "No. in series" and "No. in season" (or similar wording) to reflect the overall number of the episode and the season number of the episode and do this with two columns rather than having the text in the title of the episode.
    • The titles of The Office episodes are generally given as "Episode One", etc on the BBC website and in the script books (although the DVD menu uses digits for the numbers), but there are alternative ones, available on the BBC website for series 1 and on epguides for both series. Since the former "Episode X" ones are definitely the standard titles, I think they should be used along with the alts in the title section, and since they also include the number in the series, I don't think two columns are necessary. I'd be interested in your opinion, though. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Tables don't met WP:ACCESS, add scope rows and cols to ensure it does
    • Done for columns, don't think there are any row headings. ajmint (talk•edits) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "CS" doesn't make sense to me; perhaps clarify
    • Should "Christmas Specials" be written fully in the summary table? ajmint (talk•edits) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Epguides" shouldn't be capitalized
  • Use single quotes (') in references rather than double quotes ("), per WP:MOS
  • Don't use mixed formats in external links
    • Some of them use fixed templates; what wording/format would you suggest? ajmint (talk•edits) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries! I got them myself. Cheers, TBrandley 01:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 13:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! ajmint (talk•edits) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "The Office has won numerous awards, including two British Comedy Awards[7][8] and a Golden Globe,[9] and later came 25th in the BBC's Britain's Best Sitcom poll." the first and should be removed and a comma should come after Awards
    • I disagree – that wording sounds awkward and ungrammatical. ajmint (talk•edits) 21:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It needs changing regardless, having and ... and is not encyclopaedic. I would just have two separate sentences instead. NapHit (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded and separated with a semicolon. ajmint (talk•edits) 16:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has also been remade in several different countries." this sentence appears to be a bit of an afterthought, would expand bait, perhaps mention the American one as I imagine that is the highest profile remake
  • Per WP:CONTEXTLINK bold links should be avoided, bolding in the series overview table primarily
    • Done, although, could the links not be bolded if the numbers in the series column were made into row headers? ajmint (talk•edits) 21:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I have noticed that this is done with the American version, The Simpsons and many other featured lists, and that the table looks rather bare without it; I think that the guideline refers mainly to bold links in prose, and that they should be acceptable in this context. Perhaps reconsider? ajmint (talk•edits) 16:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists were promoted before this became an MOS issue, many recent episode lists promotions do not have bold links. MOS:BOLD is very clear that bold links should be avoided, aesthetics is not a valid reason to keep them. NapHit (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David reprimands Tim. Tim reveals that it was in fact David's friend Chris Finch who created it" avoid using the same word to end and start a sentence
  • "In disbelief over him having offended new employees on the first day, Jennifer, promoted above Neil, reprimands David." I would try and reword this sentence it reads uneasily.
  • refs should be in numerical order, currently the refs for the christmas specials are not
  • ref 53 needs a publication date adding

NapHit (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments –
  • What makes epguides (ref 33) a reliable source? From our article on the site, it appears to be composed of user-generated content, which is usually a disqualifier for reliability purposes.
  • What makes Ars Technica (ref 53) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no expert in this, but it appears to be reliable, as it appears on Google News. Further, based on its website, it does really seem reliable. Why wouldn't it be though? TBrandley 23:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google News does include the occasional websites that we wouldn't consider reliable. Is there any stronger evidence, such as reputable ownership or content being cited by mainstream media? Giants2008 (Talk) 03:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a revisit, looking good! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_The_Office_(UK_TV_series)_episodes/archive1&oldid=1138484813"