Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yes Minister

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

The article was promoted 02:59, 11 September 2007.

Yes Minister

edit
See original nomination discussion at: previous FAC

Renominating. The archive of the discussion from the previous nomination didn't make it clear to me that there was consensus for rejection. A year has elapsed since that process, and the objections given seem to have been answered. Worth giving it another look, because it really is a most informative, well-referenced article. CzechOut 00:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ticks all the boxes to me. My only concern is that the plot section is much bigger than the other sections which gives it an uneven feal. Theone00 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixes needed Citations do not have a consistent format, some are just external links with a title. The inspiration section has a block quotation without a citation following either the preceding colon or the final punctuation of the quotation. There are several stubby paragraphs which gives the article a disrupted flow. For the non-free content, the fair use rationale should explain why the reader needs to see that image. Although the rationales do make it clear that there isn't a free image that can be used, they do not make it clear that an image is needed at all. Jay32183 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed some of Jay's concerns. I'll try to work on the non-free media issue more (though it's quite a high and small hoop in relation to other FAs). I've merged a couple of small paragraphs and sections. I've left a couple of smaller paragraphs because they work logically alone.

      BTW, if you are blessed enough to identify grammatical issues, then it would be appreciated if you could simply correct them. You can spend ages typing a missive here if you wish, but the article would be of higher quality if you spent the time correcting the mistakes you identify. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Good work, excellent subject-matter for FA. Chrisieboy 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to pass all of the criteria for featured article. Bob talk 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Lacks inline citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please identify which aspects of the article require inline citations? Your comment is clearly inaccurate, but I would be happy to address specific concerns. The JPStalk to me 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Situation' section: not a single reference. 'Situation' - ditto. 'Other characters' - ditto. Unreferenced paras in 'Episodes', long unreferenced statements at 'Opening titles and music'... and that's just the first half.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of these sections are descriptive of the primary source, and are therefore verifiable. Not every sentence needs a citation. Are there any sentences that you feel are original research, or violate BLP? The JPStalk to me 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am afraid WP:V requires that even description of primary source is attributed. An editor describing it is committing OR. Plot, characters and such need to be referenced to a verifiable source; we cannot accept a word of an editor who has seen the series that 'this is so'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree, of course, that any interpretation must be sourced. Pure description on the other hand need not be, and the primary source is sufficient for verification. The JPStalk to me 23:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed, there are spaced emdashes throughout, pls see WP:DASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Very good article overall. I'm not going to follow Piotrus's line of argument, but I am going to ask for a few extra refs here and there.
  • The 2nd para of the lead has a serious run-on sentence, albeit written very elegantly.
 Done The JPStalk to me 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd para of background – the statements about writers political views need sourcing.
 Done (removed the unsourced statements) The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you confirm if ref 4 supports the whole of the 1st para of Inspirations?
 Done The JPStalk to me 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally, I think the reference(s) for the last (now penultimate) para of inspirations need to be clearer.
 Done The JPStalk to me 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 needs fuller details if, as you say, they are published diaries
 Done The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para of Episodes seems a bit disconnected from rest of the section, and I’m not sure it really belongs there. Can’t suggest a better spot, though.
 Done The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: There are several remakes listed, and then “the official remake in Hindi (with the BBC's permission)”, could be taken to imply that the others are not official remakes. I’m not sure what’s involved in an official remake – presumably a licence and some money – but do the status of the others need to be clarified, and possibly referenced? “Possibly the latest remake” definitely needs a ref, because as written it sounds as if that fact is in dispute.
 Done Removed problematic word 'official', and removed the unsourced theatrical production. The JPStalk to me 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Thick of It is clearly shown to be part of the Yes Minister legacy, but is there any reference for House of Cards? I don’t think you could list it as part of its legacy without its direct influence having been acknowledged by Michael Dobbs, or at least commented on by a reviewer.
 Done The JPStalk to me 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to discussion on any of these. J.Winklethorpe talk 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for these very helpful and constructive comments. I will enact them when I have the chance. The JPStalk to me 10:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the article has changed significantly throughout the duration of this FAC. I think I've addressed all of the above concerns. The JPStalk to me 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree that all those are done. You've rather expanded things since my original comments; I'll have to find the time to reread it. J.Winklethorpe talk 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've spent a lot of time on it over the last 20 hours. I've probably introduced more issues, but I'm confident the article is in better shape. The JPStalk to me 14:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further CommentsSupport after reviewing new material.
  • "Hacker is shown at the declaration of his constituency result wearing a white rosette, with other candidates sporting red and blue rosettes." – I fear many will not understand the significance of this.
 Done Now explained a little. The JPStalk to me 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinks in quotes – a few days ago this was explicitly discouraged by the MOS. It has now been changed, albeit with a continuing, ahem, “discussion”. Personally I dislike the practice – quotes should be presented as is, without the article inferring any meaning to the words.
Oh, God. People do go out of their way to find things to argue about, don't they. I might leave it as is for now, then. (I assume we're talking about the newspaper quote? I think we can be confident that the links accurately infer the meaning). If it becomes the decisive factor at the end, then so be it. The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it gets changed back, then it's not an issue under the FA criteria.
  • “The series gained high audience figures, and 90+ on the audience appreciation index.” – as it’s a fairly obscure fact (I wouldn’t know where to go looking for it), a ref would be appreciated here.
 Done The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Reception is now well filled with good detail, can we lose the cat?
 Done I know who you are now. You're Cherie, aren't you? She always hated poor Humphrey. The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids J.Winklethorpe talk 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The title was probably suggested by Crossman's entry for 22 October 1964,” – I’m a bit bothered by that “probably”. If this comes from the Britain’s Best Sitcom ref, then it can be stated as a fact. If someone on the programme was speculating, then state it as their speculation. That way, there’s no doubt in the article.
 Done I've removed the quote. This was one of the things added by someone else (most of the uncited OR stuff was inherited) The JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same applies to the “may” in “The reference in "A Diplomatic Incident" to opportunities for diplomacy at a "working funeral" (in light of his predecessor's death) may have been inspired by the discussions…”
 Done As aboveThe JPStalk to me 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last para in Inspirations doesn’t seem to lead in as well now that a new para is in front of it.
 Done The JPStalk to me 09:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In Yes Minister he is the Minister for the Ministry of Administrative Affairs” – in RL, this would be phrased simply “Minister for Administrative Affairs” (e.g. the current Minister for Women or Minister for the Olympics);
 Done The JPStalk to me 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the stuff in Characters is beyond simple summarising of the source material: “As he learns, and loses his initial callowness, he becomes more sly and cynical, and uses some of the Civil Service ruses himself.” “In many ways he represents both British snobbery and gentility. He is arrogant and elitist, often pompous, and he contemptuously regards his minister as intellectually inferior.” This level of interpretation of the character is at the point where I think they ought to be sourced.
 Done The JPStalk to me 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 17, 20, 21 have dates in the articles that can be added to the ref.
 Done 20 and 21, but confused by 17. The JPStalk to me 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I've no idea which one I meant, either. Probably just went mad. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Radio times refs could do with article titles, page nos, etc.
  • I’ve fixed some WP:DASH issues.
Ta The JPStalk to me

J.Winklethorpe talk 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the changes in characters, that's all the stuff that particularly concerned me fixed. On the assumption that the minor stuff will be looked at, I support. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you for your very thorough comments. The article has befitted from your advice. The JPStalk to me 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yes_Minister&oldid=1088821151"