Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dad's Army episodes

List of Dad's Army episodes edit

Previous FAC Nominating after massive changes made after feedback since last FAC, but many changes completed fairly late and was failed. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 15:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A big improvement. The "Christmas Night with the Stars Inserts" could do with inline citations and also an explanation as to what it is. In the lead, paragraph 3 could be stuck on the end of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 stuck on the end of paragraph 4. The words "lost episodes" in paragraph 2 could be linked to Dad's Army missing episodes and the "See also" section removed per MOS as those links are already covered. The link to the radio episodes is handled by the navigation footer, but I think using the words "most episodes" to link to the radio list is a bit subtle. Would it be better to link from "adapted for radio"? Your "References" should be "Footnotes" and your "Sources" should be "References". The website reference should be fully cited e.g. with {{cite web}}. I don't see why the "Dad's Army" navigation footer needs to split out all the sections of this list (e.g. Series 1, etc) since they aren't separate articles. I think it would be better to say "The first two series were in black and white." in the lead, rather than have that detail scattered. Paragraph 2 is a bit confusing: it says none of series two was filmed then gives examples of three filmed episodes. Perhaps the discussion of lost episodes should be simplified. Colin°^Talk 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits made exc. the Christmas Night with the Stars, because I can't find a citation for that. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Croft isn't cited anywhere. Why is that?--Rmky87 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any of his books, so cant use them for inline cites. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - looks good, but you need a "References" section. It would be nice to expand the explanation of the "Christmas Night with the Stars Inserts" - what are they, and each currently has only a single line. If you have not used Croft, you should move it to a "Further reading". -- ALoan (Talk) 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references section was requested to be renamed to footnotes above, so I did that, and I'll alter the book headings now. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry - was it? When did we decide we needed "sources" rather than "References"? WP:WIAFL still asks for a "References" section. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited to show you what I meant. Is that better? Colin - does that conflict with you wanted? -- ALoan (Talk)

Support Those section-heading edits are exactly what was needed. I'm going to break with tradition and support an episode-list since this one is so well sourced and is an example of an encyclopaedic TV list that doesn't need screenshots to work well. Colin°^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good - Support too :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine now the above issues have been addressed. Tompw (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per minimalistic use of fair use images ;) Renata 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Currently, all our featured lists of episodes use the {{episode list}} format (two exceptions. Simpsons because of sheer size, and Stargate SG-1 who use a table, but not the template). Is there a particular reason not to use that common and relatively standard format? Circeus 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - using that template would change nothing about the article - its neatly presented as it is, and there is no need to do extra work putting the same information in a new template. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]