Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes/archive1

List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Upstairs, Downstairs is a highly acclaimed television drama series and therefore warrants a good episode list page. Since its a British series I have attempted to use UK English as opposed to my usual US English. Any helpful suggestions on how to improve this article will be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping to elevate this article to FL status.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First opinion This already looks like an excellent list article, to the point where I can't think of too many things which could be improved on before nominating for FL. However, as I have no real experience in the featured list area it would perhaps be best to wait for another editor's opinion for a fuller review. Failing that, my two-penny's worth would be:

• "Acclaimed as one of the most successful dramatic series in television history". To me, at least, it wasn't immediately obvious that this is a quote from Steve Runyon at the Museum of Broadcast Communication, and as a result I initially thought the sentence perhaps sounded slightly peacocky. I don't doubt that it was (and still is) a very successful series, but wonder whether that comment ought to be in quotation marks? To a certain extent, the awards listed in the same paragraph speak for themselves about its critical acclaim.
  • First off, thanks for the suggestions. I delayed addressing them for several days due to some personal situations that prevented me from concentrating on the Wiki articles. I've removed the "successful dramatic series" part and let the awards speak for the series' quality.
• The title screen at File:Upstairs Downstairs.png is quite big for a fairuse image, and I would suggest it would be advisable to reduce it to half the size if it's going to be nominated. I'd also reccommend that the rationale could be tightened up a little to say exactly why it's justified on this particular article.
• I've reduced the size of the picture.
• A personal preference for me would be the incorporation of mini plot summaries to assist in identifying the episodes. Oddly, this doesn't appear to be a Featured List requirement, so don't feel that this is something that must be done, but for me, it's often the most important aspect of a list of episodes. I mainly use these lists when I want to find out what the title of an episode is by what happens in it, etc.
  • As I see it, television episodes can be listed in three tiers: 1) A list containing the episodes for the entire run of the shows; 2) a more in-depth look by listing episodes for one particular season; and 3) one article for each individual episode. Number two should have a brief synopsis for the episodes while number one can have them or not. I imagine that the number of episodes should determine how to list them. In the case of two episode lists that I did—Gunsmoke (20 seasons/635 episodes) and M*A*S*H (11 seasons/251 episodes)‐ the number of their episodes makes the lists exceptionally long, so I think listing just the titles is sufficient. For a series that had a briefer run a plot synopsis could be included.
    In the case of ‘’Upstairs, Downstairs’’ we could probably go either way, since there is really no rule or guide to follow. Right now I’d like to keep the list as it is (i.e. with just the titles) and perhaps later on make pages for each of the five seasons (or five series, as the British apparently say).

Apologies for not being able to come up with any extra comments, but good luck with nominating for featured list. Bob talk 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree having summaries for each episode would make the article enormously long, so it's probably a sensible compromise. All the other tweaks look good to me. Bob talk 07:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks good. I really like the series, and I'm glad you've done the list. Here are a few suggestions:

Lead

• Should Upstairs, Downstairs be bolded as well as italicized?
  • No, I think the basic guide line here is to use bold the main article and no bold in a “satellite” article, such as this one.
• "Rachel Gurney and Nicola Pagett both left the series after the second series." - Maybe "show" to replace the first instance of "series" in this sentence to avoid repetition.
  • I originally had “second season” but it was changed by someone else. I now have “left the show after …”
• I'm not sure you need to spell out ITV (or briefly explain what it is) or PBS, but I'd think about doing that if it doesn't mess up the prose flow. I feel more strongly about BAFTA, which I think should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use.
  • They are no longer spelled out as someone else changed them. As for what the abbreviations for ITV, PBS, and BAFTA mean … well, readers can always follow the link.

Table of contents

• I try to avoid using the same words over and over in my heads and subheads. The word "series" leaps out in this table of contents. I'm not sure what the fix would be, but perhaps "Overview" instead of "Series overview" and then perhaps "Episodes by series", then "One (1971–72)" and so on. Just a suggestion.
  • “Series overview” is now changed to just “Overview” . “Series One”, Series Two”, etc. seems appropriate.

Overlinking

• I see a bit of overlinking. For example, I don't think you need to link "Emmy for the Outstanding Continuing Performance by a Supporting Actress" more than once or Jean Marsh in the lead and again three or so times in the main text.
  • I’ve taken out all but the first links for each person or award.

Series One

• "For this series the series won the BAFTA for Best Drama Series." - The word "series" is repeated three times in this short sentence. Better would be "This set of episodes won the BAFTA for the Best Drama Series."
  • Changed to: “For this series the show won the BAFTA for Best Drama.”

• "due to industrial action at the ITV companies" - "Industrial action" might not be clear to all readers. I assume this means a workers' strike. If so, would it be good to add what kind of strike and why it would shut down colour filming but not black-and-white?
  • Changed to: “The first six episodes were made in black and white due to a strike at the the ITV companies.”

• "was subsequently junked" - "Junked" is slang and might not make sense to all readers. Perhaps "discarded"?
  • Changed to: “was subsequently destroyed.”

External links

• A book is not an external link. A possible solution would be to eliminate the subheads in this section, to create a "Further reading" section, and to move the book to "Further reading".
  • Book at web site are now listed as references

• The book data should include the place of publication. WorldCat probably has it.
  • Added.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks — Jimknut (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just responding to your second request. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. I don't remember seeing anything especially controversial in this list. I'd be happy to respond to specific questions, though. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)