Wikipedia:Peer review/Yes Minister/archive1

Yes Minister[edit]

This article is, hopefully, close to GA status. We'd appreciate any advice and comments that could improve the article, especially those likely to be commented upon in a GA nom. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main objections likely to come up at GA review involve some of the stubby and list-heavy sections. There are way too many of these. It'd be wise if you either removed them or converted them into summary style. Creating some daughter articles wouldn't be a bad idea either.UberCryxic 04:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope we have rectified the issues you mention. The only remaining list is in the Merchandise section: we feel that this is the most effective way of communicating this. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement, but I would also expand the Radio and Episodes sections, which are far too short right now (the latter is basically a sentence).UberCryxic 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I liked it. A few of the references could be sharpened up. For example, the current [11] (beginning "Nigel Hawthorne and Jonathan Lynn ...") and a couple of other refs amount to no more than "I saw it on the TV"; how is anyone to verify that (or an editor's alterations)? The third para of section "Background" is effectively unreferenced, despite referring to several living people. Mr Stephen 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I disagree with your dismissive "no more than "I saw it on the TV"" -- the interviews are properly referenced, and if anyone was in desperate need of verifying this it wouldn't take too much digging on relevant forums to see if someone had a copy. Or if they were really bothered, they could contact the BBC, or the producer or director. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be dismissive, but I do see that's how it reads. I assure you that I was trying to be constructive and to suggest improvements. If viewings of TV programmes count as reliable sources, then fair enough. Mr Stephen 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK -- thanks for your comments, anyway. They have made me locate the exact date of original transmission anyway. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Episode section has now been greatly extended. I've now inserted the exact dates for teh readio series, but I'm really at a loss of how to expand that more...? UberCryxic: did you have any ideas about what was missing from that section? The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, we seem to have exhausted you lot ;) Does the lack of any further comments mean that it's now time for a GA nom? The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready for a GA nominiation personally. The One00 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]