Talk:24 Hours in the Past

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wrong Tone ?[edit]

The text in the "Reception" section seems a little un-encyclopaedic if you know what I mean. I'm sure there's a proper term used on wikipedia for it but I'm not familiar with the terms. If there is some source that says the casting worked well then that could be quoted, but the page can't just have an opinion of its own and state that the casting worked. 94.7.101.255 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the reviews. The Grauniad is a bit of an outlier and they don't seem to have liked anything about it, but the rest of them seem agreed that the cast worked well as the "group of travellers dropped into an alien environment" idea. The question left outstanding is whether Ann Widdecombe's part was scripted or not. After all, it was always planned that they'd finish in the workhouse, so was the lockout and penury in the previous episode scripted? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor. It should be worded to specify that these are the reviewers' opinions and not Wikipedia's, for example, "According to (X reviewer) casting of the participants worked well…" rather than just "casting of the participants worked well…". Whose opinion is it that the Guardian's review was surprising? The only source cited is the actual review. January (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the 'once-liberal Guardian newspaper which might have been expected to capitalise on the plight of the working classes' bit is really grating. I realise there are citations, but it's still not a NPOV, is it? -Taras (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion?[edit]

Anyone fancy expanding the episode sections? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]