Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goodbyeee/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Goodbyeee[edit]

Goodbyeee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ajmint (talk•edits) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up there with "You ain't my mother!" and Del falling through the bar, "Goodbyeee"'s moving final scene is truly one of the greatest moments in British television. Since Remembrance Day is coming up, I thought I would polish up the Blackadder episode's article, which I got to GA status in September, and I now believe it's ready for the FAC process. Having said that, I've never done this before, so it may just be the nonsensical ravings of a madman. A-wibble. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Yes indeed a fine and memorable moment in a fine series. Article is shaping up well i think.

  • "It was originally the last episode of Blackadder to be produced and transmitted..." I know what you mean, but the idea that something was "originally" the "last" of something, and then wasn't, reads very oddly. What about something like "Apart from the one-off short film Blackadder: Back & Forth made a decade later, it was the last episode of Blackadder to be produced and transmitted"?
  • "He misinterprets Darling's pleas to reconsider, and insists that he go." Too many "he's", not enough clarity as to who each one is.
    • Reworded with passive to one "he": "Darling's pleas to reconsider are misinterpreted, and Melchett insists that he go." Hope that's clear enough, didn't want to have two "Darling"s. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the running gag of Baldrick using mud and bodily fluids to make coffee was heavily expanded during rehearsals". I'd like to see what other editors think about this, but I found it odd being told about the expansion of a running gag, when the gag itself has not been previously mentioned. Was it a joke that recurred within the episode? The series? Across series? Without some sort of context, it seems to be information that is at once insignificant and slightly perplexing.
    • Added "throughout the episode" for scope; it does seem a bit trivial, but I seem to recall that in the documentary Blackadder Rides Again that this is taken from, it was a major part of the creative process and really showed how the writing/rehearsing process on the show worked, with everybody chipping in to take the joke a little further. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is nothing known about the ratings for the episode, particularly when given a special re-broadcast? The article says "it was repeated as part of a serious commemoration of Armistice Day". What year(s)? Blackadder has been broadcast in other countries: do we know anything at all about the episode's reception elsewhere? The article's current coverage i think is exclusively British.
    • Unfortunately, BARB's online records only go back to 1998 on a weekly/monthly basis; the only thing they have for 1989 is this. They do have some data about Blackadder Goes Forth, but this is mostly repeats on UKTV. The rebroadcast is mentioned here, but I can't find another reference to it; I suspect it may have been before 1998 anyway. I fear that the majority of coverage is British, and you'd be hard pressed to find a foreign review, especially from the 80s. I think I'm right in saying it would have been on PBS/BBC America in the US, but I can't find anything about this episode on their websites. That being said, I did find these two American articles, the latter from an AV Club contributor; perhaps they could be incorporated in some way? ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do BARB's records go further back in hardcopy available through a library? Does Hanna's book at least tell us what year the Rememberance Day re-broadcast occurred?. I've added the only new info I have been able to locate so far. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe BARB's records are available further back in print. Hanna's book mentions a repeat in 1998 for the armistice's 80th anniversary, have added this. ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Glad you were at least able to find one date: good job.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think either of the sources you found are either reliable enough, or add anything . The thing I was most hoping for was more facts on the broadcasts rather than more reviews. However, i found a really valuable reference to the episode in a major theatrical reference work, and have added it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my thoughts at present. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed inline. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the assumption that the nom is correct about BARB records not being available that fr back. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I have found some publications which may contain this information, but it's not feasible for me to get hold of them. ajmint (talk•edits) 17:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Production" section, on my display the photos of Richard Curtis & Ben Elton appear one above the other, not side by side. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed "(left)" and "(right)". ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From "Themes", paragraph 1: "Blackadder, Baldrick and George discuss the futility of war—George mentions the Christmas truce of 1914, in which the belligerents stopped fighting to play football—and their impending fate." The discussion of the Christmas truce is not directly relevant to the futility of war or their impending fate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved truce bit out into a separate sentence. ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From "Themes", paragraph 2: "The series, and the storyline of "Goodbyeee" especially, often depicts the "lions led by donkeys" perception of the War, an element which has been criticised by historians." It it is the perception that is criticised, or the leadership? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. ("an element of Blackadder Goes Forth") ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well-written article. I am a little uncomfortable with the use of UK Gold TV as a reference that praises the episode, but I suppose that it does so in the context of the series as a whole. It is a shame that there is no free image available with which to illustrate the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing myself from delegate duties on this one, as it is a very special piece of TV and I can't resist reviewing...

  • Structure generally seems logical and straightforward, likewise supporting materials; note that I haven't performed image or source reviews. Suggestion:
    • Re. infobox, the producer and director are mentioned -- and therefore cited -- in the main body, so no need to cite their names here.
  • Referencing-wise, looks like pretty well everything that should be cited is cited, however:
    • Under Themes, I'd expect any assertions to be cited, lest they appear to be original research. The first short para isn't cited; OTOH it's pretty self-evident, but that suggests to me that it probably belongs more in Events than in Themes. OTOOH, I'd have thought/hoped that we might've been able to source some more critical commentary re. themes in the episode, either from the book refs or reviews -- no?
      • I have moved a bit of the first paragraph into Events and replaced it with some commentary by Atkinson/Lloyd on the DVD. I have also added a BBC News article which comments on Melchett/Haig. ajmint (talk•edits) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose reads quite well to me; I performed a very light copyedit only. One thing:
    • Re. the lead, the pedant in me questions "in which the main characters die in machine gun fire", as I don't think that's actually shown, it's just heavily implied...
      • Reworded to "in which it is implied that the main..." ajmint (talk•edits) 17:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, if you or other reviewers think I'm being entirely too careful here, I withdraw the suggestion. In fact, given that you have a quote from Curtis at the end of Themes in which he's pretty explicit about the characters being killed, I'd have no particular objection to you going back to the earlier wording if you chose to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage-wise, I am left wanting a bit more, although whether that's actionable or not depends on whether there's anything more available in reliable sources. Just as examples:
    • Did Stephen Fry or Tony Robinson have anything to say about the episode, since we have some commentary from Atkinson and McInnerny?
      • Unfortunately, I don't think they say anything about it in the documentaries/DVD commentary I used for the others, nor could I find them quoted anywhere else. ajmint (talk•edits) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything about Geoffrey Palmer's casting, or his thoughts on it?
      • I have added a bit to Production about Lloyd's thoughts on how he was underused, but I couldn't find any commentary by Palmer himself. ajmint (talk•edits) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, as this is your first FAC I expect the closing delegate will want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and I may do that myself in due course.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I'm hoping Brianbouton or Nikkimaria will perform one of their customary source reviews for reliability and formatting; I'll see about a source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing when I get the time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, this has passed all the appropriate checks (incl. spotcheck, below) and is in good shape so happy to support -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (fair-use, CC). Sources and authors provided.

  • Infobox image - OK. Fair-use for identification and characters.
  • Ending scene - OK. Fair-use, extensive discussion of a memorable scene and its reception. GermanJoe (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Although usually plot is not required to be sourced, I think direct quotes are an exception?
  • Be consistent in when you wikilink BBC - either first time only or every time would work, but no in FN6 then yes in FN7 doesn't make sense
  • FN8: if we really need to include both BBC and BBC One, these should be in reverse order; same with FN9
  • FN11: need more info, such as date
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support Leaning to support: An admirable account of an iconic TV experience. I well remember its impact when it was first shown, and I think this is properly reflected in this article. A few relatively minor points:

  • There is some duplication of citations. For example, the comparison of Melchett with an "amalgam of Haig and French" is made in the infobox and again in the text, cited in both. The latter citation should be enough. The episode's status as one of television's greatest moments does not need to be cited in the lead, as it is thoroughly cited in the main text.
  • Tim McInnerny's status as a cast member is clear from the background section, so he does not need to be described later as "cast member Tim McInnerny"
  • On this question of descriptions, my esteemed colleague and sometime conominator Tim riley has convinced me that in British English, unless the description is a rank or title (e.g. "General Melchett"), it needs the definite article. Thus, "the historian A.J.P. Taylor", etc. The missing "the" is a prerogative of tabloid journalism, not the best of prose models.
    • Added, except in "Regarding guest star Geoffrey Palmer, the producer John Lloyd" – are two "the"s there not too long-winded? ajmint (talk•edits) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Episode chronology information in the infobobox says that Blackadder Back & Forth is the next episode in the series, which is incorrect. Its nature as a retrospective is fully explained in the text; it is most definitely not the next episode. As a general point, infoboxes should be restricted to key information, and I don't think that knowing what episode preceded Goodbyeee" qualifies as key. I recommend that you drop these details from the infobox.

I look forward to moving to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting now. Well done. I am glad that "Plan F" didn't remain in the episode title, and am wondering whther it really ought to be in the very first line of the article, as it is hardly a significant point. But I will leave that with you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep it there as quite a few major sources (most notably the BBC itself) list it with that title, and I can't really think of another place for it in the article, but thanks for your support! ajmint (talk•edits) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Production
    • The first sentence is 48 words long, and could do with splitting in two, or even three.
    • "was heavily expanded" – a strange adverb; a more neutral one such as "greatly" would be less distracting.
  • Reception
    • The Sunday Times has its definite article with initial capital and italicised but the Radio Times hasn't.
    • Did The Radio Times really use the American spelling "favorite"?
      • I did not add and cannot access the cited source, but I have asked the person who did. ajmint (talk•edits) 21:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for checking in with me. This is extraordinary: i went back and checked the article, and it uses American English spelling throughout, despite Australian English and UK English not using such spellings (favorite, humor). I have no idea why - i can only guess that The Age bought a syndicated column from the States, and a subeditor overlooked the US spellings in the piece. I know it's wierd, but it is in fact what the source says. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and well-balanced article. I look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ajmint (talk•edits) 21:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck -- checked the following; no issues re. accuracy or close paraphrasing:

  • FN15a/b: Okay.
  • FN17: Okay.
  • FN21: Okay.
  • FN28: Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Goodbyeee/archive1&oldid=1075160980"